Pasatiempo & NGLA...a blemished routing?

« **on:** August 05, 2003, 09:42:52 PM »

I'm not exactly sure where I first heard it written (I believe it was Donald Ross or George Thomas), but it has stuck with me for as long as I have been interested in golf architecture. Ideally, par-3 holes should be oriented so as to take full advantage of the variety offered by the wind, and should thus face different directions. Forrest Richardson states in his book "Routing the Golf Course" that; "Vary the direction of par 3s. Ideally, each par 3 faces a new wind, a new view, and a new orientation".
After playing Pasatiempo this year, it struck me that 4 of the 5 one-shotters face the same direction. Granted, each of these 4 holes play to varying lengths (#3 217-203-175; #5 191-177-156; #8 177-163-150; #15 145-125-96) calling for the mastery of many different clubs and shot types. However, this does not strike me as sufficient reason for it's acceptance. The tees on par 3's are where an architect has a greater amount of control over the shot demanded of the player. It seems fairly obvious that at one-shot holes, the architect would relish the opportunity to test the player's ability to hit balls accurately into and down wind, as well as gauging the strength and direction of those devilish cross-winds!! It is evident that Pasatiempo manouevers itself through a fairly restrictive property, but could more have been done to avoid such an occurance? Is this a negative aspect of the golf course?
This aspect of Pasatiempo's routing intrigued me, so I looked for more examples and quickly noted that the National Golf Links of America presents a similiar situation. Here all three one-shotters face north-east. Once again, the yardages demand different club selection (#4 185-172-143; #6 135-125-100; #13 170-162-125 (taken from "Scotland's Gift by C.B. Macdonald; thus yardages may be a little dated)), and most defenitely the distinct architecture of each hole favours and tests different shot selections. Once again, does the orientation of these holes take away from the individual brilliance of the architecture? With the amount of freedom C.B. Macdonald had over the design, it is confusing why such an oddity occured. C.B. Macdonald was definitely one who embraced the challenges of the wind, and the overall routing of NGLA is a testament to that, it just simply isn't evident on the par 3 holes. Is this a deficiency?
Irrespective of the wind factor, the par 3's at Pasatiempo and NGLA are excellent holes, that are individual in nature and effectively blend aesthetic appeal and golfing character. But how can you judge golf holes without considering the wind......

Tyler Kearns

« **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:06:52 PM »

Perhaps the routing on both courses + the natural contours of the land are what drive where most good holes end up?

National has only one par 3 on the back 9. And Merion has no par 5's after the 4th hole. And both Pasatiempo and Garden City have par 3's for finishing holes.

Your point is well taken but how many variables can any architect control unless they're creating a Shadow Creek?

« **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:15:10 PM »

Tkearns,

Interesting theory.

Missing from the schematic in "Scotland's Gift" is an important element.........the wind.

It has been my limited experience that the wind usually changes direction during the course of my round, as the sun warms up the land faster than the surrounding bodies of water.

But without the wind, you've got a point.
And... without the wind, some say there is no golf.

« **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:19:18 PM »

Totally agreed! I need my wind. It reminds how human I really am.

« **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:20:43 PM »

I forgot to add, Pasatiempo and NGLA blemished? Nope, ain't buying into it!

« **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:24:57 PM »

Tommy,
I'm not in anyway trying to take away from the brilliant architecture each course possesses. Pasatiempo was a fantastic architectural experience, wind or no wind, course as is!! Regarding Pasatiempo, it may have had the potential to be just a little greater (and I'm not talking about cutting down any trees; that's been discussed enough around here

).

Tyler Kearns

« **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2003, 12:34:26 AM »

Take what the land gives you. Anybody ever play a better par 3 finishing hole than the 18th at Pasatiempo?

« **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2003, 12:59:15 AM »

The short answer is no. At Pasatiempo the wind is generally not much of a factor and since the holes are so different their orientation makes no difference in my opinion.

NGLA again has distinctly different par 3's, so I don't see where the orientation makes much difference. However, I've only played there once (and considered myself very lucky) and I'm sure wind is much more of a factor out on LI.

When I think of a course that could have been improved (slightly, very slightly) by considering orientation of holes to the wind, Pacific Dunes comes to mind. However, Pac Dunes is so good that the only reason it occurred to me is because of the fun of playing the crosswind shots at Bandon Dunes.

« **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2003, 01:03:56 AM »

What an astounding observation. How could that have never occurred to me? You are right in that the par-3's at NGLA all go the same direction. Naturally, I had noticed that NGLA is roughly an *out and back* routing of course, but all three of the holes are so incredibly different that it never becomes obvious.

By contrast, every par-3 at Shinnecock goes a completely different direction. . . .

It brings to mind how few people notice that there are only two par 4's on the back side of Pacific Dunes. Maybe architectural brilliance will outshine any peculiarity of the routing.

I know the NGLA Redan was just sort of sitting there waiting for Macdonald to formalize it into a green, but I am not so sure about the Short or Eden.

Pasatiempo - given the constraints of the property - seems to work as well as it can. I have no problem with finishing with a par-3 anymore than back-to-back holes like #10-11 at Pac Dunes.

If you think about it a second, #15 and #16 at Cypress Point run in the same direction also. I'm sure Mackenzie might argue with you that there is anything flawed about either of those two holes.

But. . . . . #13 and #15 at Olympic Lake run in the same direction. Prior to Tom Weiskopf's redesign of #15, the hole had an entirely different length and type of shot required. It was a precision short iron to a slender green with deep bunkers on all sides.

Now, in the brainless quest to lengthen the 15th and widen the green and teeing grounds, both holes play very similar from the back tee. So, in this case, I take issue with what was done and agree that it is a flaw in the golf course.

I am incllined to agree that in a perfect world, golf holes should ideally run in all different directions (Muirfield comes to mind), but if push comes to shove, I would rather Macdonald have built the Redan and Eden where he did, even if they ran along the same wind direction. The Redan is the best par-3 in the nation . . . but I'm a bit biased.

« **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2003, 03:26:24 AM »

Tyler,
I know exactly what you are saying and this has nothing to do with the way the course is today or 75 years ago. Pasatiempo is a for me is a great routing because it utilizes a site that is a huge rolling hillside and it affects shots in the subtlety of the slopes. Its not a severe as the reverse camber of Olympic, but until you realize where you are and what type of tilt, shots are going to spray in all different directions. As for what Captain Thomas said, we have to remember that when it comes to routing that a lot of times the ground features out-weighed the obvious wind features. They took a lot of their knowledge from the Great Links, but if it served them better to break their rules here or there--they did it. Even Stanley Thompson distained long walks between holes. That didn't stop him from creating Cape Breton Highlands! Thomas's best design is Riviera, yet he broke one of his own rules--starting off into early morning sun rise.

If you want to cal these exceptions blemishes, well lets put the perfect mmodern day routing from any name arrchitect and see how they match. I'll take the blemished one!

« **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2003, 06:58:42 AM »

I agree with Tommy and the others, there are quite a few 'rules' that the better architects won't or wouldn't let stand in the way of good golf. I would think the number one priority would be bringing interesting natural features into play, in other words creating the most interesting individual golf holes possible as part of total scheme. The differing wind direction on par-3's would be a nice accomplishment, but down aways on the priority list IMO. It is interesting to note that Macdonald and MacKenzie given a relatively blank canvas at Lido and Bayside broke the wind rule again....it doesn't appear it was something they were focused upon.

« **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2003, 08:55:27 AM »

Tommy & Tom,

I would agree that the land features of a site should best determine where the golf holes are laid; it just makes sense!! That's what gives most great courses their distinct style and character. I just feel that in the two scenarios presented, it's a little much. Taking Shivas' example of Sand Hills having 3 of 4 one-shotters go north, there Ben Crenshaw & Bill Coore really used the land well, given how few cubic yards of dirt were moved. Unless I'm mistaken, C.B. Macdonald brought in lots of material to shape many holes at NGLA when nature proved insufficient in providing ideal settings for golf holes. That's were my confusion lies, if that was the case, why not orient the holes differently.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, they are 3 GREAT golf courses and that is all that really matters. I'm not advocating change in any way, it's just a curious observation. I think it would be foolish to believe a certain set of rules govern golf architecture, that would yield predictable, potentially stale and expensive golf courses. Rules may guide, but should not govern!

Tyler Kearns

« **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2003, 10:04:15 AM »

I believe Ed Getka made a very cogent observation re Pasa - yes, this might be a weakness in the routing, but in that example it's really not because wind is very rarely an issue there. So it doesn't matter that 4 out of the five par threes go the same direction... and the fact they are such varied distances makes them unique so it all works out just fine.

But Sand Hills and NGLA... now there are some very fair examples... Wind is a big issue at each of those....

Interesting that the holes work this way. Again, I'm gonna side with those who say the good outweighs the bad, and I'm not gonna call this a "weakness" per se. But this is one hell of an intriguing issue - well done, Tyler.

TH

« **Reply #13 on:** August 06, 2003, 12:02:11 PM »

Tyler, At the time, Riviera #18 natural features were not just the climbing hill off of the tee and the famed amphitheater setting around the green, but also a ravine of some depth that cruised down into I believe it was is now the ninth. Thomas and Bell had at their disposal for the first time a rudimentary bulldozer of sorts that allowed them to fill in that entire area! It was quite an accomplishment at that time, and Bell made sure that proper drainage occured by creating his famed channels that cut across some of the holes.

Was this a blemish given that they all opposed the great movement of earth to create? I don't think so. They did what they needed to do--minimally to the point where if they needed to do more, it too was done to create what they thought was the best golf. Needless to say that Riviera #18 is one of the finer finsihing holes in the Game

To simply put it, they did what they needed to do.

« **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2003, 12:43:25 PM »

GyroGib,

Yes, 15 and 16 at Cypress both go in the same general direction. So do the par 3's on the front (albeit opposite direction of those on the back).

Speaking of 'blemished routings', how about the dogleg disparity at Pine Valley? Only 2 holes go right-to-left of any magnitude (not counting #8 and #9, which can go either way depending on which green is in use), and both are late in the round, #12 and #13. But 7 holes go left-to-right, #1, 4, 6, 11, and slight turns on #15, 16, and 17.

« **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2003, 03:21:44 PM »

Pete.L.

What about the 18th at Kilarney?

« **Reply #16 on:** August 06, 2003, 03:27:25 PM »

Gyrogib and Scott,

Both the 15th and 16th at Cypress go in the same direction?

The former goes due south and the latter you aim at Hawaii- on the other hand, I am not looking at this from one of Scott's aerials. Convince me.

« **Reply #17 on:** August 06, 2003, 03:39:46 PM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on August 06, 2003, 03:27:25 PM

Gyrogib and Scott,

Both the 15th and 16th at Cypress go in the same direction?

The former goes due south and the latter you aim at Hawaii- on the other hand, I am not looking at this from one of Scott's aerials. Convince me.

Bob would like to introduce this photo into evidence ...

http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=1122&mode=sequential&flags=0

« **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2003, 03:47:09 PM »

Bob,

In my defence [sic], I said the same general direction.

Here's the aerial:

As you can see Mr. H is right, 15 goes due south, and 16 goes WSW. From the original tees on 15, it's more SSW.

#3 and 7 are VERY similar in direction, though.

« **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2003, 04:03:36 PM »

Schwing!

For a closer look, you can see the orginal tee on 15, in the
middle of the ring of walking paths. Is it still used? By the women, perhaps?

News:

Tyler Kearns

ChipOat

Patrick_Mucci

Tommy_Naccarato

Tommy_Naccarato

Tyler Kearns

Pete Lavallee

ed_getka

Gyrogolf

Tommy_Naccarato

T_MacWood

Tyler Kearns

THuckaby2

Tommy_Naccarato

Scott_Burroughs

Bob_Huntley

Bob_Huntley

Mike Benham

Scott_Burroughs

Scott_Burroughs