I heard from a member there that they are playing a temp. green on #11.  He doesn't know when the "reconstruction" is to begin.

TRUE?

Another speed-related fatality?

I hope not.  If that's the case then each of 5, 8, 9, 16, 18 are gonna be fatalities also.

Here's hoping it's a turf issue or something like that.

th

So- here is the reply from the Pasatiempo member

"Yes, Tom Doak is redoing the 11th green. He has been responsible for all of the restoration done at Pasatiempo over the last few years. They are going to redo the upper part of the green to allow for more pin positions, and actually playable fair positions. They are also going to restore two bunkers to the front right of the green to catch any shots that just clear the barranca."

2 bunkers, right front of the green, WoW! I can't wait to see that. But now flattening the back of the green? That was the scene of one of my greatest shots...bladed (sounds better than skulled) chip from front and center, hit the backstop and rolled (slowly) halfway back down the green to within 2 feet. Miss chip, make putt, card 4....on to the next tee. Serendipity abounds in the "grand old game" doesn't it?

If true, that is a damn shame. Why don't they adjust their mowers and save money and MacKenzie's original work at the same time?

Like all the greens at Pasatiempo, #11 is only unputtable if you are careless enough to get yourself above the hole!  

I think if there is one person that can be trusted with the expansion or renovation of the greens at Pasatiempo it is Tom Doak-everything that he has done over the course of the past 5 years or so has been really, really good IMHO.  And he did an equally outstanding job at SFGC.

I always love reading my thoughts third-hand.

Geoffrey:  If you don't think my hands are good enough for Pasatiempo, whose are?  Or should they just leave the place alone and keep playing it at those ridiculous speeds?

The eleventh green at Pasatiempo isn't entirely original anymore; the front of it was raised [along with several others] years ago to stop putts from going off the front.  We are going to start over in an attempt to get a severe green which works at the day-to-day speeds the club insists upon.

For the record, we've been proponents of resotring SFGC from the beginning.  The club hired us to rebuild their greens three years ago, not to change them ... but I insisted that a couple of adjustments be made [at #2 and #8] so they would work with A-4 on them.  The eighth green had already been drastically changed several years before [by Sandy Tatum, I believe] ... I've never even seen the picture of the original you describe, but the club's decision was just to "soften" what they had.  If we had tried to restore the original, without details, then you would accuse me of making it look like Roger Rulewich's work.

You really ought to take the comment about Yeamans Hall back.

Here is another reason I am slowly but surely retiring from the consulting and restoration business ... no matter how hard one tries, there are always going to be people who insist it's all wrong.  And now it's not just members, it's you guys!

Geoffrey:

Hey, you are entitled not to like any work you want.  Everyone is, which is why consulting is a losing battle.

I'm glad to hear that one of the things you liked least about Yeamans Hall ... the green on #1 ... is the only one we didn't work on.  They had built a USGA green there about three years before we got involved, and they didn't want to spend more to "undo" it, even though they had come to understand that the contouring was all wrong.  Likewise, we have stood by our guns that they should "restore" the fairway bunkering rather than modifying it left and right, but they have not given us the go-ahead to change much of it.

Honestly, I don't remember the bunkers around #9 green well enough to argue about them; we were trying, but nobody bats 1.000.

And yes, you are right that the greens are only my interpretations, since there were no detailed maps of the original greens, and the original contours were completely buried under a foot of topdressing.  We had to use our judgment to put the greens contours back as we thought they had been, using a map of the course that had "hatch marks" for greens contours, plus our knowledge of Raynor's other work.

I have said before but I will reiterate again:  the only two true restorations I know of are Camargo Club in Cincinnati and The Valley Club of Montecito.  Every other client we've had has wanted to change something, or leave something alone that wasn't original.  And I could point out the same things at every other club I've seen which has claimed to be restoring its course, no matter who the restorer was.

Pasatiempo, unfortunately, CANNOT be completely restored to its original form ... it just wouldn't work for safety reasons, and we've all understood that from the beginning.  I try as best I can to keep from altering MacKenzie's work, but when they won't slow the greens down and the green is worn out from keeping the hole in the same spot every day, what are you going to do?  The eleventh was a great golf hole, which is just silly the way they're playing it now.  And we've thought about what to do for about seven years now before proceeding with anything.

One other thing Tom

you said "I try as best I can to keep from altering MacKenzie's work, but when they won't slow the greens down and the green is worn out from keeping the hole in the same spot every day, what are you going to do?"  

I suppose the same can be said for the Tillinghast greens you altered at SFGC.

Turn the jobs down if that is what the members want to do.

Tom- you are now in the WELL EARNED position of picking and choosing from among the greatest new design projects throughout the globe. Those resulting great works could also put you in a position as a PRESERVATIONIST of the works of Travis, Tillinghast and MacKenzie if you so choose. Why not tell the members of GCGC that you think they should restore the 12th hole and that's a prerequesite to your working with them.  Why change the 8th green at SFGC from a Sandy Tatum green into a Tom Doak green or the 11th at Pasatiempo from an already altered green into something more altered from MacKenzie?

You derived benefit from your consulting jobs that was and is above the $$$ they payed you.  I don't want to tell you not to accept any job or any payments and I will not do so. BUT- it is you who choose to take them and your name is on the record as altering them. You have to take the responsibility for the SFGC's, GCGC's and Yeamans Halls as well as the Camargo's and Valley Club's.

I hope Tom Fazio IV doesn't get his hands on Pac Dunes in 50 years  

The only problem, Geoffrey is that someone is going to do it for the members who think they have to have it done.

Bill

That answer is a bit too close to the old Vichy French government view. Someone has to do the work of the Nazi's so it might as well be us.  

Geoff,

I suppose that I now have nothing to add to this thread although, from the one time I played SFGC after the greens renovation, all of us in our group (Lake Merced members who had played SFGC many times more than I had before the renovation work) were all quite impressed with the greens and the quality of the work.  I'm not nearly as much of a student as many of you on GCA so I'm probably not as in tune with historical stuff and all the subtleties of green contours.

As far as Pasa, though, I've played it many times since Tom started renovating the course and each change I've seen has, in my opinion, enhanced the quality of the golf course.  

By the way, is it really cold or something in New York this week

Geoff,

When the "what does restoration mean" thread came up a few years ago. I discovered from the definition by the hard core on this site, there simply is no such thing as restoration. I have been lucky enough to talk to many of the sites favourite "restorers", and ask a question pertaining to this. Each has indicated that they would make alterations for drainage and other minor unseen details that will help the maintenance of the course.

While the purist wants everything restored or left as is; often a comprimise is nessassary on a few issues to restore work back or to hold onto the most origional work you can. I'm not going to win all the battles at CC of Scranton, but all the green contours are returned (as close as I can figure them out to be). Is that important enough to trade off against the club wanting to keep the bunkers more playable?

I feel for Tom on this one, because being I doubt any architect is beyond this criticism.

We all wish that golf architecture could be done by a "Rourke like" architect (Fountainhead), and all we would get was a purity. But life isn't as simple as a book or a web site wants it to be. I have only worked on three projects that I can think of with no interference, full control is simply never given.