The first at Pasa is the worst hole on a great course I have ever played.  Of course the driving range, par 4 status and trees may not have been AMac's fault...

The first at Pasa is the worst hole on a great course I have ever played.  Of course the driving range, par 4 status and trees may not have been AMac's fault...

John -

In it's present state - i agree with you, but what if it had not trees or just a couple of trees lining the fairway and no driving range? Do you still think it would be a bad hole?

Whether its a par 4 or 5 shouldn't affect how one would play the hole. Like many MacKenzie par 5's - it lack of distance makes it play as a par 4.5 today, but that surely doesnt mean the holes are bad for that reason.

JK - methinks you need to come back and play Pasa again.  Of course it's never going to be like MacKenzie had it - that range isn't going away nor are all the trees - but a LOT of the trees on the right have been cleared away and/or thinned, and it's not nearly as claustrophobic as when you played it.  Every year it gets a little more open...

I wouldn't put it on a list of MacKenzie's least impressive holes... hell the entire course at Green Hills is worse than #1 Pasa.

TH

No - today's Sharp Park has as much MacKenzie in it as does my back yard.

No - today's Sharp Park has as much MacKenzie in it as does my back yard.

What is par for your back yard TH?

I like #1 at Pasatiempo. The view is one of my favorite in golf. I love the putting green right there and the gate and all. I thought the trees make this hole. I liked the green and the second-shot is absolutely exhilirating and the back, back right pin location is a terrific challenge. I liked it as a par 5 and I think I would like it as a 4. I like this hole.

How recently have you played it?

A tree that used to be front left of the green has been removed.  Much thinning has occurred to the right.  The back tee on top of the cart barn is seemingly forever closed... so max yardage is 470 or so.  It's a legit par four these days... and a very strong golf hole still.  It's funny though how so many people get caught up in the par change... I still think of it as a par five, even though with the tree removal and thinning it is much easier these days than before.  I just don't expect to make many fours on that hole, so if and when I do, it's a mental birdie even still.  I also tend to never intentionally hit to that back right pin... that has sucker written all over it and is the graveyard of triples.  

Like I say, given the range on the left, I sure wouldn't put it on the "greatest" list.  But I don't think it belongs on "least impressive" either - there is a lot going on on this golf hole.

TH

ps - my backyard is a strong par 2.  Consider Sharp Park in this light.  

I never thought #12 at Pasa was any great shakes...it's pretty damn bland, acutally.

OK, I too won't put it on the greatest list, but "bland"?

Only if one plays 100% of his golf at places like Cypress Point.

You have a downhill tee shot that requires a choice - layup short or try to bash it down close to the ravine.  Correct play most of the time is to stay short, but then you better go far enough right lest you get blocked by the trees on the left - which have a hazard underneath them, btw, which snares the overcooked draw quite often.   Big hitter like you could also conceivably drive the green with a huge hard draw... oh it's a silly play, but the possibility is there.  But sure, most of the time, bunt out a 3iron (3wood for us mortals) and if you do it correctly, you have around 100-130 in.

Which is over a barranca - no longer hazard but not a nice place to leave one - high rough - to a green with more subtle breaks than all of Medinah combined.

Not that I know Medinah - that was just a convenient example.  

Sure it CAN be played 3iron/PW for a guy like you.  But there's still quite a bit going on on the tee, the approach shot is never easy - miss the green and there's no easy up and down - and the green is one of the few subtle ones on a course filled with monsters.

Bland?

No freakin' way.

TH

ps - JK, I hate you.  You're gonna come back some day and take 12 shots over those two holes like all of the rest of us have at some time... you are not that good as you were that glorious day.  

Glenn - #1 is VERY VERY different today from 1997.

Most people like today's version a lot better.

But then again, you seem to love #18 green at fast speeds, so I am getting a handle on your masochistic tastes.

 

Glenn - heck yeah - one has to take a serious risk to get one's deuce.

And yes, the more discussion about Pasa the better.  It is FAR FAR FAR from being a sacred cow... I was mystified by that when that came up before.

TH

As is JakaB wish, if you take away the trees that have grown in the barranca between 11 and 12, you will have a different take on these holes.

#12 without the trees would be drastically different visually which might encourage  more golfers to bomb away, and the longer hitters might come close to driving that green.

The first 4 holes on the backside of Pasa are fine the way they are, 2 ballbusters in 10 and 11 where you will be more than satisfied playing those holes in 1 over, and then 2 birdie chances at 12 and 13.  

TH,

Like I said, it has been 9 years, but I believe we had a following wind and I don't remember looking greenward at 12 with my tee-shot at all. That didn't look like an option and I was not called short a lot in 97.

Shivas,

Seriously, that is hard to imagine. I believe I hit a 4-iron on number #7. Is Wilmette a good golf course?

TH,

Does that Haggin Oaks in Sacramento have any candidates for this discussion? I assume you have played it.