[DMoriarty]

Tom, it seems we have a themeto ourdisagreements.   When I look at Pasa 10, I see a very good two shot hole, therefore I am not so worried about penalizing and/or testing the golfer off the tee, but providing a good, challenging hole from tee to green.  The object is not to miss the trees-- but to par or birdie the hole.  Without the trees the correct shot is still right-to-left.  Righ- to-left shortens the hole; right to left also provides an angle at a green that is not running away down the canyon.   This is still the same without the trees.  

Plus take a way the trees and the golfer loses the targets off the tee.  Thus making it harder to judge the fall-away on the left.  The golfer also loses the backstop which might deflect an errant drive, leaving the golfer with a closer shot and a better angle.  The trees eliminate the possibility of a really errant miss which would leave an impossible angle from a long ways away.  

Glad you enjoyed scotland!

[Mike Benham]

Plus take a way the trees and the golfer loses the targets off the tee.  

Dave - Why are the trees as targets important?  If the trees weren't there, a house on the hill would become the line of play.  To me, it is the trees on the left that dictate where you play ...

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

I see no real theme.... remember I am looking at this as just one golf hole, not some over-riding golf philosophy.  Careful with the overgeneralizations.  

And re this one hole, I'm just going to continue to disagree.  The fact remains that given the reality of where the tee is, this is intended to be a very tough two shot hole.  Take away the trees and the tee shot becomes very much easier.  All tension is gone, it's just bang away.  I've said it all up above.

Sure, the trees do add a bit of a backstop, but from what?  Sans trees, any shot right is just that much better....

And Mike is right - anything can be a target.  I don't see that mattering at all....

Oh yes, the trees on the left matter big time also.  But really only because the trees on the right close you in... again, take those away, and it's just a boring bash off the tee, with no tension, no penalty.  

I just keep getting back to that being a big part of this very difficult golf hole and it being a lesser hole without it.

TH

[Daniel_Wexler]

Tom Huckaby:

You've made several references to this being "intended" as a tough two-shotter, leaving me a bit curious as to whose "intentions" you're referring to.  Obviously not MacKenzie's, for he clearly built it as a par five.  So whose?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing regarding the trees (it's been a good five years since I last saw the place) but if we're not talking about MacKenzie's plans, then whose intentions are we referring to??

DW

[THuckaby2]

DW:

Sorry for the confusion.  The "intention" I refer to is how the hole seems to be intended to play TODAY.  Obviously it is counter to what MacKenzie wanted, but hell, you may think seriously about counting Pasa as NLE and including it in your next book if we are gonna judge what's there today based on MacKenzie's intent!

As I say above, if a genie would allow us to remove the clubhouse and put the tee back where MacKenzie wanted it, then oh yes what an interesting thinking man's par 5 that would be.... But again, as I say above, this genie doesn't exist and isn't likely to soon appear.

So the hole in our reality today is a very strong par 4, and that's the intention of which I speak, just trying to deal with today's realities.  The way the course is today, how it plays, how it falls in the round, it is intended to be a kick your ass par 4.  Not that MacKenzie would like this, but what the hell, the clubhouse is where it is.

And in this reality, the hole works better with the trees!

TH

[DMoriarty]

 

Dave - Why are the trees as targets important?  If the trees weren't there, a house on the hill would become the line of play.  To me, it is the trees on the left that dictate where you play

You may be right.  They may important to some golfers.  But I do think that for many golfers it is easier to pick out a target and execute based on that target if the target is closer to the actual fairway being played, and is part of a feature (in this case a tree line) which is somewhat congruent with the rest of the hole.

And re this one hole, I'm just going to continue to disagree.  The fact remains that given the reality of where the tee is, this is intended to be a very tough two shot hole.  Take away the trees and the tee shot becomes very much easier.  All tension is gone, it's just bang away.  I've said it all up above.

Sure, the trees do add a bit of a backstop, but from what?  Sans trees, any shot right is just that much better....

And Mike is right - anything can be a target.  I don't see that mattering at all....

Oh yes, the trees on the left matter big time also.  But really only because the trees on the right close you in... again, take those away, and it's just a boring bash off the tee, with no tension, no penalty.  

I just keep getting back to that being a big part of this very difficult golf hole and it being a lesser hole without it.

A lesser hole?? Why do long par 4s have to create tee tension and the possibility of immediate penalty to be effective or challenging?

The golfer who bashes away right (assuming no trees) is just putting himself a long ways away from the hole, probably cant get home in two and if he tries it will probably be a blind shot, and with a terrible angle-- the hill running away from him.  He is also bringing the row of bunkers short left (recently redone) more into play, as it appears that any ball hit short (a possiblity on a long shot from the right will bounce left and way from the green and into one of these bunkers, leaving a very difficult shot.  Basically, he has taken birdie and probably par out of play.  And he still risks the real possibility of disaster if he misses the green.  

Dont these possibilities sound more interesting than:  If he doesnt turn the ball right to left and hits a tree, he'll either be behind a tree and have no shot, or he'll get a lucky bounce and have a shot?  

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Maybe this is part of a theme.

Absent the trees, I just see no penalty for a wayward drive.  I feel no tension.  Sure, a wild slice puts me farther from the hole, but I can still reach from there and if anything, the angle is better (having no bunkers to carry) and I have a flatter lie.

With the trees, I have to be on my toes or no way can I reach the green in two PERIOD.  I'm gonna be behind a tree, under a tree, or maybe in my over-tense attempt to hook the ball I leave it in the canyon or pull it ob left.

This to me seems very fundamental... tension v. freedom... penalty v. absence of penalty....

On this golf hole, given it's "intent" (to be brutishly tough), taking the tension away from the tee shot weakens the hole.

I can't put it any plainer.  This is not a thinking man's golf hole, it is not a chess game, nor is it meant to be (as it is today, as per my post to DW above).  It's a tough golf hole where the choices are clear, trees or no trees.  Why wussify it by eliminating all penalty on the tee shot?

But then again, if you believe that tee shots don't matter at all and play no role in the golf hole, then this point is obviously irrelevant.  You ask why should the tee shot need to be difficult - I can only answer back to you "why shouldn't it be?"

Perhaps this is our theme, fundamental difference.  To me tee shots are a HUGE part of the game.  I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be, on all golf holes.

And this is particularly true on long brutish par 4's... if the tee shots need hold no difficulty, what's the point?  Shouldn't we all just pick up and start from the same spot at say, 200 in?  Why bother playing the tee shots at all?

I don't get this, David.

TH

[DMoriarty]

You are correct.  The way the hole is currently, it is "not a thinking man's golf hole."  Speaking of "intent," isn't this notion of "not a thinking man's hole" very unMacKenziean?

Could you explain further how going way right and turning this brute of a 450 yd two shot hole into a 500 yd two shot hole actually makes it easier?  I have seen a few of the longer hitters among us hit pretty long approaches from inside the tree line with long clubs?  How is it that they have easier shots from even further away?  

I do understand that the opening to the green is on the right side and therefore a straight ball which carries to the green does not have clear bunkers.  But isnt this shot straight downhill?  You know the green much better than me I am sure, but doesnt it slant right to left (downhill from the right angle?)  If so how cana golfer hold a long iron on this green from the far, far right?  And wont anthing hit just short kick directly left and down the hill toward the line of bunkers?  Wouldnt the big hump just right of the green wreak havoc with all but perfect approaches?  

"... tension v. freedom... penalty v. absence of penalty...."

This may be the fundamental crux for us.  I just don't see golf architecture this way.  If "freedom" creates a false sense of security and causes people to blast away way right, then "freedom" is just another word for 230 yd blind approach downhill with the ground running toward all sorts of trouble.    

As for "penalty," I think the likely bogey or worse is penalty enough for the wild swinger who misses well right.  

Here is a picture of the approach from Carlyle Rood's website (previously posted/linked here.)  It his hard to imagine that many would prefer to be far away and right than from Carlyle's closer persective.

[DMoriarty]

An aside.  The row of bunkers left never made much sense to me until I saw this picture and realized that many would be coming at the hole down the hill from the right with the hill slanted directly toward these bunkers.  Cool.  


Also, from the hat, it looks like tha might be a woman on the tee.  Boy, it is hard to believe she is having any fun, what without a red tee over the ravine and about 100 yds closer to the hole.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

A picture sure does speak 1000 words.  You tell me how coming in from the way right doesn't help.  Jeez, it's crystal clear... you can run it in with nothing in the way!

As for the rest, you seem to be missing my point.  Maybe my fault, maybe yours.  Let's try this again:

1. I'm not saying it's easier in general going way way right, only that it is a hell of a lot easier than with the trees there!  You have a clear shot as opposed to being blocked by trees.  Thus, the tension and penalty is removed in a big way.  You can swing away with impugnity knowing way right is not that bad.  Obviously left gets you closer to the hole so that's what you try to do... and way left means getting the turbo boost and shortening the hole in a big way.... but the bottom line is absent the trees, there's no penalty one way or the other, and the tension causing one to maybe overcook it left is gone.

2. As for how it is today, damn right it's not a thinking man's golf hole... damn right that's not how MacKenzie wanted it... but until they demolish the clubhouse, it is what it is.  Thus once again, I'll state what ought to be obvious:  we are dealing with reality, not some dream of bringing back what MacKenzie wanted.  It's just not gonna happen - not on this hole.  It could happen on many other places on the course, but it's not gonna happen on 10.  So what MacKenzie wanted here is absolutely irrelevant.

3. Re: "This may be the fundamental crux for us.  I just don't see golf architecture this way.  If "freedom" creates a false sense of security and causes people to blast away way right, then "freedom" is just another word for 230 yd blind approach downhill with the ground running toward all sorts of trouble."

We're not as far apart as you think.  I just feel that removing the tension on the tee shot weakens what might otherwise be a very strong, great par 4.  Take away the tension and it's just another golf hole.  Why not strive for greatness?  But that's just for this hole and others like it.  In general, I am all for recovery shots.

"As for "penalty," I think the likely bogey or worse is penalty enough for the wild swinger who misses well right".

Nope.  Not on this hole.  It's meant to be tough. Sans trees, missing way right means you still have a chance to reach... With trees, missing right means ballgame if you're under or past them, or maybe you get lucky and kick back.. but for the most part the trees make you think.

I'm all for thinking off the tee.  You're not?

TH

ps - I want kudoes for avoiding so far the "I've played it way more than you so I know better" line of thinking that certain people used on me re a certain new SoCal course... Don't make me go there...

pss - left bunkers are very cool, for exactly the reason you state. They're also EXACTLY like they were in early 30's - hell of a job by Renaissance.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Huckaby-Would trees such as are now are present on Pasatiempo #10 be appropriate from a strategic standpoint  at Rustic Canyon on the holes you thought needed a little help?

[THuckaby2]

Hamilton:

Hell no - that course is perfect just as it is.

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

So you are saying that Hanse & Co. got it perfect from the get go while Dr. Mac needed a consult from Mother Nature and Johnny Appleseed.

[DMoriarty]

Tom, you've much more experience at the course than me, so you could be right.  Maybe I am just misremembering the hole.  Perhaps you can help me clear things up a little.  The questions I asked in my 01:19:02pm post were not rhetorical.  Wouldnt the angle from the right be downhill, very long, blind, and with the green running away?  How easy would it be to stop a long iron from that angle?  Won't anything hit just short kick straight left and down into the bunkers?  Wouldnt the hump (visible in the picture just right of the green) wreak havoc with ground balls from this angle?   Thanks in advance for your answers.

Obviously left gets you closer to the hole so that's what you try to do... and way left means getting the turbo boost and shortening the hole in a big way.... but the bottom line is absent the trees, there's no penalty one way or the other, and the tension causing one to maybe overcook it left is gone.

You say

gives you no penalty whatsoever, but acknowledge that it is definitely less desirable than a properly shaped tee shot.   Can you estimate how much less desirable a left tee shot would be in terms of score?  For example, would the hole play 1/2 shot harder from the far right?  1/4 harder? 1/8 harder?  I know what I am asking is very difficult to determine, but I am trying to understand just how inviting or uninviting you think the right side is. (I edited later to change "left" to "right" in first sentence. )
 

2. As for how it is today, damn right it's not a thinking man's golf hole... damn right that's not how MacKenzie wanted it... but until they demolish the clubhouse, it is what it is.  Thus once again, I'll state what ought to be obvious:  we are dealing with reality, not some dream of bringing back what MacKenzie wanted.  It's just not gonna happen - not on this hole.  It could happen on many other places on the course, but it's not gonna happen on 10.  So what MacKenzie wanted here is absolutely irrelevant.

Absolutely irrelevant?  Tom I am of course not talking about MacKenzie's specific intentions and/or blueprint for this particular hole, but his general theme and approach to golf architecture.  Certainly it is not unrealistic or a dream to try to stick to MacKenzie's general themes whereever possible, is it?   If MacKenzie were to view the long par 4 10th today, where do you think he would come down in this discussion?  

We're not as far apart as you think.  I just feel that removing the tension on the tee shot weakens what might otherwise be a very strong, great par 4.  Take away the tension and it's just another golf hole.  Why not strive for greatness?  But that's just for this hole and others like it.  In general, I am all for recovery shots.

I think we are very far a part.  You are focusing on the tension created by one shot.  I am focusing on the interest created by the entire hole.  And I think the hole is potentially much greater without the trees.  

Nope.  Not on this hole.  It's meant to be tough. Sans trees, missing way right means you still have a chance to reach... With trees, missing right means ballgame if you're under or past them, or maybe you get lucky and kick back.. but for the most part the trees make you think.

I'm all for thinking off the tee.  You're not?

I've seen more than a few drives hit the trees and still have a chance at the green.  I am sure you have to.  

Plus Tom, I think you are playing a little fast and loose with the term "thinking" here, arent you?  Your "thinking" really means worry or concern, doesnt it?  I think you have agreed that with the trees, there is no option, but only one way to play the shot.  Do or die.  That is not what I have in mind when I think of a shot that requires "thinking" off the tee.  Maybe commitment and execution, but not "thinking."

[DMoriarty]

ps - I want kudoes for avoiding so far the "I've played it way more than you so I know better" line of thinking that certain people used on me re a certain new SoCal course... Don't make me go there...

Tom, forgot this first time through.  Maybe my subconscious has better sense than the rest of me.  

I am not so sure kudoes are in order; your level of experience at Pasa is relevant.  As to Rustic, maybe we should go there.  First, as I have said many times on and off the board, I have enjoyed the Rustic Canyon discussions (with a few exceptions noted in the past), and think it a very good course for bringing out important differences in the way different posters view architecture.  I also think the questions raised regarding Rustic are at the center of larger issues that should be debated all across golf architecture.  

Second, you've gone "not going there" so many times that I consider you an honorary Rustic Canyon regular.    I'd much rather discuss the topic head-on than repeatedly read how you are "not going there" or "won't cross that bridge" or are 'staying away from that one after the way you were treated before.'  We disagree, Tom, but I thought that was the fuel that made this engine run.  It is far from personal.  

Will you ever be able to let bygones be?

[THuckaby2]

Wow... I go away for an evening and come back to seemingly lots of hard feelings.  I'll deal with the easy one first:

Redanman:  I was just giving you crap!  I kinda thought that was our standard m.o.  I sure as hell didn't mean to "debase your opinion."  Simmer down my friend, this is all just bs between people who have been bs'ing each other for years.  I kinda thought you'd get that, but I know, the written word doesn't convey intent very well.  Believe me, if I said this to you in person, you would have gotten it.  As for the specifics, point well taken re the mud - yep, take the trees away and that issue might improve - but I still say on #10 the hole plays better with the trees, for all the reasons I've stated, so on this hole and this hole only I could live with the turf issues.  

I am still smiling re all of this!  

I'll do a separate post to Dave.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

I just did an post of epic length answering each and every one of your questions, and the system told me it's too long and needs to be shortened, but didn't keep the other text!

I now just don't have the heart to do it again.  Please trust me that I tried in good faith to answer all of it.  Re teh stuff re Rustic, basically the bottom line is that I meant all of everything here in good humor, hoping we WERE over past disagreements.  I know I am.  Again, like redanman, I was just giving crap to a friend.  I guess I'll be more careful in the future.

As for the specifics of your questions, as I say I just don't have the heart to type it all again.  Bottom line on all of that is you have to keep in mind the choices off the tee:  right is safe, but gives longer (but better!) angle in, left is risky, but can get one the turbo-boost to get a very short iron in, to where the angle doesn't matter.  Everything turns on this, and to me, taking away the tension on the tee by removing the trees lessens the hole, as the risks are less.  That's really it, really the bottom line, and all the rest is trivial.

We'll discuss in person some day.

Cheers!

TH

[THuckaby2]

redanman:  gotcha.  My bad.  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Bottom line on all of that is you have to keep in mind the choices off the tee:  right is safe, but gives longer (but better!) angle in, left is risky, but can get one the turbo-boost to get a very short iron in, to where the angle doesn't matter.  Everything turns on this, and to me, taking away the tension on the tee by removing the trees lessens the hole, as the risks are less.  That's really it, really the bottom line, and all the rest is trivial.

Well, I guess for now I have no choice but to take your word that the angle from the far right is "better."  But, I've got to tell you that I have a hard time understanding how a very long blind shot to a green running away with a slope kicking short shots into tough bunkers could be considered "better." Especially when compared to a short shot into a green with perfect contours for hitting the ball to the opening right and then watching it trickle toward the middle of the green.  Maybe on your next trip to Moorpark you can explain it to me?  

As for the Rustic bit, I got that it was in good humor from all the smileys.  I have no "hard feelings" so there is no reason to "be more careful" in the future.   But I am glad to hear that you are over our past disagreements, for from my perspective they were never personal.  Now there is no reason for us to keep beating around the bush or casting vague aspersions.  We can address the Rustic issues head on and see where it takes us!

[Dan Grossman]

You guys must hit the ball farther than I do.  The only person I have ever seen with a short iron into #10 (excepting unusual conditions like a hurricane behind you or concrete fairways) was Jeff Fortson.  And I think he hit his drive about 350 on that hole.  

When the pin is on the right side of the green, it really doesn't matter where you are.  Left is probably a little better.  When the pin is left (as in that picture), I would much rather be right.  At least I can land my 2-iron or 3-wood short and it will scoot to the center of the green.

Those bunkers are absolutely awful and I don't think I would ever try to aim at the pin in the picture unless I had 8 iron or less into the hole which is unlikely.  So - personally, I'd rather be right.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Thanks for this.  Man you and I really do need to get past any bs, and it's cool to me that we are.  And yes, we are.  Take any crap I say from this point forward as just that:  crap. That's how it was intended earlier, that's how it's intended now  

As for further discussions re Rustic, well... in person you and I will be completely candid, as we always would have been.  Here on GCA, we're in front of a hostile audience (at least I am), so such candidness won't be possible.  Bear with me re that.

Now re #10 Pasa, I believe the angle from the right is better than from the left for just the simple reason that the ball can be bounced in.  Given that it's a long shot, you need that.  The green won't hold from any angle really, but it REALLY won't hold from the left.  You can see that from the picture... and you know this from playing the hole.

Coming from the left, you either take your chances going over the bunkers, or you have to hit a BIG rope hook and take the contours.  Either way, damn tough shot.  Coming from the right, no matter how far right, you can hit the ball any way you want and you at least have a chance of success.

Of course we are talking here about shots of equal distances.  The crux of the whole thing, I think, is that one can get a lot closer to the green going left, thus the temptation to hit the hook required to get the turboboost.  But, you have to really make it work well to get the benefit... you have to hit it all the way to the top of the hill, have it bounce HARD left, and then you can get all the way to the bottom of the hill and have a pretty flat lie and 120 in.  Of course that's gonna be better than 200 at the top of the hill.  But miss this shot only a little and you're faced with leaving it at the top of the hill (200+ in, maybe even behind the tree on the left), or somewhere between 150-200 in from a hanging lie.  That's what I mean by 200 from the right being better than 150 from the left.  Believe me, it is.  From the right the lie is flat, you can bounce it in to any pin, and that's just plain an easier shot.

BTW, the slope doesn't necessarily kick the ball into the bunkers, from any angle.  I believe you are overstating this as a possibility.  Sure it CAN happen, but more likely the slope kicks it on to the green.

Hopefully this explains things better.  Yes?

So you see we have a very interesting golf hole here... the choices are pretty clear, but deciding which one to take never is.  That's the "thinking" I mention re the tee shot.  Add to this the tension addition from the trees being right making NO shot all that "safe", and you have one hell of a great hole, one that holds up it's head with 11 and 16 among the world's great par 4's.  

Take away the trees, decrease the tension, make things easier, and well... it sure as hell is more "playable", but the hole then bows to 11 and 16 and belongs in no conversation of great par 4's.

Of course the best thing here is to have that genie abolish the clubhouse and parking lot and give us what MacK wanted!  But let's assume that's not gonna happen, ok?

TH

ps to DG - believe me, I've never made it to the bottom of the hill either - that's why right is always better for me as well.  But I have seen many achieve it... it can be done by the really big hitters.  For average hitters the temptation remains the same though - the farther left you go, the shorter the 2nd is, and that's always out there as a temptation on this very long golf hole.

[Pete Lavallee]

I'de have to agree with Dave M that the more I look at Carlyle's picture of the 10th green, approaching from the right looks very risky. We might just have to go on a field trip to further study the issue. Instead of having the tree line to worry about on the tee shot I would suggest that Tom worry about how he's going to hold his shot on the green when approaching from the wrong angle. This is what makes Pasa so great; green sites that require the correct attack angle in order to get close to the hole. The Good Dr. gives you just enough rope to hang yourself with all that pre-tree planting width. I also like Mike B's point that the one good spot which provides a level lie is now located in the rough and tree line.  

[THuckaby2]

Pete:

Any shot into that green is difficult, and risky.  And the only shot that "holds that green" (assuming firm conditions, which are generally the case outside of rainy winter) is a wedge.  Please do bear that in mind...

The plain and simple truth is that coming from the right you can run the ball on and avoid the bunkers with ANY sort of shot - straight, fade, hook.  Coming from the left you MUST hit a hook or you have no chance - the contours are not severe enough to help the shot enough on to the green.

Couple that with the fact that from the left - unless you achieve the perfect shot to get all the way down the hill that very few people have in them - the lie is always going to be worse.  The one flat lie is indeed right along the right cut, as Mike says.

A field trip would prove this to you guys, I firmly believe.

So when you all gonna come back up here?  

TH

[Mike_Golden]

The trees are totally unimportant to the way I always play #10-usually it's a drive missed way right and short (or a pull hook just over the baranca), an iron down the fairway (hopefully) and a wedge to the green then hopefully 2 putts and a merciful 5.  Or, way left on the second shot, chip out, on the green in 4, then maybe a 6 (or 7 if I'm on the wrong side of the green).

I'm glad you guys actually see some strategy with and without the trees-all I see is how many ways I can screw it up-it's my worst driving hole in golf...

[Jeff Fortson]

Gentlemen,

Sorry to enter this discussion late.  I have been playing in tournaments and have had no time to log on.

I feel like giving my two cents on this thread.

Tom Huckaby...... while I understand your stance on the strategic value of those trees I have to say that I think they have no bearing on the guy who "BLASTS AWAY".  As Dan Grossman said earlier (who has a fine game himself, I must add), I had a 9 iron left into #10.  My ball flew the trees on the left by A LOT.  The trees on the right seem to have two purposes.... containment and safety.  

#10 at Pasa is all about the approach shot to the green.  Look at Carlyle Rood's Picture.  If that pin is left, where it was when we played there, that approach becomes incredibly difficult.

The only player those trees have any strategical value for are players who can't carry the ball approx. 270yds.  #10 is a "BLAST AWAY" hole for any guy with some good carry distance.  

By the way, if this isn't the proof in the pudding then I know zilch about strategy.  Even with a monster drive and 9 iron in..... I made 5.  My 9 iron came up about 3 feet short of perfect and ended up in the face of that front bunker, plugged (right in front of where that pin placement in Carlyle's picture is).  

I know you play there a lot, Tom, and I respect your opinion and I do see the trees' strategical value for the player who's not a Howitzer.  However, when it comes to someone that can bang it a little those trees are non-existant (barring head winds).  

Just thought I'd drop my thoughts off.

Jeff F.

Plus..... doesn't the hole look more inviting with a variety of options off the tee in Tommy's picture?  I think so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()