[Brian_Gracely]

I'm curious....has there ever been a great hole that has been redesigned to become a "world's best" hole?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brian, I think you mean "World Class" don't you?

The 1st at Merion come to mind

[Brian_Gracely]

I was using Huckaby's terms, so "world's best".

[Doug Siebert]

I've never played Pasa so I can't comment too much on this -- I'm not even sure if I'm looking at the right hole on the aerial.

But the idea of playing the "wrong fairway" is one that always interests me, but due to space/safety concerns it is rarely a real option.  Many courses solve it with the "one way OB", which is one of my least favorite things on a golf course, but is probably the best solution to not having enough land when building the golf course.  It just burns me to see it in places where land isn't as expensive as say Carmel and there is unused land surrounding at least some part of the course.

Sometimes I'll see the option but won't do it because I don't know for sure it is as reasonable as it looks, or can't know where the players on the other fairway are.  I did have an opportunity to try it on one course this year, with a 595 yard dogleg left that was not reachable for me, and where I'd probably hit an iron off the tee anyway due to the very tight landing area.  But the next (18th) hole was to the left, with a very generous fairway.  It required carrying some very large trees that looked pretty far out, but I was playing with a guy who had played there before and he said he'd seen long hitters make it so I gave it a shot.  But as with many such cases, even though I pulled off the drive beautifully I wasn't exactly left with an easy shot from my nearly right angled approach -- 235 yards over more trees, then a lake right up against the green with OB hard against the back side.  But surely a good option should Tiger or Phil ever visit that course

In that case I'm not really sure if the architect intended that as an option or if it was just a side effect of the routing.  If the tees had been built 15 yards further back the trees surrounding the tee would have made that shot completely impossible, and there was room back there for that.  So I kind of think he wanted people to try it, only to laugh at them after they did so when they realized they didn't buy themselves much unless they could really produce on the second shot.

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom,

Do you know if the good folks at Inverness ever have this same conversation about the Hinkle tree?  Just because some guy got creative for a few days, does it justify making major changes to a hole?

Merry Christmas.

[David_Tepper]

I have only played Pasa about 6 times in the 30+ years I have lived in SF and I confess to not knowing the course (in my mind) all that well.

Here is a somewhat radical (and possibly dumb) solution that I am sure will offend someone's GCA sensibility: REVERSE HOLES 11 & 12!

-After coming off the green on #10, make the tee on #11 just in front of where the #12 green now is.
-Play #11 as an uphill par-4, putting the #11 green where the #12 tee now is.    
-Place the #12 tee where the #11 green now is, putting the barranca in play in front of the tee box and all the way down the right side of the fairway.
-#12 becomes a downhill par-4 playing down the current #11 fairway. You could almost still play to the current #12 green or change the current #11 tee into the #12 green.

Just spitballing!!!        

[Matthew Mollica]

Tom and others,

This has been a great thread. I visited Pasa several years ago, and remember it fondly. I was familiar with Jones' tee shot on 11 prior to playing the course, and got to the tee, and thought, "NO WAY".  If he indeed planned it that way, it must have been a teriffic shot. My thoughts on the course reconfiguration are the same as Tony_Chapman's, early on in this thread. That would allow one to realise most of the objectives you raise in the original puzzle Tom. Certainly a hook could be struck from the 11th tee, onto the 12th fairway without endangering players on the 12th under Tony's plan.

This tactic is however seemingly contrary to MacKenzie's thoughts on the hole. Margaret Koch's book "The Pasatiempo Story" (1990) features a quote on page 60:

"Do not hook on the par four eleventh. We have allowed for a straight drive and a crisp iron across the arroyo to the green." - Dr. Alister MacKenzie

I wonder when he allegedly said this. As has been pointed out above, the hole way playing as a par 5 at the time of the course opening for play, and MacKenzie only lived a short time after the opening day...

Matthew

[THuckaby2]

THis is all wonderful stuff... funny how great courses elicit this type of creative thinking!

Dan King's last post is fascinating to me, and sums up the issues on 11 tee perfectly, I think.  Yes, you tell yourself ok, this time I really am gonna bash one far up the hill, I know that's better... but something always gets you to hold back... and then you're left with an approach in the 180 range that plays effectively 220 and you're wondering why the hell you didn't get it up there farther.  God that happens a lot on 11 tee...

In any case Dan's reconfiguring idea is really close to what I came up with also in my wildest thoughts. I've shied away from it because I like 12 green as it is and would hate to eliminate it, and the par 68 total scares me.  But that does sound like one hell of a golf course as Dan reconfigures it, one that I'd sure love to play...

David Tepper's idea is intriguing as hell also - I sure never thought of reversing the two holes.  That works... I'm just wondering if you end up with an improvement over what's there now... Maybe yes...

In any case, it sure does seem worthwhile to me to allow for the option up 12 fairway, somehow, some way, even if the Good Doctor spoke against it.  I'm guessing he did so because he likely DIDN'T intend that as an option, and he was miffed that a great player like Jones discovered it!  In my mind hey, the Doc wasn't infallible... the hole is sitting there waiting to have another option added to an already mind-bending tee shot, which yes, might put it up there in the world's best category.  Would MacKenzie disapprove?

I don't know....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:

Interesting try... but this thread has me now contradicting what I said earlier and now leaning more toward the "cut down the trees in the barrance, but otherwise leave it as it is, hope people are civil, play 12 as a shared fairway" school of thought.  All this talk about moving or losing 12 green has me scared... I really do like that green and dammit, destorying ANY MacKenzie green just seems like a loss to me.

Besides, re #1, even if you put the tee back on top of the cart barn like they once did, it's only gonna be 490 or so, and these days it's hard to call that a par 5, especially give the downhill nature and the loss of the tree left front of the green... THAT is what made it a legit three-shotter more than the distance ever did.  I think the hole plays better as is today anyway....

So this is all intriguing, but in my book fails the "is it really an overall improvement" test.  

Of course, we can leave #1 as is and call it a par 69 total in my book - that wouldn't bother me a lick.  I just do think that pars less than 70 somehow lose luster for a lot of people though... if not, wouldn't Rye be acknowledged as the greatest course on earth by someone other than you?  

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm a little confused by the statement that #2 and #3 were shared fairways.  The 3rd fairway, such as it is on that par 3, is quite a bit higher than the 2nd fairway.  There is a steep slope between the two fairways which is currently heavily wooded.

Panhandle Bill,

Looking at the course is today terms, yes, it wold almost seem impossible, but I think the hole was probably somewhat designed to be played with a element of quirk off of the hillside. Picture no trees whatsoever on any of the holes with-in that vacinity. Pasatiempo was a course that full embraced the idea of minimal boundries--meaning you could play several different lines to the hole, whatever it was going to take to get the ball on to those greens which I suspect even back then were pretty outragious for the day. The bunkers right of #3 were actually in play for #2 and vice-versus.

If you have Paul Daley's book, first Golf Architecture book, take a magnifying glass and look at the the bottom right hand corner. (I have the aerial, but unfortunately can't put any of it on here) You will see what the term shared fairways exactly means. It would also probably put to rest a lot of discussion regarding the 6th & 7th. MacKenzie's house is the only one on the 6th at that time.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shivas,
The 11th was full of different driving options from the tee. There were in fact trees in the arroyo, but they weren't tall.

Its clear from the 1929 aerial photo that you could play over the arroyo and just shy of the line of the 12th for the best line of play to the green. The further left, the harder the shot coming in. If you could drive the ball far and straight from the tee, you had a much shorter shot to the green, but still a tough one because the green was then sort of angled and well protected with knarly looking MacKenzie bunkers coming in from that direction

[Mike Benham]

At one time, weren't the nines reversed?  Or was that only for tournament play, not wanting to finish the round on a par-3?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, According to the Pasatiempo book, the original routing is in place.

Many find it hard to believe that MacKenzie would end his "own" course on a par 3, and it is all in relation to the siginiigance of par and the relation to Pasatiempo being a course the embellishes match play. To think of the 18th as a pushover, is mistaking the challenge of that hole, even today.

Personally, I think it is a tough little hombre that is ready and willing to bite you on the putting surface if you don't put it on the proper part of that surface in relation to the pin for that day.

I also have to apologize to everyone. I hate to answer three posts in a row like this, because I'm not the ultimate authority on the course, but I do love the place so. It was the first GREAT golf course I ever got to play. It was also the first MacKenzie course I got to play. It has changed, all for the worse in some cases, but the GREATNESS is still there.

[THuckaby2]

Shivas,
The 11th was full of different driving options from the tee. There were in fact trees in the arroyo, but they weren't tall.

Its clear from the 1929 aerial photo that you could play over the arroyo and just shy of the line of the 12th for the best line of play to the green. The further left, the harder the shot coming in. If you could drive the ball far and straight from the tee, you had a much shorter shot to the green, but still a tough one because the green was then sort of angled and well protected with knarly looking MacKenzie bunkers coming in from that direction

Tommy - I'm looking at the aerial in Paul's book (great call bringing that up btw - it REALLY shows the shared fairways) and are you SURE those trees just to the left of 11 tee were small?  I had hear they were rather big, effectively blocking the cut off the tee which would be the best way to get it into the 12th fairway... Thus Jones had to hit out PAST them with a hook to get over there... Small nitty detail but one that needs clarification to get this all exactly correct.  

And no hassles re answering these questions - I'm glad to have a compadre in admiration for this very great golf course and I too am far from an expert about it.  I too just do love it so and love to talk about it...   It's not the first great course I ever played - I was lucky to play a few others by the time I finally got to Pasa in early 80s - but it's the one I've studied the most, that's for sure.  It remains sinful that you and I have yet to play it together.  

18 a tough hombre?  I call it a stone-cold bitch, the home of the four-putt.  

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Cut down the trees. MacKenzie didn't plant them, did he?

Even with the trees removed, I still don't see a strong temptation to drive over the barranca. The way the hole plays now, you hit it as straight and long as you think is prudent and then cross the barranca with a mid- to short-iron. The landing area in the 11th fairway does narrow, but it's wide enough to accomodate a fair amount of innacuracy (unlike, say, the 7th -- and I doubt MacKenzie planted those trees, either.) Aren't most of us more confident and accurate with a mid- to short-iron to a green than with a driver or three-wood to an adjoining fairway, with a moat to cross?

Yes, the angle to the green from the 11th fairway is more awkward than it would be from the 12th, but even awkward angles aren't that tough for a semi-skilled player with a short iron in his or her hands. An angled tee shot over an arroyo, on the other hand, introduces an unnecessary level of difficulty into the hole.

Nevertheless, I believe MacKenzie intended for that option to exist. Cut down the trees.

 

[THuckaby2]

Rick:

I guess my fascination with playing up 12 fairway stems from the left-to-right curving nature of every ball I seem to hit.  Picture a hard cut up 12... if it's one's normal shot, it wouldn't be hard at all, and then the approach is straight up the length of the green, with no further carry.  Going the conventional route means a drive where a draw is favored, PLUS a damn hard approach shot no matter how far you get it up there.  Remember not many people hit short irons into this green... the card says 380 but it's so damn uphill that it plays more like 440, with very little roll on the tee shot again because of the uphill nature.  Remember also if one plays a cut, the carry over the barranca wouldn't be far at all... it goes damn near all the way to the tee and it would become a bite off as much as you can chew thing, with a definite reward... A hard cut wouldn't have to carry much at all - draw or straight ball would mean a fair amount of carry - but all of this gets added to the maddening equation!

It would be fascinating to see which golfers went which way, and what the results would be.

Unfortunately as stated several times above, the issue is not just the trees... 12 green and all golfers on 12 fairway would be in mortal danger if this were allowed.  Thus the puzzle....

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom -- Maybe they had the tees way up when I parred 11 the only time I played it. I'm pretty sure I hit 7-iron into the green, and unlike the Llama, I'm not a particulaly big hitter . I don't remember even glancing at the 12th fairway as a potential option, but even if the trees hadn't been there, I tend to be kind of literal when it comes to playing a golf course, so I'd probably have stuck to my own fairway. I'm all for making it possible for others to play it any way they think best, however.

Clearly the etiquette/safety issue, though, is all that stands in the way of increasing the options on 11. I just can't believe MacKenzie didn't have that in mind when he built the course. Considering how often I get buzzed by errant golf balls from people who aren't intentionally playing my fairway (and it happened more this summer than in the previous three or four years combined), I'm not sure it's as big an issue as we might think. At least you'd be facing your attackers when coming down 12 -- and I'm still not sure how often it would happen, anyway.

[THuckaby2]

Rick:

It's a wall of enormous trees on the left from the tee all the way up to about 200 yards short of the green - going up 12 fairway wouldn't be thought of as possible to ANYONE seeing it today.  I just think about it constantly because I study this course more than I study anything, and because I've heard the Bobby Jones story so many times.  

If you hit 7iron into that green, that's a big tee shot.  The approach tends to play 2-3 clubs farther due to the uphill.  It certainly CAN be done, but you also must have solved the choice that maddens guys like me and Dan King... that is, you bashed it as far up the hill as you can... SO many golfers look at that and lay back way farther than they should - even experienced guys like me and Dan!

Let's put it this way - say you hit your 7iron 160.  That's longer than me for sure, but not really long.  To have an effective 160 in, you have to get it to about 135... which means a drive past the cart path, damn near all the way to the top, hugging the left side.  Distance-wise that's only 250 or so up the mountain (so say an effective 280 drive) which is certainly within range of big hitters... But remember also the distance from the green is determined as much by how far left you keep the tee shot than how far you get it up the hill... That's one damn fine tee shot to get it to there, one that I've seen done only a handful of times by anyone in my many times playing there.

The point is, saying golfers are gonna have a short iron into this green is just not right.  SOME will - but only at great risk hugging the left - with a very big drive.  The vast majority of players will be hitting middle irons to woods for this approach, over nothing but hazard... Making the choice to go left off the tee even more tempting, as the clear happens quickly, at least with a cut.

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Thanks, Tom. You've given me a nice New Year's gift. I can now go into 2004 with more confidence in my game, now that I have a heightened appreciation for what I managed to accomplish on 11 back in May.

I double-checked the scorecard, by the way -- there is is, a "4" in pencil in the box under Hole 11. That's what I get for playing with my wife -- she didn't have any idea how well I played that hole, either.

[THuckaby2]

 

That's a damn fine 4, Rick - doesn't happen very often on this beastly hole.  But hell, the infamous JakaB played it with me and some other GCA stalwarts and on his first time seeing the golf hole made a 3, something I have never accomplished in my app. 60 playings of the golf hole.  Bastard!  

It is one hell of a golf hole, Mike Hendren's dissing of it notwithstanding.  

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()