Pasatiempo Restoration Photos

« **Reply #25 on:** November 08, 2007, 12:14:35 PM »

To answer Tom's question about why the course was redone, Pasatiempo is a semi-private club that has about 250 golf members, so there's a core of golfers that really cares about the club. In early 90s, a local historian came across a lot of great old pictures of both Pasatiempo and Cypress Point golf courses. The pictures really inspired the club, they showed how a lot of important features of the course had been lost in the post-Depression and war eras. It was obvious that, while Pasatiempo was still a very good golf course, it had to the potential to be even better if those changes, done in the interest of economy, were undone. It seemed fitting to the members that MacKenzie's home course should be restored to the way that it was originally designed. Then the club was smart enough to hire Tom and Jim to do the work, and the results have been just terrific -- the members are thrilled.

As for the greens, they are difficult but still very puttable, and if anything some of the enlarged putting surfaces make some of the old pin locations better (particularly 11 and 16). I just played Oakmont last month, and after 5 putting a green there I couldn't wait to return to the "easy" greens at Pasatiempo.

Hope you guys enjoy your round today, look forward to hearing your thoughts. The course isn't completely back to normal yet, the newly sodded areas of the enlarged greens still have to settle in, the practice chipping area is closed, and the club isn't using the back pin location yet on #17, which will completely transform that hole. Still, all the greens and tees are open, so you should have a good time.

Rob C. (another Rob from Pasatiempo)

« **Reply #26 on:** November 08, 2007, 05:40:41 PM »

Q for the Pasa members - hereafter to be known as Rob'n'Rob - (and today's players if they can drag themselves away from the wondrous spectacle).

How goes the n$m&t%d£s problem? (I can't bring myself to typing the word: like saying 'Voldemort', it makes them appear if you do it out loud).

First green was particularly badly affected as I recall when we were over - TWO

years ago....

FBD.

« **Reply #27 on:** November 08, 2007, 09:46:51 PM »

I played Pasatiempo today.

Any fears I had were completely groundless.

The course is FANTASTIC. The restoration work is INCREDIBLE. Any fears about greens being flattened were groundless... they have NOT been. I've been playing Pasatiempo since the early 80s and I must say it's better today than it ever has been. It's like its 1929 all over again, with more trees, of course.

I'll get into more detail when I have more time, but all I can say is WOW!

Oh, one more thing - the edges of the restored green areas are still a little rough - it will indeed be a lot better as time goes on - but it's all very playable now.

TH

ps - no nematode issues that I could see.

« **Reply #28 on:** November 08, 2007, 10:17:16 PM »

What about rear of #11 green? Flattened or still terrifying?

« **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2007, 12:15:38 AM »

Glad you enjoyed the round today Tom. You're right, there are places on a few of the greens where the newly laid sod is settling in, it will probably take some time for it all to grow in and become indistinguishable from the rest of the green. But it's quite playable now, and by spring it should great.

As for the trees, the sweet sound of chainsaws has been echoing around the course for weeks now, and they've got more work to do. It won't ever get back to the 1929 almost treeless landscape, of course, but more trees will be trimmed or removed.

On the dreaded n****, there's no sign of them, but you never get complacent about them, it's been watched closely.

As for the back of #11, the restored green is a huge improvement. The old green could only have front pin positions most of the year, and players familiar with the course would simply hit approach shots to the middle of the green, using the slope as a backboard. There were no middle pin positions, and on the rare occasions when the pin would be in the back, it was just terrifying. All that has changed...the restored green has a number of strong pin locations. It's still a difficult green with a lot of slope from back to front, but it's a much better, more interesting and more fair green complex...it may be the best hole on the course now.

Rob C.

« **Reply #30 on:** November 09, 2007, 06:32:32 AM »

Quote from: rchesnut on November 09, 2007, 12:15:38 AM

On the dreaded n****, there's no sign of them, but you never get complacent about them, it's been watched closely.

Who are you...Dog the Bounty Hunter?

« **Reply #31 on:** November 09, 2007, 07:47:21 AM »

John,

I think he's referring to the Worm Who Must Not Be Named, the golf course superintendent's "n word".

« **Reply #32 on:** November 09, 2007, 09:22:14 AM »

Quote from: rchesnut on November 09, 2007, 12:15:38 AM

As for the back of #11, the restored green is a huge improvement. The old green could only have front pin positions most of the year, and players familiar with the course would simply hit approach shots to the middle of the green, using the slope as a backboard. There were no middle pin positions, and on the rare occasions when the pin would be in the back, it was just terrifying. All that has changed...the restored green has a number of strong pin locations. It's still a difficult green with a lot of slope from back to front, but it's a much better, more interesting and more fair green complex...it may be the best hole on the course now.

It certainly has always been the hardest if not the best. Maybe it is the best with softer contours. I guess there wasn't ever any discussion of just backing off the stimpmeter to say 8', right? Sounds like that would have saved a lot of money!

« **Reply #33 on:** November 09, 2007, 10:00:23 AM »

I agree with Rchestnut about 11 green - it is really cool as it is today, for all the reasons he states. I will say the terrifying nature of the upper part of that green no longer exists, but on the whole it's better, as Rchestnust explains. Remember also that terrifying meant absurd with today's green speeds.... the old 11 green really only worked at 7 or below (I think anyway). In any case Bill, the "new" green has so much more internal contour, and allows for so many different pin placements, that I've come to believe it's a net improvement even on leaving the old one as is and slowing it to 7-8. The old one was pretty much one constant slope, and has that stupid raised front... The new one is all in all a better green, and has that dumb front removed.

I have to comment on 16 green also. In the pictures it looked as if all or parts of it had been flattened.

Hitting into it from 135 yesterday, I could see that was NOT the case. And the new bunkering makes for a scarier approach... the right front bunker, which used to be no big deal, is now a place of misery - very steep, very deep. The removal of the back left bunker now means that anything long and/or left could very very easily go OB... Then one can see the sharp tiers, which still exist, oh yes they do.... So it's a shot fraught with danger. Oh it always was, for sure... but now it's REALLY dangerous. So one tries to aim for the middle of the green (if he's wise) and hopes to get on the correct tier....

Hiting into a back pin yesterday, man it took more bravery than I had to really commit to getting it back there. So I perhaps subconsciously eased up a bit, hit a decent shot onto the middle tier... or so I thought! The backspin on it caused it to move back.. and back... and then it caught the tier... all the way back to the bottom of the green! But aye here's the rub about that: now that bottom part has a bit more flatness to it, such that a ball rolling back like mine stays on the green - so the result is a putt, not a chip like it was before. I call that an improvement. Also they could put a crazy pin down there... I bet they will....

So anyway four putts later, I came off with great respect for the "new" 16 green. Oh it's everything one wants in a great golf hole, my friends.

TH

ps - the first putt got screwed hitting the indent on one of the sod patches and taking all the speed out of it. From that point it was my fault. But I coulda stayed there all day and likely not two-putted from where I was.

« **Reply #34 on:** November 09, 2007, 10:09:12 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on November 09, 2007, 10:00:23 AM

In any case Bill, the "new" green has so much more internal contour, and allows for so many different pin placements, that I've come to believe it's a net improvement even on leaving the old one as is and slowing it to 7-8. The old one was pretty much one constant slope, and has that stupid raised front... The new one is all in all a better green, and has that dumb front removed.

It's been a few years since my day at Pasa so my memory is perhaps vague. What was the stupid thing about the way the front of the old green was raised?

« **Reply #35 on:** November 09, 2007, 10:21:56 AM »

Brent - same thing existed on 9 - a very raised "hump" just in front of the green that would repel all shots coming in, and obscure view of the green. I was told it got raised over time or something... in neither case was it how Mackenzie had it. Now both are gone and both greens are better.

TH

« **Reply #36 on:** November 09, 2007, 11:17:46 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on November 09, 2007, 10:00:23 AM

I have to comment on 16 green also. In the pictures it looked as if all or parts of it had been flattened.

Hitting into it from 135 yesterday, I could see that was NOT the case. And the new bunkering makes for a scarier approach... the right front bunker, which used to be no big deal, is now a place of misery - very steep, very deep. The removal of the back left bunker now means that anything long and/or left could very very easily go OB... Then one can see the sharp tiers, which still exist, oh yes they do.... So it's a shot fraught with danger. Oh it always was, for sure... but now it's REALLY dangerous. So one tries to aim for the middle of the green (if he's wise) and hopes to get on the correct tier....

Hiting into a back pin yesterday, man it took more bravery than I had to really commit to getting it back there. So I perhaps subconsciously eased up a bit, hit a decent shot onto the middle tier... or so I thought! The backspin on it caused it to move back.. and back... and then it caught the tier... all the way back to the bottom of the green! But aye here's the rub about that: now that bottom part has a bit more flatness to it, such that a ball rolling back like mine stays on the green - so the result is a putt, not a chip like it was before. I call that an improvement. Also they could put a crazy pin down there... I bet they will....

So anyway four putts later, I came off with great respect for the "new" 16 green. Oh it's everything one wants in a great golf hole, my friends.

TH

ps - the first putt got screwed hitting the indent on one of the sod patches and taking all the speed out of it. From that point it was my fault. But I coulda stayed there all day and likely not two-putted from where I was.

Wow, I thought the approach to the 16th was quite scary even before they restored it. I can' t wait to get back out there to play all of the new greens.

Thanks for sharing your impressions, Huck.

« **Reply #37 on:** November 09, 2007, 11:21:51 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on November 09, 2007, 10:00:23 AM

I have to comment on 16 green also. In the pictures it looked as if all or parts of it had been flattened.

The backspin on it caused it to move back.. and back... and then it caught the tier... all the way back to the bottom of the green! But aye here's the rub about that: now that bottom part has a bit more flatness to it, such that a ball rolling back like mine stays on the green - so the result is a putt, not a chip like it was before. I call that an improvement. Also they could put a crazy pin down there... I bet they will....

So anyway four putts later, I came off with great respect for the "new" 16 green. Oh it's everything one wants in a great golf hole, my friends.

So the truth of the matter is that the front tongue of 16 was flattened to resemble a cat more than a dog. Why do they want to keep it a secret?

« **Reply #38 on:** November 09, 2007, 11:26:24 AM »

JK: how are they keeping that a secret?

It's plain for all the world to see, if one looks closely at a photo, and for sure when one plays it.

And the net effect is a pretty large positive.

Not sure where your'e going with this one, my friend. All fears I had prior to playing the course were blasted away yesterday seeing it in person.

TH

« **Reply #39 on:** November 09, 2007, 12:20:38 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on November 09, 2007, 11:26:24 AM

JK: how are they keeping that a secret?

It's plain for all the world to see, if one looks closely at a photo, and for sure when one plays it.

And the net effect is a pretty large positive.

Not sure where your'e going with this one, my friend. All fears I had prior to playing the course were blasted away yesterday seeing it in person.

TH

I had not heard a single report of the flattening of the tongue on the 16th. My first indication was the picture on this thread. To me it is not a matter of better or not it is a matter of changed or not. I have every confidence that any change Doak makes to a Mackenzie course is going to be for the better. Of course, I believe he is a more qualified architect than Mackenzie to decide what is better for the modern golfer. I embrace change to classic courses...some do not.

« **Reply #40 on:** November 09, 2007, 12:28:14 PM »

JK:

How many participants have seen the new green - four?

You're seeking conspiracy where none exists.

Yes, the front tongue of the green has been flattened. I'm not sure if it was like that in 1929 or not, though I'm sure one of the many able Pasatiempo historians can confirm one way or the other. In any case, if the flattening of this tongue cases purists to scream, then by all means let them - they're chasing ghosts that don't need to exist.

Late add: look at the photos here:

http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/restore/hole16.php

It sure as hell looks to me like what exists today damn near perfectly replicates the circa 1930 photos, and thus the stupid unplayable tongue had developed over the years.

I know you have a thing for showing how Doak improved on Mackenzie, and perhaps he did in this case, perhaps not. Perhaps he tried to do so, perhaps not.

My thing is how the course plays, and I am hear to tell one and all that it is playing better now than I have ever seen it, in 25+ years.

TH

« **Reply #41 on:** November 09, 2007, 01:08:28 PM »

Tom,

Did you get a chance to check out the new back portion of the 17th green? How exactly was it constructed? What exactly was there before it was reconstructed. Will it be possible for Shivas to 5 putt on that section too? Inquiring minds need to know.

« **Reply #42 on:** November 09, 2007, 01:14:18 PM »

Quote from: Pete Lavallee on November 09, 2007, 01:08:28 PM

Tom,

Did you get a chance to check out the new back portion of the 17th green? How exactly was it constructed? What exactly was there before it was reconstructed. Will it be possible for Shivas to 5 putt on that section too? Inquiring minds need to know.

Oh god yes - my apologies for not mentioning until now.

17 green is FREAKIN' INCREDIBLE NOW. We measured it at 52 yards from back to front. And not only does it have this expanded back portion, but said portion is split by a small ridge, such that shots (and putts) going to it will need to be very precise. The bunkers on the right were also removed, meaning that especially for shots trying to attack a back pin, miss right brings barranca into play most definitely.

The front portion of the green is expanded a bit, that's all....

As for how it was constructed, I am not sure what you mean by that....

All in all it has gone from a rather blah green (for everyone except shivas, that is) to an incredible one for us all - and the hole as a whole is really improved.

16 and 17 really need to be seen to be believed.

As for the other changes, it's all documented on the Pasa website and I can't add much to that.

TH

« **Reply #43 on:** November 09, 2007, 01:22:50 PM »

Oh god yes I checked it out.

This gives the before and after:

http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/restore/hole17.php

Pin yesterday for us was middle left - fairly easy. The back portion isn't really ready to have a pin placed there yet - sod still growing in.

I do understand there was a constant slope as the green was before, but your 8-putt to me is just an indication of the absurdity those greens could reach if the speeds were too great. 17 was no different from 8, 9, 11, 16 in that respect. To me though 17 was the most boring of the group... just a relatively flat internally slab, sloped right to left. So yes you could get pins before that brought out the absurdity - like you faced - but that to me was a negative way more than any positive.

Which I am guessing you might agree with.

In any case, one could still five putt this green, particularly if one has to go to a back left pin and one leaves the approach on the front left.

TH

« **Reply #44 on:** November 09, 2007, 01:27:58 PM »

Tom,

What I'm reffering to is how was the extension constructed; was it sodded or simply mown and topdressed. In the first round of restoration the lost areas which were now in the fringes were just mowed to green height and subsequently topdressed; truely an advantage of greens which are simply built on dirt as opposed to rigid USGA construction techniques. What was behind the green before; I thought it was trees?

Shivas,

How could I forget; Frosty doesn't visit just the green very often.

« **Reply #45 on:** November 09, 2007, 01:33:12 PM »

Quote from: Pete Lavallee on November 09, 2007, 01:27:58 PM

Tom,

What I'm reffering to is how was the extension constructed; was it sodded or simply mown and topdressed. In the first round of restoration the lost areas which were now in the fringes were just mowed to green height and subsequently topdressed; truely an advantage of greens which are simply built on dirt as opposed to rigid USGA construction techniques. What was behind the green before; I thought it was trees?

For the first part you've gone way beyond my capabilities; I don't have a freakin' clue. I do know that what's there now is new sod - but that's also exactly how the first round of changes appeared to me as well. As for what's behind the green, that hasn't changed other than some tree thinning... what has changed is how close the green now gets to said trees, and the barranca (hazard) they are on top of. A shot going long now has a really good chance of going in the barranca (given it's only a few yards beyond the end of the green surface) whereas before one would have had to belt one REALLY far beyond the green to find the barranca.

I have to say, back pins there are gonna really tighten the butt cheeks.. a good drive tends to leave 125 or so in for me (to the middle) which will mean 150 to the back... uphill... off a sidehill lie... I am not precise enough to feel all that confident from that distance in those circumstances. It may still be wedges for great players though, so perhaps they will feel no tightening. But the rest of us mortals sure will!

TH

« **Reply #46 on:** November 09, 2007, 02:25:19 PM »

You guys have got me excited! I am playing there Nov. 20th for the first time in 7 years.

As for the "worm that must not be named", I was on the phone with Dean Gump (GCS) and he said that 2007 was the best year since they started to rear their ugly heads.

As an aside, Dean is retiring in Feb. after many years at Pasa, He will be sorely missed as he is one of the genuine 'good guys' as a superintendent.

« **Reply #47 on:** November 09, 2007, 02:56:20 PM »

Michael:

I can attest that Dean is a good guy for sure... I've never officially met him - still haven't - but I'm pretty darn sure it was he who found a way to get me some rangeballs yesterday as I was wandering aimlessly at the range trying to figure out who to pay to get such... The deal now is you check in up top first, they give you tokens, then you go down to range... I've always driven to range and started there. Oh well... I was told later it as the Superintendent who helped me out - must have been Dean!

You're gonna love it on 11/20 - that will be just that many more days for sod to grow in.

TH

« **Reply #48 on:** November 09, 2007, 02:59:25 PM »

Tom,

I have seen the sight line changes (via photos) to #11 and think it is awesome. Did they do any tree removal on the left side of #12. I remember that fairway as being about 150 yards wide but only leaving a good look at the green from about the right hand 30 yards...

« **Reply #49 on:** November 09, 2007, 03:06:21 PM »

Michael:

Trees have been thinned on both sides of the 11/12 barranca, but more on the 11 side. 12 is still pretty thick on the left, just not quite as bad as before. One still needs to favor the right side on the tee shot. But I pulled a driver into left rough yesterday and I was clear - the key is getting it far enough down there past the trees. A key change on 11 now also is that the shrubbery and stuff have been cleared out of the barranca up nearer to the bridge... and the skinny saving bunkers have been removed. So 11 plays a bit differently as it's now easier to roll a pulled tee shot into the barranca. BUT... you may well find a playable shot from down there now also.

12 green was re-done, enlarged, etc. It's pretty damn cool now also.

TH

News:

rchesnut

Marty Bonnar

Tom Huckaby

Bill_McBride

rchesnut

John Kavanaugh

Brent Hutto

Bill_McBride

Tom Huckaby

Brent Hutto

Tom Huckaby

Eric Franzen

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

Pete Lavallee

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Pete Lavallee

Tom Huckaby

Michael Hayes

Tom Huckaby

Michael Hayes

Tom Huckaby