Future revisions for Pasatiempo

[David Stamm]

I first want to applaud Mr. Doaks work performed at Pasatiempo. Wonderful! It was fun trying to figure out what had changed since the last time I was there. The new greenside bunker at 10 is scary! It's great to see almost the entire hole from the 11th tee as well. What a difference.

I played w/ a member and he said you would be coming back for more work to be done. What else exactly will be done? He also mentioned a possible moving of the green on 17 to the back left into the trees? Is this going to happen?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

It's to my understanding that they will be recovering the original look of green complex and bunkers on #16. That would be a great thing.

I would like to see them recover the length and strategies on #2. I think it would work much better as a three-shot hole from the original tee.

Also, it will never be able to be recovered, but the elimination of the tree line between holes 6 & 7 and 10 & 17 creating and opening up the strategies that those holes once possessed and has been lost. Yes, it would be dangerous and impractical. Yes, I'm being delusional.....

The entire front bunker area of #18 also needs to be redone or rebuilt. A lot of the original was washed away, but I've played one from down there before and it's a blast.

The entire Pasatiempo facility needs a much firmer and faster method of turf management.

Do all of the above, and the sky's the limit. A wonderful place.

[Mike_Sweeney]

It's to my understanding that they will be recovering the original look of green complex and bunkers on #16. That would be a great thing.

Tommy,

Can you explain a little more? I played there late yesterday on the way home from a wedding, and that was the one green, or maybe just the middle left pin that I found almost impossible to get close. I was a single at sunset, so I hit a bunch of putts there and that was one tough green/pin.

The back nine at Pasa in one of my favorites.

It was a little wet as you noted.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
For some arcane reasoning, the club has always maintained the principle of having the fastest greens in the world--or close to it. That particular green, as well as the old #11 have been maintained beyond reasonable logic. I don't know if they have plans to soften the green to respectable standards or to just simply slow that particular green down. What I have heard is that they will be working on restoring the bunker that's in built into the right portion of that complex which comes down to the front portion of the green.  

If you go to Pasatiempo's website and look in their historical photographs section, you'll see the bunker I'm talking about.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I can't tell you exactly how much more we will wind up doing at Pasatiempo.  (And it's been Jim Urbina doing all the work there lately, anyway ... I haven't seen it since we had the 11th green down to dirt.)  I honestly don't know the answer.

The club does have an interest in moving the 17th green back to its original position (hanging out into the barranca), and supposedly in restoring the 18th green as well (even though some of it is in the barranca, or soon will be).  We are trying to figure out if these ideas are practical and how much it would cost -- both of them are very ambitious projects.  I'm all for restoring what we can at a club with such history, but I'm not going to build something which would fail at a later date.

[Joe Perches]

I'm not going to build something which would fail at a later date.

Then why ever build anything?  Everythings fails at some point.  Some portions of Stone Eagle seem to be built such that a 25 year storm might take out a fairway or two.  Do you specifically build away from features or landforms that might ever fail?  

[David Stamm]

Tom, is there photos anywhere that show the 17th out near the barranca? I was under the impression that the presnt green site was original and the membership wanted to move it because it lacked "eye appeal".

[Tom_Doak]

Joe P:  Your definition of "ever" failing and mine are a bit different, I guess.

I will take many more chances in my own original work than I would in consulting work.  To spend $50,000 or more to tear up an existing green and take a chance that you'll have to rebuild it again soon could be akin to malpractice, in my estimation.

David:  There is indeed a photo which shows the 17th green further back than at present.  Otherwise we would never consider the change; Pasatiempo's bylaws state specifically that they should never build anything that would steer away from restoring Dr. MacKenzie's original design.  (Some may disagree with that, but that's the club's rule, not mine.)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I think it's a great rule.

(We've seen what RTJ II and TW&P did to this gem. It's great to see someone dechipher what wasn't there from images and create what looks close as possibly to the original in today's mindset.)(Other then the color of the sand!)

David, the 17th used to go out on to this peninsula where it looked as if it dropped off at three sides. You can see an image of it on the Pasatiempo Club website. Pretty nice use of land, really.

[David Stamm]

Thanks Tom and Tommy. Tom, I wasn't implying you would chnage something that wasn't in keeping with the original Dr. Mack. design, I just wanted to clarify becuase it seems now that I played w/ a member that didn't have all his facts straight. Thanks for clearing that up.