When Mackenzie lost it..

[John Kavanaugh]

I have always felt that the half pipe bunkering on the 10th at Pasatiempo was/is a joke.  It is so ugly and out of touch with the reality of drainage and golf strategies that the course link provided does everything to hide the fact that it exists.  http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/golfinfo_tour.php?Hole=10

Where else have you seen Mackenzie lose it?

[John Kavanaugh]

Point of contention.  When in doubt I always follow the spelling of Ran.  Is it a big K or little k...I'm not seeing many little k's out there anywhere else.

[Tom Dunne]

John,

Big K.

[Mike Sweeney]

See #10 slide. Maybe get rid of that tree, but that is it.

You are nuts on this one.

http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/slideshows/flash/hist1/hist1.php

[Jeff_Brauer]

I notice that the bunkers early on are fairly smooth, and get rugged at holes 13-14 and then go back to a smoother style.  Could it be no one lost it, but that an associate took some liberties with the design?  Or did Mac want to match the more rugged topo with his bunkers?

[John Kavanaugh]

See #10 slide. Maybe get rid of that tree, but that is it.

You are nuts on this one.

http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/slideshows/flash/hist1/hist1.php

Look at the debris in the bottom bunker.  Who puts sand in the bottom or a drainage ditch?  I love that tree only because it makes feel even better about the future success of this thread.

[Bill_McBride]

All I know is this:

Nobody better EVER claim that the ODGs didn't do "double-hazards"!

I think that's where Dr. M lost it -- look at that HIDEOUS tree in the half-pipe!  BARF.

You're kidding, right?  You think that tree was there 75 years ago?  I don't think you  can blame MacKenzie for the trees on the course today but go ahead, why not?

[Brent Hutto]

Bill,

Check out photo #10 in the link Mike Sweeney provides...

[RJ_Daley]

That tree is seen in the photo circa 1930.  I just blew through Doak's book on MacKenzie hoping to find some mention of that tree's existence, and circumstances of its demise and when.  I found nothing.  I refuse to believe that Dave's admonishment about refusing to "EVER" believe that ODGs didn't do double hazards has legs.  I have to believe that the one single odd tree in 1930 has some sort of 'history'.  I wonder if it wasn't something that one of the team (Hollins, Whighim, Hunter) or someone insisted on, only to be cryit doon, in a few short years or months.  It does seem goofy, and I found no other examples of such a tree in a hazard in photos in Doak's book.  

BTW, the historical and contemporary slide show is fabulous.  What a great club website.

[PJKoenig]

What's this?  Fewer and fewer suckers taking the bait?

[Tom Huckaby]

What's interesting about this is that Doak's group restored this "puke" to damn near exactly what MacKenzie had in 1930.  Check the present day pictures - they confirm this.

So if you condemn MacKenzie, well you condemn Doak also.  I sincerely doubt he'd restore something that is awful.  But that is an interesting question... one of course he can't likely answer on here... did he want to restore this or was he forced to?

In any case, I don't find any of it to be puke - I think it's a damn good golf hole just as it is today - but we've battled that on here many times.

And PJK, I am not taking any bait... I'm actually setting out such.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Big K.

I need more evidence.  You will note that Ran likes the small d on Macdonald also.  Ran is not without using a capital letter when required like on MacWood so I see something deeper here.

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is a nice montage of the 10th.  Notice how Doak was careful to construct the half pipe in a manner less likely to erode.  I seem to recall an outlet pipe somewhere in the area.  http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/restore/hole10.php

[Tom Yost]

This link shows the hole as it looked pre and post restoration.

http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/restore/hole10.php

*edit*  oops sorry for the duplicate post.  John beat me to it!

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

I can't tell if it's less likely to erode today than in 1930... what makes you say that?  If that is true, than that's very cool... Doak kept the Mackenzie concepts and improved on them just a wee bit functionally.

BTW I don't think either constructed the half pipe.. it sure looks to me like it was always there... it's an extension of the barranca going between 11 and 12.... continuing down the property... isn't it?

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

Isn't it easy to conclude that the half pipe as constructed by Mackenzie was a failure given its disappearance.  It seems that Mackenzie had a history of building bunkers in flow lines and thus little regard for function over formality.

Can anyone else think of other Mackenzie bunkers that went down the maintenance drain?  This discussion is not limited to Pasa.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

I don't see the half pipe disappearing, and I also believe it was always there, as per my previous post.

Mackenzie decided to fill it with bunkers - and you can debate the merits of that - but I really don't think he constructed the half pipe.

And it's definitely still there today post-Doak....

So I am having a hard time getting your point.

[John Kavanaugh]

JK:

I can't tell if it's less likely to erode today than in 1930... what makes you say that?  If that is true, than that's very cool... Doak kept the Mackenzie concepts and improved on them just a wee bit functionally.

TH

Tom,

The slope away from the green is much less in the Doak version than the original.  Look how the furthest bunker from the green almost raises at the end to slow the flow of water and erosion.  I think Doak may have even included underground drainage that Mackenzie did not.  The pipe culvert is not a modern device btw..

[John Kavanaugh]

JK:

I don't see the half pipe disappearing, and I also believe it was always there, as per my previous post.

Mackenzie decided to fill it with bunkers - and you can debate the merits of that - but I really don't think he constructed the half pipe.

And it's definitely still there today post-Doak....

So I am having a hard time getting your point.

I see no bunkers in the half pipe on the second picture of the montage.  I am speculating that a super took them out because of continued failure due to erosion. http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/restore/hole10.php

[Mike Golden]

Even though #10 has, without question, kicked my butt every single time I've played Pasatiempo (I don't think I've ever smelled a par) in either configuration I just marvel at the way Tom Doak and crew restored it to the original.

Looking at the original photos makes it clear that Pasa was the equivalent of every great course in America at that time. And, thanks to the work of Tom and the willingness of the membership to allow as much of a restoration as possible, it seems even better than the last time I played there in mid 2004.

[John Kavanaugh]

Even though #10 has, without question, kicked my butt every single time I've played Pasatiempo (I don't think I've ever smelled a par) in either configuration I just marvel at the way Tom Doak and crew restored it to the original.

Looking at the original photos makes it clear that Pasa was the equivalent of every great course in America at that time. And, thanks to the work of Tom and the willingness of the membership to allow as much of a restoration as possible, it seems even better than the last time I played there in mid 2004.

Mike,

I agree that the pictures of the original Pasa look as good as anything I have ever seen with the possible exception of the original pics of The Riviera.  What I question about Mackenzie is if he had the foresight to plan for the future.  He reminds me of a water colorist who hangs his paintings on the porch.

[John Kavanaugh]

"Photo taken circa 2000. Note the lack of bunkers in the gully."  This is a quote from the Pasa web site concerning the half pipe bunkers.  Look up the definition of gully and ask yourself what self respecting architect would build bunkers in one.

[Tom Huckaby]

Aha, so the issue is the bunkers.  Well John, I asked about that before.

The half-pipe (gully) itself has always been there.

So Mackenzie put bunkers in there, and yes it is a very good question as to why he did.  They then took them out at some point.  But Doak put them back in.

So I don't see what Doak "improved", by your reckoning.

Help!

[John Kavanaugh]

Doak put the bunkers back.  They were gone for a while as shown in the montage.  I am saying that Doak put them back a bit different than original in the hopes that they will not wash away.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

Gotcha.  Well, I don't see how they are different in any way.  But if that's true, then you make a very good point.

TH