When Mackenzie lost it..

[JC Urbina]

Paul
The green was restored to its size based on the ground and aerial photos we had when we did the green and bunkers.  The Arroyo that was used to create the bunkers was filled in many years ago but I didn't see any evidence that the green had been built over the top of the Arroyo.  
When we started to dig out the fill we eventually ran into the original bunker sand, it was almost to the exact location of where the bunkers sit today.  I took photos when we ran into the sand.  Every bunker that we have rediscovered, we always find the sand.  I guess it was to labor intensive to remove it before they filled them in.  Lucky for us.  

Richard
For the record on the back nine at Pasatiempo eight of the nine holes used the barranca to challenge the golfer.  Sometimes the green was perched right next to it #10 and sometimes you had to hit over the hazard with your first or your second shot.   The 17th hole was the only hole that did not use the barranca to its fullest extent and even that hole was not going to be the 17th hole in his original routing.  In the case of Pasatiempo each time he used it was varied just enough to create variety.  On the 13th hole he used a stretched fairway bunker to simulate the extension of the barranca, the bunker creeps ever so close to the front of the green, we just finished restoring that bunker just last week.  Every time he used the Barranca he just added different hazards to accent.

 I have read the documents that were written concerning the building of Pasatiempo and in it are detailed references to what Alister planned to do and How much Marion Hollins was involved.  The stack of information that I was allowed to read really clued me into what they were thinking back in 1928-1929, great reading.  Actually not much different then the challenges that developers and designers face today.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - great stuff - many thanks!

So ok, totally selfish question - I'm supposed to play Pasa November 8 - what are the chances the back nine work will be complete?

TH

[Eric Franzen]

JC - great stuff - many thanks!

So ok, totally selfish question - I'm supposed to play Pasa November 8 - what are the chances the back nine work will be complete?

TH

According to their site... pretty good!

"Work began September 4th with expected completion the first week of October 2007."

Please post some impressions after your round.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Jim

I have played Pasa enough over a long enough (~25 years), and recently enough period to remember the barrancas/arroyos, and how they influence the back 9.  All I have ever said, and will continue to say, is that Dr. MacK "lost it..." in John's phrase vis a vis the 10th (and maybe a few others, than we can discuss later....).  That you and Tom and the rest of your crew did a thoughtful and skiillful restoration of what was there (sans tree, thank god.....) is indisputable, however, if you restore a pile of doo doo, it is still doo doo, architecturally speaking, no matter how careful you try to recreate it.  All IMHO, of course.

The question I was asking Tom (and you, of course) is not whether or not what he did was consonant with MacK's plans, but what (as the modern and thoughtful architects that you and Tom are) did you think that what he did on the 10th with his half-pipe was genius or doo-doo, or something reasonably and effectviely in-between?

Rich

PS--I still like the Merion 5th analogy.  Anybody who has played both holes, please chime in.

RFG

[Brent Hutto]

Question for Rich and everyone else who has played Alwoodley and Pasatiempo...which is the "better" approach shot, the eighth at Alwoodley or the tenth at Pasatiempo? For whatever definition of "better" you like.

Those two green complexes have the same general idea and both are reasonably intact instances of MaKenzie's work as far as I can tell.

I'm inclined to prefer the Pasa version by a very slight margin although the eighth at Alwoodley is one of my very favorite holes on the course (perhaps because I happened to hit a brilliant 8-iron shot pin high out of the fairway bunker the first time I played it).

But the advantages of the more elaborate Pasatiempo setup are greater visual impact (all that white sand as you top the hill!) and greater difficulty/penalty for missing the green way left and way short. Also a bit more internal contour to the green at Pasa #10 if my memory does not decieve me.

[Mike Golden]

I find all these criticisms of MacKenzie's alleged 'intent' rather amusing.

For anyone to think that the restored bunkers on the left do not affect play is basically saying that they are such strong players that they would never adjust their line of play on a long, downhill second shot because of the hazard on the left.  And make no mistake about it, that bunker is a real hazard.  And, as the photo earlier in this thread shows, fairway slopes right to left a little so that a hook is always a possibility.

It basically the same as saying that the Glacier bunker on #4 at Bethpage Black isn't necessary because, after a good drive, it doesn't come into play.  A simple 4 or 5 iron from the fairway puts you in perfect position to make birdie.  Or a water hazard left and short of a green isn't needed either.  And that road to the right of #17 at TOC, what was that architect thinking?

[Tom_Doak]

Mike Golden:

I agree entirely with your last post.  When members at the clubs where we consult say we should remove a bunker because it's "not in play," I ask them if they really have never been in that bunker.  Invariably, they admit they were in the bunker once this year and found it embarrassing, and that's why they want to remove it.  So Rich is probably just anticipating the day he knocks it in the restored bunker and makes a 9.

Rich G:

I think the bunkers emerging from the arroyo were a central theme of MacKenzie's design and that he wanted to put it right in your face at the start of the back nine, as Jim explained he did later in the round at #13 and again at #18 (a bunker in front of the green which has since fallen into the arroyo and cannot be restored).

[Matthew Hunt]

I must say I like that bunker

[Carlyle Rood]

http://www.golfarch.com/Pasatiempo

[Bill_McBride]

I think the bunkers emerging from the arroyo were a central theme of MacKenzie's design and that he wanted to put it right in your face at the start of the back nine, as Jim explained he did later in the round at #13 and again at #18 (a bunker in front of the green which has since fallen into the arroyo and cannot be restored).

Tom, is there no way to restore that bunker in front of #18, or at least a simulation of it?  I've been playing Pasatiempo since the late '50s and don't remember it ever being there.  It must have been washed out pretty early.

That arroyo/bunker thing has always been an integral part of Pasatiempo, and I think was important at the Thomas courses in Los Angeles as well.  I loved the old look at #12 at Pasatiempo.

In my personal experience, I think the back nine at Pasatiempo might be as good as any nine anywhere, all nine holes that is, which makes it better than Cypress Point, which has several great holes on the back nine but a few weak ones.

[Jay Flemma]

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!

This is important.  I played a half pipe bunker this weekend that crumbled under my feet as I was in it.  How do you construct it so it WON'T erode?  What did doak do to make it strong?

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

Perhaps the stupidest thread ever put on GOLFCLUBATlAS.com.

What do you do, just sit there trying to think what the most controversial and incendiary possible thread you could put on here is?

On the other hand, if you're doing it even semi-seriously, you really do have a lot to learn about the "eras" in the history and evolution of golf course architecture.

[John Kavanaugh]

JohnK:

Perhaps the stupidest thread ever put on GOLFCLUBATlAS.com.

What do you do, just sit there trying to think what the most controversial and incendiary possible thread you could put on here is?

On the other hand, if you're doing it even semi-seriously, you really do have a lot to learn about the "eras" in the history and evolution of golf course architecture.

Tom,

I really do not see your logic and felt that I was once again proven correct by the facts as presented by such experts as Doak, Urbina and Cowley.  I will not apologize for an era of poor drainage practices that resulted in the destruction and removal of pretty bunkers.  That is not and never was good "architecture".

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I really do not see your logic and felt that I was once again proven correct by the facts as presented by such experts as Doak, Urbina and Cowley.  I will not apologize for an era of poor drainage practices that resulted in the destruction and removal of pretty bunkers.  That is not and never was good "architecture"."


JohnK:

Excellent repost, and I will admit my logic is more than suspect if the likes of those mentioned disagree with it. In that case I am wrong and you are right. Furthermore, even the best of those ODGs had a lot to learn, I can't now see how there's any question of it. Probably most of them were dunces on things like drainage and such in bunkers and that may've been the case simply because most of them had very little respect for or inclination to cowtow to something that modern day golf virtually demands---which might be called "consistency of lie", particularly in bunkers.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

I am not talking about consistency of lie...I'm talking about continued existence.

[Mike Hendren]

David,

Do you have any evidence, other than the drawing, to indicate the 10th green was actually built in that fashion?

Pete, not evidence, but this is remarkably similar to the original 18th green (the present 9th) at Augusta National, which featured a similar tooth shaped green wrapping a front center bunker.  The Augusta version apparently didn't last long either.

Mike

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

Yes, I understand you're talking about continued existence. It is me who is talking about consistency of lie.

But you take the high road, and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before Ye.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

How would you compare the continued existence of the work of Flynn when compared to Mackenzie?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
How would you compare the continued existence of the work of Flynn when compared to Mackenzie?"

JohnK;

Probably by going to bed, reading this thread tomorrow and carefully considering it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks...That would be fun.

My gut tells me without actually having ever played a Flynn course that his architecture is continually existing better than MacKenzie's because of his low profile style that relied more on natural strategy and less on manufactured fluffery.

[David Stamm]

 and less on manufactured fluffery.

Right, John. Right.

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

Mackenzie's 'manufactured fluffery'?

That's one helluva term to describe Mackenzie's design style.

I wonder if the British military in the Boer War said the same thing about the Boer dumby trenches that looked exactly like the British military's actual trenches?

It would be interesting to know how long, if ever, it took the British military to figure out that despite all the fire they directed at those artificial looking Boer dumby trenches there never were any Boers in them.  

What we do know is the British military were not that inclined to listen to Mackenzie's observations on the use of camouflage in military trenches---a concept he very much was responsible for discovering and applying to golf course architecture.

Furthermore, the Boers would probably take extreme umbrage in hearing you describe their natually camouflaged trenches as "manufactured fluffery".

But, on the other hand, the Boers would probably take fluffy comfort in the realization that their camouflage trench ploy actually fought the British to a standstill despite the fact the Boers were outnumber by the British about 10 to 1.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
How would you compare the continued existence of the work of Flynn when compared to Mackenzie?"

JohnK:

All kidding aside, THAT is a very good question on your part.

Furthermore, I truly do believe that the accurate (and historical) answer to that question is a whole lot more complex than most, even most on here, are able to understand or willing to admit.

Let's just start with the issue of Flynn bunkers compared to Mackenzie bunkers and the continuing existence or lack of it of either. I think to even begin to answer that question of the continuing existence of Flynn bunkers compared to the lack of continuing existence of Mackenzie bunkers, one needs to not only ask and answer what both Mackenzie's and Flynn's purpose was in designing and building sand bunkers and also if golfers over time ever even considered their individual intentions in that context.

So what were Flynn's intentions when he designed and created sand bunkers? And what were Mackenzie's intentions---and more importantly were their intentions different from one another and how so or even why so?

I'll give you the first shot at answering those questions and then I will give you my own answers.

And after that we can go from there and perhaps get to the bottom of your question, which, again, is a very good and very important one, perhaps even one that's fundamental to the complete understanding of golf course architecture and its history and evolution.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

So what were Flynn's intentions when he designed and created sand bunkers? And what were Mackenzie's intentions---and more importantly were their intentions different from one another and how so or even why so?


 

I believe that Flynn designed bunkers to challenge the golfers mind while Mackenzie tried to entice his eye.

[JESII]

I don't think I've ever played a MacKenzie course so I may be out of bounds with this question, but wouldn't he have tried to "entice the eyes" as a different way of challenging the mind?