Routing for the future: Mackenzie

[Jeff_Mingay]

During my recent trip to California, I was blown away by Pasatiempo. It's a fantastic golf course. The only really unfortunate situation there is the proximity of holes 6-8; which may have been discussed here before.

These three holes, individually, are excellent. But, they run parallel to each other over a section of ground that, I'm guessing, is less than 150 yards across (perhaps Tom Doak or Jim Urbina can provide more accurate info.?). This has resulted in the planting of evergreen trees to separate these fairways, and the placement of a fence behind the 8th green. (Unfortunately, someone was killed on the 8th green by a ball hit from the 7th tee in recent years... or was it in seven fairway from a ball hit from the 8th tee?)

I also understand that Mackenzie's Bay Area courses at Claremont and Green Hills are extremely tight (and dangerous) in spots, and that changes are currently underway at Royal Melbourne to resolve some safety issues.

What does this say about these particular routings? Were these courses safer when they were more open, before tree planting? Are these danger issues that simply weren't present in Mackenzie's day, for whatever reasons, arising over time as the amount of play over these courses has increased? If so, would you say Mackenzie made a mistake by not anticipating what might transpire in the future?

[Tom Huckaby]

THis has been discussed many times in here before....

My feeling is the courses such as Pasatiempo were plenty safe in a world of limited play.  But put two groups on each hole and they become unsafe.  The same can be said for The Old Course... how safe is it when very crowded?

So perhaps Mackenzie should have foreseen crowded courses.  But if so, then the same could be said for a lot of other architects....

In any case re Pasatiempo specifically, not only do we have Doak and Urbina in our midst at times, but also Rob Chestnut - quite the historian regarding the club.  Perhaps Rob will comment.

TH

[rchesnut]

Thanks Tom...I'm not the historian, we've got some folks around the club who know the old stories better than I do, but I can add a little here. 

The weakest stretch of Pasatiempo is the stretch of holes between 6 and 8.  To be more precise, it's from the second half of 6, through 7.  The tee shot on 6 is great, it's among the most interesting and strategic tee shots on the course, but after you navigate it you have the narrow stretch of fairway with OB right and trees left.  The narrowness continues on 7, with the alley of trees protecting golfers on 6 and 8.  The course was not designed to have trees marking the edges of the fairway...MacKenzie envisioned a wide shared fairway area for 6 and 7 that could be used by golfers on either hole without obstruction.  Unfortunately, a golfer on the 8th green was killed by a tee shot from 7 tee a number of years back, and that forced the club to use trees as a safety measure.  8 is really not affected by the narrowness...it's a great downhill par 3 with the most severe green on the front nine, lots of opportunities for creativity there, it doesn't suffer from the issues of 6 and 7.

Again, I'm not an historian, but I would opine that MacKenzie's designs often failed to anticipate things that are today seen as safety issues.  Perhaps more specifically, he did not anticipate that his courses would have the level of play that they enjoy in the modern era, or he did not anticipate that litigiousness would strike the golf world.  Perhaps golf balls are more dangerous now due to modern equipment than they were back then.  For whatever reason, MacKenzie thought nothing of routing holes with tee shots over roads (Pasatiempo #2 and #10 each originally required shots over roads, and MacKenzie was said to have shrugged his shoulders when this was pointed out,  responding that the cars would simply have to wait).  And he thought nothing of routing courses next to houses...his own home was built right along the stretch of #6 where errant 2nd shots must have often landed in his yard (or on his roof) with some regularity. 

I'm not sure if MacKenzie was alone in this apparent shortcoming.  TOC, for example, with its double greens and shared fairways, has a number of safety issues, and I'm sure other better travelled golfers than I could name other classic courses that have, by today's standards, safety issues.   

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

JeffM:

First of all, I've never seen Pasatiempo and the following might be something of a stretch as to why Mackenzie did parallel holes that tight but it's no secret that around that time the likes of Behr and Mackenzie had been talking about a new form of architecture that did not use rough.

In other words, he may've just been doing that to meld together contiguous fairways. You can see areas of it in the design drawing of that course in Argentina, for instance, and don't forget those guys mentioned were huge proponents of TOC. But approximately 150 yards wide for three holes is really tight. Two hole would make some sense but three abreast is really tight with that width.

Furthermore, Alister Mackenzie seems like the type of guy who didn't like to be told he shouldn't do something. You remember that really hot fight he got into with the super of Pebble and Monterrey Peninsula (Mayo?) that Samuel Morse had to step in and mediate.

By the way, the USGA's newish recommendation on holes that are tight and dangerous is to take out trees not use them. I guess their thought is without trees at least golfers can see one another and yell FORE!

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

Someone wasn't following the rules of the road at Painswick.  On all those intersecting and jointly used fairways, the inbound group has the right of way.  If you were on #8 you should have been off to one side while the group on #9 played down the fairway.  Otherwise it really would be dangerous there. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Best of both worlds: trees out, fence in. Then you can see and are protected. Sounds like an ugly solution? Then take out the fence and limit play. Not possible to limit play? Then redesign the holes.

Courses, even classic courses, have been redesigned for much, much lesser issues than a golfer killed on site. Say, for protecting par. I'd rather protect lifes.

Ulrich

[brad_miller]

Meadow Club also has a spot (6, 13, 15) that seems tight even if the area was all fairway, but what a cool location.

Tom Paul, do you have a link or reference to this new USGA concept on trees?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, do you have a link or reference to this new USGA concept on trees?  "

How've you been Brad?

I don't know about that. I think I heard it from our regional USGA agronomist. Have you checked out any of the articles in the USGA Green Section?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Your estimate for the width of the three holes is about right.  I've paced from the trees left of 7 to the trees left of 6, and that's exactly 300 feet.

I understand your perspective on the holes being less safe with the trees, and I might agree if everybody was walking ... but considering there is a cart path for #7 going down the right side of the hole, into players from #6 who wouldn't see them coming ... I could not call that a safe situation.

However, whatever we think, you should understand that if an architect called for removing the trees, and someone gets hit subsequently, with the past history of this hole, and it being California, that architect is going to lose his house.  So, if you want to be the consultant there and take out those trees, I'll gladly yield to you, now that we are done with all the bunkering and greens and stuff.   

Better that than let Ulrich redesign those holes, anyway!

As for Dr. MacKenzie, I think he did not anticipate that golf courses would get so busy, and it is true of many of his courses that in using natural features for two holes he sometimes created safety issues for today's golfers.

[David_Elvins]

Jeff,

With the absence of any real data, I think the issue comes down to one of perception.  I suspect that it is another example of elimination of the idea of luck or chance. 

The only really dangerous situation IMO is the risk of a low tee shot striking someone on a nearby green.  THe ball is travelling fast, there is little chance to forewarn and the players on the green are more likely to be distracted.

On all other occasions the planting of trees seperating holes is counter-productvie IMO, with the lack of vision more than compensating for the physical barrier.

In that way I don't think Mackenzie got it wrong. It is just a change in perception of what is safe.

BTW, you mention the changes at Royal Melbourne, they are somewhat the opposite.  To solve a boundary issue on the 17th Players are now encouraged to paly their tee shot towards the tee of 4W and their second towards the tee of 2W.  It does not seem to be an issue there. 

It is an interesting issue.  I have been surprised to see how much emphasis some architects give to safety and some don't.  With one in particular I can think of, it appears to be their primary design objective -many bunkers are placed primarily to keep players from hitting towards boundaries, neighbouring tees, etc.   The holes are often over bunkered with little strategy.  Conversely, there is one architect I can think of that is consitently in his redesign work pushing tees towards neighbouring greens if he thinks it helps the hole with the idea that good vision and playing procedures will fix everything.  No surprises for guessing his influences.

[TEPaul]

Safety Issues??? 

Does anyone know how many people have been killed on TOC in the last five hundred years?

No, I didn't think so! 

But I definitely don't want to see you lose your house, TomD.

[rchesnut]

For those who argue that trees cause greater safety concerns than fairways with no trees, there's this story from the Dallas Morning News:

Marshall Dies After Being Struck By Golf Ball
Sunday February 27, 2005
A golf course marshall in Arlington, Texas, died after being struck in the head by a golf ball. Deaths in this manner are exceedingly rare, but the sobering news brings up a very important point: Let's be careful out there.

The tools of our trade - metal clubs and hard spheres struck at great speeds - can do damage when they aren't handled properly. We can all use some reminders about golf course safety and golf etiquette. Our safety guidelines are especially good for beginners.

In the case in question, the longtime marshall ducked behind some trees off the fairway to watch the golfer on the tee box hit his drive. The ball ricocheted off those trees and struck the marshall in the head. He died the following day. This case is even more tragic, however, because of the identity of the man who hit the golf ball.

The marshall was 67-year-old Dale Parlin. His marshalling job at Lake Arlington Golf Course was one of his favorite things, according to family members.

Tragically, in addition to having to deal with the death of a family member, Parlin's loved ones must also come to grips with this fact: The man who hit the fatal shot was Parlin's 31-year-old son.

How afwul the younger Parlin must feel about this terrible accident. Our condolences go out to the family, and we hope that the younger Parlin finds a healthy way to deal with the terrible emotions he must be feeling right now.

Readers interested in viewing an article on the accident can do so in the Dallas Morning News (registration required).

[Tyler Kearns]

Meadow Club also has a spot (6, 13, 15) that seems tight even if the area was all fairway, but what a cool location.

Tom Paul, do you have a link or reference to this new USGA concept on trees?

Brad,

When I played Meadow Club in late 2007, there were no longer trees between the fairways of No. 13 & 15 between the tee and landing zone on 13. Trees had been planted in the past, but had been removed during the restoration of the course. I think being able to see the players coming down No. 15 makes for a safer situation, as both parties are aware of each other.

Jeff,

It is amazing how narrow that tee shot on No. 7 at Pasatiempo is.

David,

That was the exact strategy I used on No. 17 at Royal Melbourne East, in fact I played my second from No. 4 West tee!! Unfortunately, it was brought on by a "don't block it right out-of-bounds" swing thought. 

TK

[Neil_Crafter]

I think this letter will shed some light on Mackenzie's planning at Pasatiempo. The letter is from George Gibbs who was one of Olmsted Bros engineers (who worked on the design of the Pasatiempo estate and had first hand experience of working with Mackenzie) to Frederick Law Olmsted. I believe this letter was most probably written as a result of Augusta National checking out Mackenzie prior to engaging him. The letter has kindly come from Bob Beck at Pasa. Please discuss!

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

Someone wasn't following the rules of the road at Painswick.  On all those intersecting and jointly used fairways, the inbound group has the right of way.  If you were on #8 you should have been off to one side while the group on #9 played down the fairway.  Otherwise it really would be dangerous there. 

Bill

Great idea, but you can't see the folks on #9 tee.  Is one meant to stand aside from the moment the group ahead disappears?  I never shy away from blind holes, but in this instance it is a most ridiculous and dangerous use of blindness.  To cap it off, it isn't at all necessary as the hole is in no way better for it.  #9 could be a better hole as a par 4 with the tee moved forward, bring the cool swale area well short of the green in play off the drive.  The tee shot is a bit of waste of time as it is now.  The oob right causes folks to aim out left into what is essentially a field - causing great danger to the folks on #8.  Sorry Bill, I ain't buying the Painswick creed in this instance.  

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Ok, so Tom Doak won't let me redesign Pasatiempo ;-)

However, if Dr. Mac actually wanted the holes to share the fairway, then a significant redesign already took place

Put up a fence, folks. It doesn't have to go the length of the hole and it does not have to be very high. Depending on the actual situation on the ground, which I am not familiar with, it may be enough to put up the fence close to the green and, for that matter, hide it between the trees.

The only life-threatening ball is the one struck from close distance. You can still get hurt by a golf ball from 200 yards away, but that is an acceptable risk we all take every day on every course. Just make sure that at any place where shots are struck and other golfers pass close by there is visibility and/or a fence.

Ulrich

[Rich Goodale]

Well said, Ulrich.  Regardless of the future, the 7th tee/8th green proximity at Pasa was a routing conducive to tragedy from day one.

If avoiding the possibility of being hit by a golf ball was a de jure routing requirement, tghe great majority of golf courses in Scotland would have to either close down or be re-designed, starting with the Old Course.  Just thinking about the course I know the best, Dornoch, the following possibilities for mayhem exist:

Putting green--vulnerable to carved tee shots from the 1st of the Struie course
1st hole--very easy for a carved drive into the wind to land on the 18th green.  Sond shots to the 18th will often be played to the 1st fairway.
2nd hole--a long carved drive from the 18th tee can land on the 2nd tee
3rd hole--one must drive very close to the left edge of the 17th green, parfticularly if your shot of choice is a pronounced draw.  Fairway is vulnerable to people playing the 14th, if they have carved their drive and want the easiest route to their green.
4th hole--drives carved right will land in an area occasionally populated by people playing pitch shots to the 12th green.
5th hole--a drive to the 12th fairway can be a canny play, avoiding the gorse on the left and allowing a short iron into the slope of the green.
6th--shanks off the tee can and will land on the 11th green.  Second shots to the 11th can land in the easily found area to the left of the 6th green.
7th--splendid isolation and safety!
8th--carved drives to the right can find players from the 9th searching for their carved drives and vice versa
9th--see above
10th--another island of tranquility
11th--see 6th above
12th--carved drives can reach the 5th fairway.  Second shots off carved drives can be hit over 4th green.  Alos see 4th above
13th--tee shots have been known to land on the 14th tee.
14th--see 3rd above
15th--safe
16th--safe
17th--see 3rd above.  In addition, when downwind the 17th is driveable by big hitters, putting golfers on the 3rd tee in peril.
18th--balls from the 2nd tee have been known to cross the 18th fairway.  Otherwise, see 1st and 2nd above.

Nevertheless.......in the 31 years I have been visiting Dornoch I have never seen or even heard of any player having any sort of golf ball related injury (disregarding the myriad mental injuries inflicted).  Why?  Well, I think it is due to the facts that:

1.  The game is played quickly.  The more that you have players standing around--on the tee, fairway or green--the more likely that they will be hit by a golf ball.
2.  Players in Scotland are generally far more aware as to what the other players on the course are doing than are players in America.  They expect and revel in the propinquity of their courses, and tend to not expect the splendid isolation (the Pine Valley Syndrome) that affects far too many American courses.

I could say more, but I'm off to start a thread on Pine Valley......

[Jim Nugent]

If I understand Gibbs' letter, the engineers and/or others changed the order of the holes at Pasatiempo.  They also moved a number of tees and greens, so they could relocate the clubhouse. 

Does anyone know how Mackenzie originally routed Pasa?  Real interested to see the differences.  btw, Gibbs did not talk at all about safety issues at 6 and 7. 

I'm also curious to know where at CPC players might have to wait for the group ahead of them to clear two greens, before they can play.   In general, does  CPC have these same safety concerns? 

[Matthew Mollica]

but I would opine that MacKenzie's designs often failed to anticipate things that are today seen as safety issues.  Perhaps more specifically, he did not anticipate that his courses would have the level of play that they enjoy in the modern era, or he did not anticipate that litigiousness would strike the golf world.  Perhaps golf balls are more dangerous now due to modern equipment than they were back then.  For whatever reason, MacKenzie thought nothing of routing holes with tee shots over roads (Pasatiempo #2 and #10 each originally required shots over roads, and MacKenzie was said to have shrugged his shoulders when this was pointed out,  responding that the cars would simply have to wait).

Furthermore, Alister Mackenzie seems like the type of guy who didn't like to be told he shouldn't do something.

I think these two points sum it up in a nutshell.

his own home was built right along the stretch of #6 where errant 2nd shots must have often landed in his yard (or on his roof) with some regularity. 

I did exactly that during my solitary round at Pasa as a serial slicing 20-something year old, hooking a mid-iron from the left rough. Landing in MacKenzie's own back yard ranks among my proudest golfing moments. 

Matthew

[Rich Goodale]

Jim

I can't thnk of two greens at CPC delaying play in the modern sense, but if you think of "greens" in the olden sense, i.e. the entire golf hole (viz. "through the green" in the Rules), maybe some parts of 16-18 or 6-9 might fit the bill.

Rich

[brad_miller]

TP,

I have been fine, hopefully we can get together this spring down in the Philly area. Always on the lookout for all things related to trees!

Tyler,

Good to hear, Devries did mention to me that they planned on doing more tree work. Meadow Club is quite a setting.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Neil,

Thanks for posting this Olmsted letter. Fascinating, and relevant.

Interesting, too, that Meadow Club's been added to this list of Bay Area courses by Mackenzie which (reportedly) feature modern-day safety issues!

[Philip Spogard]

For those who haven't seen the holes recently - or at all - here is a photo from the 7th tee. Hole 6 is on the right side of the trees and hole 8 is below on the left.

Neil:
Thank you for posting the letter.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Great picture! It shows the fence to the left, where it is absolutely needed. I don't think that to the right there's any need for a fence, because only a shank with an iron could get there and that is not a lethal shot. Unless there is a back tee not visible in the picture.

Of course a sliced or hooked drive can land in any of the adjacent fairways, but again: I do not think that these are lethal shots. There could even be a debate if the hole were safer without the trees due to increased visibility.

Ulrich