#17/18 at Pasa--did the good Dr. lose count again?

[Richard_Goodale]

Playing the above mentioned holes recently I was struck at how medicore they were in relation to the previous 16, and also how glaring was the high fence that had been built to protect the back tees on 18 from the wayward drive off of 17.  Also, the green at 17 seems to be an afterthought, cut into the trees off to the left, disconnected from the fairway, with no real merit to it at all.  So I wondered.....

Were 17 and 18 originally planned by MacKenzie as ONE HOLE?  A really interesting par 4 1/2 a la the 13th and 15th at Augusta?  It would have been a fitting climax to a great course.  And, there is land, and even a green out between 13 and 14 that could have been a decent short hole to make up the numbers.

Or, did Dr. Mac just lose count, as he apparently did at U Mich, and have to make 2 holes out of one?  Or was he just a weak finisher (viz. Cypress and ANGC (9 or 18))?

Just wondering.....

[Mike O'Neill]

Ran,

I think we need a new smiley, one for blasphemy.   Maybe this "shocked" one with the addition of a body and the smiley clutching his/her heart.

Rich,

Just kidding.   But if you keep talking that nonsense about doing away with bunkers, I'm going to create that smiley!

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike

The bunkering on 17/18 Pasa is just fine!

I'd love to see a thread where people in the know like yourself try to argue out of the box on why bunkering is such a great design concept, but this thread ain't it.

Cheers

Rich

[Peter Galea]

And, there is land, and even a green out between 13 and 14 that could have been a decent short hole to make up the numbers.

And here it is. Playing 110 to 125 yards (guesstimate), just to the right of the 13th green finishing behind 14 tee.

[ed_getka]

Rich,
I've always felt #17 was a very bland hole especially at that point in the round. The only problem with the par 4 1/2 idea is that the second shot would cause the on course defibrillator to be in frequent use. I personally like #18 as a finishing hole where anything from 1   to 5+ is possible, especially for match play.

The other bland hole at Pasa is #12 IMO, what do you think they could do to improve that hole?

[Richard_Goodale]

Ed

You are right about the defibillator, but hey, if Pasa is the greatest back nine in the history of golf course architecture, as the good Doctor so modestly assures us that it is, why not go for the gusto and make it even greater!

I always thought 12 was pretty medicore too, but it seems to me that they've jazzed up the green complex a bit recently (Doak?).  If I were in charge I'd narrow that fairway by about 2/3, even though I failed to find its enormously ample width in my last attempt....

[Tom Doak]

I think MacKenzie worried a lot less about the "finishing holes" than most modern observers.  He always thought about match play, when those holes would only be played as part of the match about 50% of the time.  You could make the case that the climax of several of his courses was #16 -- including Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, and Augusta.

On top of that, I have no idea how one would have done the Pasatiempo routing differently to make better finishing holes.

Someone on another thread asked how we had done with the restoration of Pasatiempo, which is very much an ongoing process.  Understand that it's also a perfect example of the limits of restoration.  MacKenzie's original design was much more interesting than what's there today, but the holes were also too close together for modern play.  You can't restore one without the other, and since neither the club nor I wants to be sued, there are limits to what we'll restore.  But we will do more.

[brad_miller]

Tom and/or others, having not played PasaT in many years, was there not enough land to have given the playing corridors more width, particularly with the archie's of the "golden age" and their love of width. This also seems to be the case with Meadow Club, another Mackenzie course. Comments on others?

[ed_getka]

Tom,
Are there any plans to do any other work on #12? I don't really know the history of the hole, but I can't imagine it plays the way it was originally designed. The fairway is huge (not unusual for Mackenzie), but I haven't discerned any strategic purpose or preferred line into the hole. I'm curious what you think about the hole or what you would change if you were renovating the hole.

Rich,
  I certainly don't think Pasa's back nine is one of the best, due to the relative weakness of #12 &#17.

[redanman]

if Pasa is the greatest back nine in the history of golf course architecture, as the good Doctor so modestly assures us that it is



........uh, nah......






 I always thought 12 was pretty mediocre too

The hole is a classic.  Same principles as #4 Spyglass, #12 Pine Valley, etc.  Long and right is better than short and left, even if the trees weren't there.



Just on a note, just to prove how far out of the loop I really am   , I've never disliked #17 Pasa.  I think it is one of those holes that is hard to play and is condisered weak because it doesn't fit our eye.  It is like a fake before a jump shot in basketball, a misdirection. Throwing you off, that's what I've always thought.

[Richard_Goodale]

redanman

I stand slightly corrected in that what the Dr. actually said was "Many good golfers consider the second nine holes at Pasatiempo the finest in existence", and as we know he was not a good golfer could not, therefore, have been referring to himself.

The 17th is OK, but it would be more in place at Palo Alto Muni than at Pasa.  Comparing the 12th to the 4th at Spyglass?  I'm not gonna take that pump fake, because I know as soon as I jump you're going to try to spin past me and go for the hoop........

[Peter Galea]

When I first started playing Pasatiempo (1980) the swale, barranca, ditch around 12 green was not turfed to perfection. I seem to recall sparse, taller grass down the banks and water flowing, making it a real hazard. The preferred tee shot is not the shortest route to the hole (the left side sets up an oblique to the green), but rather a draw to the right side of the fairway from which you get a turbo boost and an ideal line to the green. I always liked the downhill respite after the two strong par fours. The green contours are interesting without being impossible. Do you think 11 & 12 play 4.5 & 3.5?

[Dan King]

I like the 17th more every time I play the course. And 12 isn't the best hole on the course, but I like the little break between 10/11 and 13/14. If you guys don't find 12 and 17 challenging enough just think of them as par-3s.  Then you'll find plenty of challenge.  Maybe it's a good thing I'm not as long as the two of you, 'cause I can still enjoy holes like 12 and 17.

Pasatiempo is a Charlie Parker album (current CD of choice, Yardbird Suite, damn fine stuff.) It has crecendos and decrecendos, changing dynamics.  You guys seem to see golf courses as collections of holes, Pop music.

I do think 12 would be a better hole the way it used to be, with the ditch in front of the green rougher. I'm assuming it was made easier to speed up play.

"When I composed that, I was conscious of being inspired by God Almighty. Do you think I can consider your puny little fiddle when he speaks to me?"
 --Ludwig van Beethoven (when a violinist complained that a passage was unplayable)

[ed_getka]

I don't have a problem with hitting a short iron into the those holes. I just find that they don't require me to consider much off the tee. What is it about #17 that you find interesting? I think the green is tricky to putt and has breaks that seem to absolutely defy gravity, but otherwise the hole seems to pale in comparison to the rest of the course is all I'm saying. Pasa is one of my favorite courses.

[Dan King]

On the tee you see all this room on the left side, but the objective is to be as close to the tree line on the right as possible, avoiding the fairway bunkers. From the right, close to the tree line you have a number of options into the green; hitting it short and letting it run up, hitting it into the mound left of the green hopeing it will pitch back onto the green,  or flying it into the left side of the green and watch it trickle right.

From the left side of the fairway, the choices are limited. Ideally you'd hit a right to left shot, letting it feed toward where the pin is cut. If you try to fly it in, the ball will kick hard right down the hill leaving a tough third. If you try hitting into the mounds on the left, the ball is going to to take a wild bounce and you could end up anywhere.

The green has a left to right slope, but there are plenty of other slopes on the green. It's a small, narrow green, but end up on the wrong side of it and you are going to have to make some damn good putts to two putt. If pitching, the right side of the green is the side to be coming from, but it will be a tough up and down. From back, left or long it will be a very rare up and down.

"We should, however, not forget that some Higher Power presides over links-land, and to those inclined to be critical that Power hands down an ultimatum much like this: 'There is the green which generation after generation have played. There are its pronounced slopes, its sharp ridges, its blind approach, and its other violations of your so-called sound principles. However lamentable all this may be, there it lies, and shall lie. Play it, or leave it, as you like.'"
 --Robert Hunter

[Peter Galea]

Dan, yesterday Vonnegut and Steinbeck as I asked. Today my beloved Ludwig Van. It's no wonder you're called "King."

[JakaB]

12 is just not that bad of a hole...a nice elevated tee shot of about 230 yds which absolutly needs to be on the right side of the fairway to have a good look at the flag....still have a nice 100 yd shot to a difficult green....you can make from 3 to 6 without much effort...what else is a good short par 4 spose to have.   Of course I can understand how a highly skilled player good make an easy time of it...but you just can't design away talent.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan

You know that I am on record as saying that there is no such thing as a "bad" golf hole.  All I am saying is that, IMO, Pasa would be a better course if the 17th green did not exist, the 18th were the killer par 4 1/2 that it could and should be, and either the short hole out between 13 and 14 were resurrected, or the course were reduced to 17 holes!

I posted this becuase I REALLY was wondering if Dr. Mac ever considered that 17/18 combo option, and did hope that folk like yourself who have read his stuff would let me know if that were the case.  If the answer is no, it is only a minor chink in his armor.....

[THuckaby2]

shivas:  I hate to kick a man while he's down, but front left is as "harder" pin on 17.... everything feeds to the right and a pin there would be pretty easy to get close to, and even at top speed, you wouldnt have a long putt from the fringe.

I too don't mind 17 as it is, and it grows on me, for exactly the reasons Dan states.

BUT... that isn't Rich's question and man, that is one HELL of a great idea to play from 17 tee to 18 green.  Next time I'm there late in the day or with no one around, I'm gonna try that... Seems to me it might be too far to think about getting the 2nd across the barranca.  Of course that could be solved by moving the tee up....

Pete also gives a pic of the hole that could be added to give a full 18.  Give that green some bunkers, or even better, raise it up to make more of a shelf-top, and you have a damn good "short" hole....

So Ok, I typically don't like to blaspheme against my golf god, but this is intriguing.  Hell of an idea, Rich.

Re 12, yes, it was a better hole before, when the low area in front of the green played as hazard.  I'd also have to guess that speeding up play is why they filled that in.  But it's not an easy hole for us non-Barney's anyway.... that's not the world's easiest tee shot - it requires some thought and funny, for 4 relatively low 'cappers, 3 of us missed it last week... and the green is another tough one, with a lot of slope and no easy up and downs.  No, that's no par 3.5...  It's a short hole, ye, but I'd never call it easy.  Same goes for 17 giving the hellaciously sloping green....

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

If 13.5 replaced 18 (which I think is an excellent hole), then you'd have two REALLY short par 3's on the back nine, which I think would detract from an otherwise great course.  Pasa would be thought less of, IMHO.

17 tee to 18 green does sound fun, though.  Just watch out for that fence guarding 18 tee.

[THuckaby2]

That thought had occurred to me, Scott.  I'm gonna disagree - if the new 13.5 is done well enough, the fact you have two short holes would just be seen as another sign of quirky brilliance.  Remember that the new 18 would have a chance to be a truly world-class hole... and Pasa is not ever going to be seen as a "long" course (though it sure does seem to play longer than its yardage) so another short hole to me would just seem to fit....

13.5 would have to be a darn great hole though to overcome this "oddity" in any case.  I think it would have a chance to be so....

This ain't ever gonna happen, but it's fun to imagine anyway.

TH

[Todd_Eckenrode]

One of the things I like so much about 17 is the 2nd shot and it's challenges.  The shot plays at least a club longer than normal because of the grade going up, and the fact that the ball's so far below your feet with the sideslope, makeing it hard to put a good aggressive swing on the ball.  Yet there's this intimidating canyon right behind the green, and off to the right for a back pin.  It's mentally very challenging to trust the fact that you know it plays long, yet to take enough club to do the task.  I've many times not been able to trust it, and come up well short.  

[Richard_Goodale]

Good points, Todd.  Since I played my second from the middle of the 10th fairway, my approach to the 17th might not have been exactly what the Doctor ordered........

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

When it was originally opened for play Pasatiempo had 7 par-5's, 6 par-4's and 5 par-3's. I'm not sure if MacKenzie would have been anxious to add a 8th par-5 and be left with only 5 par-4s.

I also think the proposed 18th would be an awkward golf hole for most golfers who would've been forced to layup, setting up fairly anti-climactic short lay up to a severe down slope, followed by a longish forced carry.  And many prudent golfers would be forced lay way back for fear of finding the slope down into the barranca. The hole would have only been interesting to a very few long hitters who could have thought about the green and thus avoided the odd layup. Would visibility have been a concern?

The 17th was the only true short par-4 less than 350 yards at 330. If many of the trees were removed and the barranca cleaned up (its been years since I've been out there), the hole would play more like it was originally intended. This may be a case where the liability concerns will not allow it.

I don't think there was sufficient room or natural attributes for an interesting par-3 between 13 and 14. It may have resulted in a log jam and bottle neck.

[Richard_Goodale]

So, Tom

Are you saying that Doc was designing holes for hackers like himself rather than for good players?  Surely he knew about th 8th at Pebble Beach, or even that hole across the ocean at that private course he designed nearby (Cypress Hills?  Cinnabar Point?) where Marion Hollins gave him a good shot of testosterone and allowed him to overcome his timorous instincts.  Only one without any imagination or architectural skill (both of which the Doc had) could fail to make a great golf hole out of 13.5 at Pasa. IMHO, of course.