Lets go cut down some trees!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

But wait a second! The fairway is too wide. We can't have the fairway that wide. It won't provide any challenge!

[larry_munger]

Tony, that hole looks to easy

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Looks like your teeing off from the edge of the earth.

[JakaB]

If we cut down the trees can we smoke em in the new half pipe bunker complex.

[NAF]

Tommy, How about getting rid of the trees on the first hole of that course two and taking out the range.  Also the trees on the third hole and restore the cross bunkers.. And while we are at it figure out a solution to the bowling alley 7th.  Man that picture of #10 makes me want to take Jet Blue to Oakland and drive down to Santa Cruz.

[ChipOat]

Tommy:

I know you were being facetious (spell?) but what better place than National to demonstrate that golf courses with wide fairways are plenty challenging if the green complexes are inspired in their design and execution.

Pine Valley's another good example.

[Todd_Joseph]

On a similar note,  I played Western Country Club, a Ross course, in suburban Detroit a few weeks ago.  Apparantly the entire area was hit hard with a disease that kills ash trees.   Western CC alone has cut down several hundred during the spring and summer and there are hundreds more that they are attempting to save.  Ironically, the ash were planted after the elm's were killed by Dutch elm disease in the 1950's.  

The course is set up in a floodplain surrounding a creek and both nines play out and back along the creek.  Previously, the creek was hidden by the trees, and while it did come into play on a stray shot, it didn't have a strong visual impact.   After the removal, the visual impact is much more pronounced, especially on several of the tee shots.    

[THuckaby2]

All sarcasm and smart-assedness aside....

I like the hole better as it is today.  Hear me out:

#10 at Pasa is a very tough golf hole.  It is meant to be that way.  It's not meant to be a mind game, it's meant to kick your ass sideways and tell you hey, the front nine was one thing but here we go and you're damn well gonna have to earn your score from this point on, bud.

One stands on that tee and knows that it's a very long hole with a very difficult green and very difficult green-side bunkers.  He knows he better hit a damn strong tee shot or a wood into that bitchly green will be his fate.

As it stands today, the trees on the right add to the tension.  On top of everything, the golfer is FORCED to hit a hook or he's in the trees, or if he can't produce the hook he has to leave it way far back.  Even for those comfortable with right to left, it still adds to the shot requirements.

Play it like it is in this pic, and it's just BLAST AWAY!  The tension on the tee shot is gone, there's no penalty no matter where you go, and in fact the prudent golfer just blasts it way right out into 17 fairway, because the best angle in would be from the far right.  Yes, he gives up a little distance in this, and forfeits the turbo boost a big draw gives him off the hill half-way down the hole, but he knows way right and 200 is better than way left and 150.

As it is today, the advantage of being right still exists, but the penalty for going too far right (leaving it in the trees) is severe.  So the choices are still there, but the tension is magnified.... Given the intent of the hole is to be a beast, I just don't see decreasing the tension being a good thing - on this golf hole, because of what it is meant to be.

So yes, in general, let's cut down some trees.  Hell yes, rid us of the driving range and the trees between 1 and 9.  Do something about 6 and 7.

But leave 10 as it is.... Remember also those trees effect 17 in a big way as well - a big positive way in my book.

TH

[Dan Grossman]

Some here might argue that the trees make Pasa a top 100 track since it adds challenge to the tee shots....

[THuckaby2]

redanman/Dan:

Seriously, you think #10 Pasa is a better hole without the trees?

Again, I am limiting this to this hole and this hole only, but my reasoning above is serious and I stand by it.  What flaws does this reasoning have?

TH

[Dan Grossman]

Tom -

I was just kidding...

I do agree with your assessment.  The way the hole is set up right now, it does require a well struck drive that is shaped from right to left to have anything other than 3-wood into that green.  In addition, knowing that you have to move the ball right to left (IMO) brings the Barranca on the left into play due to the possibility of a quick hook.  

You are correct, if the trees on the right were not there, I would just aim at that bunker and swing as hard as I could.  If it drew, great.  If not, I have a pretty easy shot into the green.  Not much interest there....

[THuckaby2]

DG:  whew!  I always figure anything I say here is on the borderline of sanity...

But that does make sense to me, just as you say.  Maybe that's not a good thing for you?  

TH

[T_MacWood]

One of the most dramatic natural hazards in golf obscured by trees--a total waste. The original tee was across the road...another sad development.

[Dan Grossman]

I do agree w/ Tom that all the trees IN the barranca should be removed.  Especially on #11.

[THuckaby2]

Gonna have to disagree re #10, redanman.  The hole just plain plays better with the trees than without.

The GENERAL principles you list are sound - just in the case of this one hole, they are trumped by the play aspects, and in any case really don't wash.

1. What, do you want a better vista toward the houses the far side of 17?  
2. Is the grass there somehow not doing well?  Nope, it's just fine.
3. Does the wind somehow get stronger absent those trees, given it's the HOUSES that are really doing the blocking?

You are wrong this time, my friend.  Oh, this is a very very rare occurrence, but this time you are dead wrong.

 

Now if you told me we could start over, no houses, base the design on that, they heck yeah, we don't plant any trees.  But that's not the issue here.....

TH
Pasa player since 1978 (ha!)

[Pete Lavallee]

This reminds me of the Rustic Canyon arguments: wide fairways, devoid of hazards, allow one to "blast away" and bring the course or one's opponent to his knee's. However I think that this type of extreme width was what allowed a shorter more accurate hitter to actually gain an advantage on his long hitting opponent. The ability to specifically place your tee shot in such a wide expance is very difficult for the long hitter, it gives the shorter player a small but distinct advatage in gaining the best angle to the green for his second. True, the better angle has probably lost some of its' relevance with the distance gap between long and short knokers today. You might be able to knock one on the green if you aimed for the bunker between 10 & 17, even if it leaked more to the right. But it does provide some sort of strategy on the tee. Today it's like Tom H says: hit a draw or lay back so as not to go into the tree line on the right. I'de prefer to choose my own route (and fate) rather than have it dictated to me by someone other than the Good Dr.

[NAF]

Huck-the second time I am going to disagree with you in 2 days..I have played Pasa about 6 times now which pales with your comparison of playing it for 25 years and since I usually work the ball right to left #10 plays into my hands.  But I gotta think Dr. Mac designed it not to have those trees there. If the tee was across the road the hole would have played as a par 5 if I am right and if we had the tee back there today it would be one heck of a par 4.  If the tee was back there bombing it without abandon would be rendered irrelevant.  But if we removed those trees and put people in 17 at a bit of risk I still wouldn't bomb with abandon.  If drove for example into 17 fairway, there would still have a sloping lie with a long iron to the 10th green.. the hazard left of the green becomes a lot scarier to me then. Maybe I'm wrong here but just my opinion.  I'd rather try and work the draw around the barranca.  That is the "Lindbergh Thrill" of that hole.

[Rick Shefchik]

If any trees need to go at Pasa, they would be the claustrophic pines that make #7 more akin to a bowling alley than a golf hole. I realize the problem -- there's not enough room between #6 and #8. I wonder if the good Dr. ever felt somewhat guilty about living in a house whose backyard was less than a full pitching wedge from a fairway two holes over.

[THuckaby2]

Pete:

The links to the Rustic Canyon arguments were wholly intentional, rest assured.  Just not by me.  Good lord do I not want to cross that bridge again!

In any case I disagree with how you see #10 at Pasa.  I don't get the logic of unlimited width on this hole somehow allowing the shorter hitter to think his way to equity with the longer.  To me, absent the trees the longer hitter has NO PENALTY and thus can yes, BLAST AWAY, with no tension, no fear.  If he goes right, who cares?  That's a fine angle in anyway.  If he goes left, who cares?  He gets a lot more roll and his advantage over the short knocker is just magnified.

Ahhh, but put the trees in, and he has to think... he has to hit a draw, and that brings all sorts of negative possibilities... The short knocker gains more advantage this way, cuz he just puts it out there and accepts his fate, trying to stay left if he can to gain some yards, or trying to go right to improve the angle... The long hitter has the same choices, but his penalties are potentially more severe, as they should be....

Oh, I'm all for architects dictating strategy and hey, in general I hate trees.  Remember where I just played 15 rounds of golf.

Just this one particular hole, the general arguments don't wash.  It's better with the trees.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Noel:

Agree to disagree, 2nd time in two days.  No hassles.  I can't say any more than I have already re how I think it plays better with the trees.

And you know what?  The bottom line on "intent" on this hole is that assuming you can't put the tee where the clubhouse now is (which I gather was the original intent, making it a par 5, playing farther right and sharing the fairway with 17), then the intent as a par 4 is to be a bitch of a hole... so I'm guessing the Good Doctor has no problem with the addition of those trees, for the reasons I've stated already.

But yes, once again, this applies to this area and this area only... remember they also improve the play on 17, at least in my mind....

Hell yes, chop down all the rest on the entire course, I'm all for that.

Just leave these as they are.  Two golf holes are better for them.

TH

[T_MacWood]

The hole originally played to 495 yards...about 50 yards longer. A thrilling risk reward par-5 with numerous options.

[THuckaby2]

Tom M:

Yes, I know.

But once the clubhouse was built, that all went away,  There is nowhere to put the tee 50 yards back today unless you want to hit from the clubhouse roof.

Oh yes, if we magically could have that tee, then the hole would then be better without trees, because it would make for more options and just more playability to leave more room to the right.  The hole changes from a brutish par 4 to a thinking man's par 5. It screws up 17 as the fairways are shared, but heck, that works at TOC, so we can make it work here.

Unfortunately, such magic is never going to happen - the clubhouse ain't going away.

BUT... cutting down trees is something that feasibly COULD be done, thus this discussion.  I'm sure the homeowners to the far side of 17 would love it, it would improve their views.  But for golfers playing both 10 and 17, each hole is better with the trees, using tees that are doable today.

TH

[Jim Franklin]

Get rid of the houses at Pasa and you'll have a course. I felt there were way too many houses which made the course feel like it was shoehorned in between. I thought the trees on the right of 10 were good, get rid of the ones on the left, but I guess they protect the houses somewhat.

[THuckaby2]

I'm with ya Mr. Hurricane - the houses crunching in are the one big weakness of Pasa.  But alas and alack, this was designed as a very early golf/home development... the houses were always gonna be there.

Oh well.....

TH

[Mike Benham]

Today it's like Tom H says: hit a draw or lay back so as not to go into the tree line on the right. I'de prefer to choose my own route (and fate) rather than have it dictated to me by someone other than the Good Dr.

As I type this, I am a scant 3 miles from the first tee at Pasa.  I disagree with the notion that you hit a draw or lay back to avoid the treeline on the right ... 450 uphill makes the treeline a long way away ... and a draw off the tee down the left side will leave you a hanging lie ...

Prior to the redesign of the hole, I felt the eucylyptus trees 75-100 yards short of the green dictated that the tee shot be left of center.  Now, a tee ball that is just inside the right rough rewards you with the flatest lie to hit your second shot ...