Lets go cut down some trees!

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

Muchas gracias for the perfect description of the reality of the #10 tee shot for us mortals.  Hell yes, reaching the top of the hill and finding the fairway is a damn fine achievement for nearly everyone.  I know I am always very happy when I achieve that....

Then I realize I still have somewhere from 190-230 into that bitch of a green!

And you know I am ALWAYS as pumped as you when the golf gods allow me another crack at Pasa.  All this talk makes me want to go again right now... In fact I have some visitors coming next Friday and though they are balking at the cost (had to throw that in) I may have to convince them they only live once and one cannot put a price tag on a good time.

Now what to tell my wife as $150 more gets spent on golf...  

TH

[Mike Benham]

I hate to interrupt this lovefest, but ...

For the benefit of those of us who have played Pasatiempo since ... NEVER: Does anyone have a current-day picture of the tee shot at 10?

Dan - good point !  Someone find a photo ...

For those that have played Pasa, we might be forgetting the fact that it is not a short hole and, Jeff Fortson aside, blowing it over the tree on the left is not an option, therefore leaving anything but a short iron approach.

Also remember that if you go down the left side, it almost guarantees a non-level lie which brings ALL of the bunkers short of the green into play.

I do not believe that the tee shot is that scary, however, for those that have frequented the Santa Cruz area, we must remember the Mystery Spot.  It is the Mystery Spot the pushes your tee shot right and Pasa's proximity to the Mystery Spot also explains the develish slope to the 17th green ...  

http://www.mysteryspot.com/

[DMoriarty]

Again from Carlyle Rood's website, www.golfarch.com.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Images courtesy of Mark Rolinson and Dan Kelly




I'm leaving that one a little extra sized as it is close to the same perspecitive and view as the original. I had heard they did a ot of work on the ravine. I didn't think they meant planting. I don't like that at all. I like the much more ruggedharacter of the ravine, showing its lines. This looks like Princeville. CHANGE IT BACK!!!

[Neal_Meagher]

Great job on the pics Tommy.  Just one thing to consider in regard to the plantings in the ravines.

I agree that the scarfed-out look of the early days was great and certainly put a bad thought into one's head immediately about what would happen to a less than stellar effort from the tee.

But, do think about what role those grasses and other scrub have played over the years in keeping the ravine more or less in the same place.  In other words, they have staved off further erosion which would have eaten too far into the fairway.  In my humble opinion.

[DMoriarty]

Good point Neal.  I was somewhat surprised to see that the edge looks to be about the same shape as it was long ago.  But couldnt they have planted lower plants, or would that have meant shorter and less complex root systems and less support?  

[Neal_Meagher]

David,

At the least, they should embark upon a program to rid the entire place of the non-native and invasive pampas grass (cortaderia selloana) that you can see in these pictures.

With those gone, they can let the native shrubs that are adapted to that part of the coastal climate take over, probably with a helping hand.  And, yes, they could feature some of the smaller varieties of say, manzanita and baccharis, toward the top with the larger material farther down.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You guys have seemed to address it before I got to it. I think the edge has remarkably held up all of these years, and it is probably due to the fauna and native that was there before. The Pampas grasses though seem a bit too extreme for my pallete.

[Tim_Weiman]

Gentlemen:

Tommy Naccarato suggested I check out this thread and I’m thankful for the suggestion. I can’t recall reading many better. Focus pleasantly remained on the architectural aspects of Pasatiempo’s 10th hole. The competing views were well articulated. The history of the hole was covered. Even better, pictures were provided to illustrate what each side was trying to say, including pictures from Mackenzie’s day and today. This is GCA at its best, I think. To those who have contributed, I offer my compliments.

Anyway, it has been more than ten years since I played Pasatiempo a few times, but I will weigh in on the golf hole being better without the trees. From what I’ve observed, only a very small percentage of golfers can hit long tee shots and control ball direction (no more than ten percent). Thus, I’m inclined to ask what is really gained by dictating the line of play. Does the added “tension” create more or less overall pleasure for everyone playing the course? I can’t help but think the answer is less. The hole would still be a “brute” for the vast majority without the trees and they really don’t impact the very best players like a Jeff Fortson.

Again, I compliment everyone for an excellent thread.

 

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

There is great validity to your point... I'd still just disagree in that absent the trees, the high capper could then just go WAY right, making a ho-hum shot out of one that ought to have his knees quaking.  I know, this flies right in the face of MacKenzie's general principle, but on this golf hole, I still maintain it works better as a killer with less options, for all the reasons I've said many times above.  This golf hole is the exception to the MacKenzie rule, whether he likes it or not, whether he intended it or not.

This also begs the question of the safety of players on 18 tee and all of 17....

But even taking that trump card out of the question, still, I want players quaking on that tee, not thinking about options.  There is plenty of that in the rest of the golf course...

Of course in general I am completely wrong, options are better.  Just remember my views are re #10 alone, just this hole, which I believe works better as a ball-buster in a course otherwise filled with strategy and options.

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  

During your recent trip to Scotland, did you see many holes that could have been improved by adding a row of trees to make the tee shot a knee-quaking ball-buster?   Which holes?  

Any other MacKenzie holes at Pasa or elsewhere that need some more trees to pump up the volume for the tee shot?  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Yes, David, let's go plant a row of trees between the parallel holes along the out and back part of TOC, so no one has the option of going down the parallel holes to get an easier/perhaps non-blind shot in.

Van de Velde must have seen an imaginary row of trees to the right of #18 at Carnoustie, preventing him from pulling off the ever-so-easy 6-iron to parallel (and wider) fairway, 6-iron back to 18 fairway short of burn fronting 18 green, pitch to green, 2-putt bogey, 2-shot win.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Re Scotland, that's a silly question and you know it.  The holes that require such have plenty of ball-busting hazards in the way of rough, bunkers, gorse, bracken, etc.

Re Pasa, nope, the rest of the course could use some good saw work.  As I've said MANY times on this thread, my thoughts here apply only to #10.  Can't think of any other holes that would benefit from some more tension, either by trees or something else either... But I really haven't given this much thought.

I am very generally anti-trees, as I have also said many times on this thread.  I shall keep a good humor here because I sure as hell do want to continue to get plaudits from Tim W. but these questions do make such difficult!  

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Not to set myself up as judge and jury, but I don't mind saying that if we could have more threads like this I'd be happy to hand out more compliments. No, I'd be delighted!

Over the years I don't recall many threads ever changing people's minds on anything. But, that is not important. What matters is that people who haven't played the course can follow the discussion and understand what either side is saying.

If I had to really nit pic, it would not be with the logic anyone has used to advance their perspective. Rather, I would question the photographic evidence presented - even while thanking and crediting the contributors. Why? Because it seems to me there are two perspectives not captured:

1. How difficult is it to hit the fairway (say 270 ish out)?

2. What would a shot from well right look like, especially thinking about the ability of high handicappers to control direction on shots over 200 yards?

Wouldn't it be nice if our photographic documentation could shed more light on these questions?

[Mike Benham]

Tim,

From the Pasa website ... "A dog-leg par 4, the 10th hole features a series of intimidating but conquerable ravines.  The drive must carry approximately 189 yards to clear the first barranca, leaving a second shot that should be played using a three-wood or two-iron.  The second shot is downhill to a sloping fairway and must be accurate - right, left and short all add up to extra strokes.  A new trap complex has been recently added to the left side of the fairway in front of the green as part of the MacKenzie restoration project."

Obviously, a 270 yard drive with a slight draw would be perfect.  You used the term high handicapper for Q2 so I don't think you expect a high handicapper to hit a 270 yard drive.  

The 3 big trees on the right center of the photograph are out there aways.  I would bet that for the mid to high handicapper, they wouldn't be able to reach them so the issue of the trees effecting the tee shot is moot.  In other words, the tree line on the right is not in play on the tee shot for mid to high handicappers.  Realistically, this is a 3-shot hole for these guys because if they can't hit their drive 230 down the pipe, they aren't going to hit a 3-wood 220 onto the green.  The fear for these guys is hitting uphill over the barranca ...

Those trees will effect the long driver or low handicapper who is trying to shape a draw and hits a push fade (Huckaby for example ...).  From the top of the hill just short of those same 3 trees is still +200 from the green ... and on the second shot, with the desire to go right to the left onto the green, the trees on the right will effect your angle of play, and putting the bunkers front left into play.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Benham:

Thanks. Your comments help paint the picture for different classes of players. My impression is that we don't do that enough.

I wish I could remeber the hole better......or better yet have a chance to play it again before long.

[DMoriarty]

Tom, I am sorry if my question shook your usually solid state of good humor.   I agree that planting trees on a course such as TOC is a silly, silly thing to contemplate.  But please humor me and my question for few paragraphs and I will eventually get to a point, I hope.  

If we are going to be silly we might just as well be really silly:  Would trees on the left side of TOC 17 make the drive more of a knee-knocking-ball-breaker, thus increasing the shot value of the drive?  I mean, this is supposed to be one of the hardest long par 4s in the universe.  Why give the golfer a break by allowing him to bail out left and still have a remote chance (however slight) of still being able to reach the green?

Pretty silly, yes?  But let's try to think of the Road Hole in a vacuum.   Forget about the style and continuity of the rest of the course.  Forget the history and the aura of the course and hole.  Forget about whether Old Tom, Allan Roberston, or Mother Nature herself ever contemplated trees on the left side of the road hole.  Just pretend that it is a nameless golf hole without a history or a pedigree.   Wouldnt the tee shot be more demanding with trees left?

Isnt this how you are thinking about Pasa 10?  

-- You acknowledge that the hole as you prefer it "flies in the face" of MacKenzie's general principles.  
-- You acknowledge that rest of the course is about options and choices, but insist that this one should have less options and more demand off the tee.  (even though without the trees the hole would play as a long par 4, tee shot uphill over a baranca, doglegging left with trouble up most of the left side.  
-- You don't give a damn what MacKenzie would want, or even if he would like the hole with the trees (". . . whether he likes it or not, whether he intended it or not.")  
-- For you on this hole, more demanding tee shot equals better hole, and the rest does not matter.  

Is it really a good idea for you to ignore the context when analyzing this (or any other) golf hole?    

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Yes, it is a good idea, for this hole and this hole only.  Because in the end, the very bottom line, is that the hole plays better and safer with the trees, especially in today's reality.  


End of story, no more really need be said.  And although you keep trying to broaden this out to some general golf principle for me ("this (or any other) golf hole") I keep telling you, my thoughtgs here apply to THIS HOLE ONLY.  Maybe the caps will get it through this time.  I absolutely agree that the architect's context - IN GENERAL - holds great weight. We just have here a SINGLE example where the hole plays better today than how MacKenzie intended it in 1930.  

Or at least that's my opinion, for better or for worse.

Thus there truly is no need to take this to the silly extremes you list.  But that was interesting reading!

Tim W:  Mike B. described the tee shot issues perfectly, which is no surprise given he too has played the golf hole many times.  In any case, I have nothing to add to his words.  Re the rest, thanks for the counsel... You're right, opinions don't get changed here, as Dave and I are surely proving!  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Ha!  I stand firm and proud.  I said in the beginning #10 plays better with trees, keeping this only to that golf hole, and I say the same thing now.  I also have always dearly loved Pasa, however much I give crap to it in forums such as these.  It's the problem of the reader if they don't know my every assumption.    

No waffling, not this time anyway.  But I haven't had any breakfast and that does sound good....

 

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Safety?  I thought we were setting safety concerns aside for the purpose of this hypothetical discussion.

Yes, it is a good idea, for this hole and this hole only.  Because in the end, the very bottom line, is that the hole plays better and safer with the trees, especially in today's reality . . . I keep telling you, my thoughtgs here apply to THIS HOLE ONLY.  Maybe the caps will get it through this time.  We just have here a SINGLE example where the hole plays better today than how MacKenzie intended it in 1930.  

Or at least that's my opinion, for better or for worse.

Tom, I do undertand that your analysis applies to THIS HOLE ONLY.   I think I have understood it from the beginning.  You've gotten through to me.  In fact, it is your examining THIS HOLE ONLY that concerns me.  I think that this is the wrong way to examine golf course architecture.  Even for one hole.  

Let me try it another way:

What is your criteria for deciding to deviate from general principles for a hole?  

In other words, when is it okay to ignore general principles, history, and the words, intent, and tastes of one of the great architects?

[THuckaby2]

Dave:  gotcha.  Simple answer.  It's ok to deviate when the hole plays better.  That's it, no more, no less.  And no, I don't go around examining every golf hole in this light, I just play the game.  #10 Pasa was put up for examination, thus my take.

Isn't it ok to look at each golf hole/golf course as a unique entity?  See, I'm thinking that Pasa #10 fits in as today's brute even in the overall context of the course, because so many other holes are more for the "thinking man"... is a bit of contrast such a bad thing?

TH

ps - I had to throw in the safety issue because it is such a trump card for me.  Come on, give me some kudoes for resisting this long!  

[DMoriarty]

Isn't it ok to look at each golf hole/golf course as a unique entity?  See, I'm thinking that Pasa #10 fits in as today's brute even in the overall context of the course, because so many other holes are more for the "thinking man"... is a bit of contrast such a bad thing?

No it is not okay.  Yes it is a very bad thing.   It is this methodology that has lead to the corruption of many a coherent design by able architects.  Some green committee member says "to hell with the general themes of the course, and to hell with the architect's intent.  I can make this hole better (in my opinion) if I just [add, subtract, grow, cut, smooth, narrow, widen, flatten, etc.] this one part.  

The pros who want to drastically soften the road hole bunker, don't you think they think it would make the hole better?

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

The problem with all of your reasoning is that bottom line, one way or the other, none of this changes the fact that Pasa #10 still plays way better with the trees.

And again, remember, as I have said many times, I am dealing with today's reality.  If you ask me if those trees should ever have been planted, then obviously my answer is NO.  See, I agree with your general principle.  But taking this as a given, understanding that the trees aren't going to be cut down, then we deal with what's there, and well... As bad as the principle may be, if it works better today, it works better today.

And it does, bottom line.

So taking this any farther than just this golf hole, well hell I'm always going to agree with you....

So what's the problem, my friend?

TH

[DMoriarty]

I've laid off this thread for the most part, because I agree with the general principle.  That said, I agree with Huck that the hole plays better with the trees.  For the long hitter, thos trees on the right are very much in play.  I've dumped my drive right into the heart of them all but one time I've played the hole, for example (the other time, I hit a perfect draw and had about 110 in, a perfect reward for a very nice drive).  If those trees to the right weren't there, the long hitter wouldn't be forced to go over or hit a draw around the trees on the left.  The long hitter would bail right and have the EASIER shot, IMO.  If there were no trees anywhere on the right, and you asked me to walk a ball out to anywhere at around 170 or so (or 150 or 130, it doesnt' really matter), I'd want the angle from the right.  The left is guarded and the green slopes like crazy both in the back and front on that side.  

Now, as to the shorter hitter, the trees aren't really in play. Thus, his strategic options aren't limited.  He can play right or left and not really have a problem.  Left merely gives him the ability, with a perfect drive, to reach the green.  From the right, he probably can't get there anyway, even if the trees aren't there, because he's hitting into an upslope, and he will have made the hole longer and not gotten any roll.  So what's the issue?  I don't see one.

Dave, dare I say that missing right of the current trees would leave quite a bit further in than 130, 150, or even 170-- even for a big hitter like you.  Think "the shortest distance between two points . . .."   Would you really rather aim right to 200-220 than try to hit a draw to 110?   Remember, we are talking about right of the trees, not right side of the fairway.  Have you ever hit a mid to long iron into this green from right of the trees?  I can't imagine that it is easy to stop the ball, especially given the slope of the green which, if I recall, also generally runs right to left.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  the problems are twofold, at least.

First,  it is very debatable proposition that the hole is "better" without the trees.  In fact, I think it worse.  Perhaps a field trip might convince me otherwise, but given my views about architecture, I doubt it.  

Second, the idea of considering whether a hole is "better" without considering the context of the hole and how it relates to the rest of the course is repugnant to me.  

Tom, you are starting to jut in and out "today's reality."  I thought we were having a theoretical discussion about whether the trees improve the hole.  A decision between whether the hole is better now, or then. I didnt think we were discussing safety or the current reality.  Saying it is better now because now it has trees and they arent going anywhere is kind of circular and irrelevant, don't you think?