16th at Pasatiempo

[Joey Chase]

I recently played Pasatiempo for the first time and really enjoyed most of the course.  I found it a bit confined in a few places, namely the 6th and 7th.  I loved the 8th green there and how much variety could be seen with regards to recoveries.  It was a really cool hole that was fun for all of our group.  

My real question is in regards to the 16th green.  I understand it is a shortish par 4, but is the green too severe for modern green speeds?  I understand that this opinion may be blasphemy in present company but would the good doctor have built such a severe green if he knew how it would play now?  

My opinion is that it is great in a one off way similar to the 9th at Yale or the 12th at GCGC.  Meaning, if there was more than one green on that course so severe, it would be maybe too much.  

[David_Elvins]

Joey,

There's some good stuff in this thread

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34567.0.html

[Joel_Stewart]

Joey. 

If you search function you'll around 150 threads that reference Pasatiempo including a 2008 thread with the exact same title as yours.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34567.0.html

[Tyler Kearns]

Joey,

I would venture to guess that nearly every green at Pasatiempo has too much slope for modern green speeds (10+), especially for your typical golfer.  I know Tom Doak has softened the contours at No. 11 and likely a few others, and while I'm positive the work was done well & in keeping with the spirit of Mackenzie, it seems like raising the mowers slightly would be more beneficial to the turf & the bottom line.

Those greens in Santa Cruz are steep and were recently digitally mapped;

http://www.pasatiempomaintenance.blogspot.kr/2014/11/digital-maps_3.html

TK

[Joey Chase]

Joey,

I would venture to guess that nearly every green at Pasatiempo has too much slope for modern green speeds (10+), especially for your typical golfer.  I know Tom Doak has softened the contours at No. 11 and likely a few others, and while I'm positive the work was done well & in keeping with the spirit of Mackenzie, it seems like raising the mowers slightly would be more beneficial to the turf & the bottom line.

Those greens in Santa Cruz are steep and were recently digitally mapped;

http://www.pasatiempomaintenance.blogspot.kr/2014/11/digital-maps_3.html

TK


David and Joel, thank you for threads that I already saw and wanted to freshen up.

Thank you Tyler for adding to the discussion.  I agree that the greens at a place like Pasatiempo, it would only benefit both that course and the golfers that play it if they were maintained at proper speeds.  Cool stuff, the 16th green is almost unpin-able on more than 50% of the green!  This is at the heart of my question, is it really too severe?   

David and Joel, thanks for the thread link.  I did see it, thank you.

Thank you Tyler for adding to the discussion.  I agree that the greens at a place like Pasatiempo, it would only benefit both that course and the golfers that play it if they were maintained at proper speeds.  Cool stuff on those maps! The 16th green is almost unpin-able on more than 50% of the green!  This is at the heart of my question, is it really too severe?   

[Pete_Pittock]

Joey,
I'm going to guess that Renaissance Golf didn't think so when they reworked the course  few years ago.  Also, it depends on who is in charge of deciding "proper green speed".

[Joey Chase]

Pete,

Just because Renaissance decided not to touch it, does that make any less severe?  Like I said, I loved it so I hope it's not taken as a slight by anyone here.  

[Mark Fedeli]

16 is one of the more dramatic greens on the course, but there are more benign-seeming greens like 11 and 13 that can get a bit crazy even with relatively safe pin positions. Then you have 3, 5, 18... that digital map of 18 is incredible. Most of the challenge on those greens can be mitigated by staying below the hole, but 16 can be a wild ride regardless where you place your shot. Personally, I thought they had green speeds right up to the max and enjoyed the challenge they added to an otherwise short and straightforward course. 18 was the only green, with the pin front right, that I thought may have gotten too extreme.

Where was the flag on 16 when you played?

[Jon Wiggett]

Joey,

the ultimate aim of a good green keeper should be to present the most interesting golfing experience to the golfer. Is it really that the green slopes are too severe or that the speed is actually OTT.

I have never understood the argument that green speeds are to slow and need to be quicker in order to be challenging but then that the green at the new faster speed is to severe and so must be flattened at great expense to return it to the original level of challenge.

The wise golfer would not question the contours of the green but rather the speed.

Jon

[Joey Chase]

Mark,

The pin was in the middle tier and my wife went up and down a few times trying to settle on that level.  So playable for all levels of golfer could be questioned there.  That green is the only one so severe on the course.

Jon,

I understand what you're saying and agree.  I think it is easy for us to say the green speeds are too fast for the contours on older golden age courses.  Had renaissance changed that green, they would likely be chastised by some.  If the green keeper slows down the greens speed he is the goat.  It is a bit of a no win. 

What if it was RTJ that had designed that green, would the group think be less receptive?

[Steve_Lovett]

I played Pasatiempo once - maybe six years ago. The hole was cut in the middle of the 16th green. I hit a routine drive to the fairway, a short iron to the middle of the green just a bit left of the hole, and two-putted. It was the scariest routine par I can recall and I was struck by how totally out of control the ball could've gotten had I been in the wrong place.

[Tim_Weiman]

Joey,

I know there have been greens softened at certain well known, old classic course, e.g., Pine Valley. But, generally speaking I am against it. Once the contour is lost it will likely never return. Would much rather adjust green speed.

[JC Urbina]

Tim,

The 16th green at Pasatiempo has been evolving and softening since 1929.  I have ground photographs of Marion Hollins in the 1930's standing on the green wth Glenna Collett and you clearly see the swales were pronounced, more then they are today.  I may have mentioned this on previous threads, the swales in between the ridges were much deeper.  This would allow for the ball to stop in the different tiers rather then potentially rolling all the way from top to bottom.

When I expnaded the green out to its current size the green got a few more pin placements but if the swales had not been softened the green would be  even more receptive.  I agree with you on several points, mostly that once a contour is lost it is not likley to return, this softening has worked in reverse in this case.  It is a common occurance on greens in general.



Hope to catch up with you this year.

[Joey Chase]

Jim,

Is the softening of the green mainly a result of topdressing over time? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree that the greens at a place like Pasatiempo, it would only benefit both that course and the golfers that play it if they were maintained at proper speeds. 

The greens were very fast on the times that I played the course

Cool stuff, the 16th green is almost unpin-able on more than 50% of the green! 

I disagree.
You can't forget that the green is huge
Every tier is pinnable.
The challenge is to be on or below the tier where the hole is cut.
I believe that MacKenzie declared # 16 to be his finest par 4.


This is at the heart of my question, is it really too severe?   

Not at all.
The 16th green is a good example of the "greens within greens" concept.
It's a very large green with multiple tiers that require a precise approach.
It's not an overly long hole and many lay up off the tee, so I don't see the multiple tiers as an excessive challenge.

The "turbo boost" in the fairway also helps shorten the second shot.

Approach shots hit short have no problem putting up to the next level.
Approach shots hit long are punished as they should be, especially given the size of the green.

As to severity, a good number of greens at Pasatiempo have a good degree of slope, especially when you get above the hole.
Holes like 3, 5, 11 and 18 have what could be considered severe slope.
Holes like 2, 8, 9, 10 and 15 have some challenging slope.

[Jim Hoak]

I am a big fan of Pasatiempo, and I agree that 6-7 are the weak holes.  But I'd throw in the green on #8 as unreasonable in certain locations and fast green speeds.  #16 green can be unreasonably tough, but so can #8.  I've played it where it was impossible to get within 20 feet of the hole no matter where you putted it, unless you were putting straight uphill.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

# 2, 5, 10, 11 and 18 aren't duck soup either.

But, with temperatures at 3 degrees in NJ last week, I'm up for any challenge where you need sunblock

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

The 16th green at Pasatiempo has been evolving and softening since 1929.  I have ground photographs of Marion Hollins in the 1930's standing on the green wth Glenna Collett and you clearly see the swales were pronounced, more then they are today.  I may have mentioned this on previous threads, the swales in between the ridges were much deeper.  This would allow for the ball to stop in the different tiers rather then potentially rolling all the way from top to bottom.

When I expnaded the green out to its current size the green got a few more pin placements but if the swales had not been softened the green would be  even more receptive.  I agree with you on several points, mostly that once a contour is lost it is not likley to return, this softening has worked in reverse in this case.  It is a common occurance on greens in general.



Hope to catch up with you this year.

Jim,

It has been a long time since I played Pasatiempo - almost 25 years. So, it is especially nice to hear from someone truly familiar with the history and how this green has evolved.

Glad you mentioned Marion Hollins. A special lady in the history of golf course architecture.

[Tyler Kearns]

Cool stuff, the 16th green is almost unpin-able on more than 50% of the green! 

I disagree.
You can't forget that the green is huge
Every tier is pinnable.
The challenge is to be on or below the tier where the hole is cut.
I believe that MacKenzie declared # 16 to be his finest par 4.

Pat,

The facts derived from a digital mapping of #16 green at Pasatiempo confirm that the green is indeed very large, measuring 9,011 sq. ft., however the green has tremendous slope and limited pinnable area.  I know they keep the greens fast at Pasatiempo, although I'm not sure the exact target measurements they strive to achieve.

Using a USGA study of green speeds & slope (http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2008/080721.pdf), to support pins on 2.5% slopes, green speeds need to be slightly less than 9 on the stimpmeter.  That leaves a maximum of 2,302 sq. ft. of pinnable area for this green, however to achieve that maximum, a minimum of 3 feet surrounding the hole must have a consistent slope, no greater.

Green speeds of 10 or greater eliminate all slopes of 3% for use as hole locations.

Green speeds of 11 eliminate pins of slopes between 2 - 2.5%, reducing the pinnable area for #16 Pasateimpo to a mere 1,600 sq. ft., the vast majority of which is located on the back, top tier. 



TK

[Bill_McBride]

I am a big fan of Pasatiempo, and I agree that 6-7 are the weak holes.  But I'd throw in the green on #8 as unreasonable in certain locations and fast green speeds.  #16 green can be unreasonably tough, but so can #8.  I've played it where it was impossible to get within 20 feet of the hole no matter where you putted it, unless you were putting straight uphill.

Architect Neal Meagher brought his slope measuring device in 2004 and measured the front part of #8 green at 6-8%.  Unpinnable. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Tyler:

Wow. To a lay person, golf architecture junkie, your post has to be one of the most informative I have seen on this website.

[Joey Chase]

Cool stuff, the 16th green is almost unpin-able on more than 50% of the green!  

I disagree.
You can't forget that the green is huge
Every tier is pinnable.
The challenge is to be on or below the tier where the hole is cut.
I believe that MacKenzie declared # 16 to be his finest par 4.

Pat,

The facts derived from a digital mapping of #16 green at Pasatiempo confirm that the green is indeed very large, measuring 9,011 sq. ft., however the green has tremendous slope and limited pinnable area.  I know they keep the greens fast at Pasatiempo, although I'm not sure the exact target measurements they strive to achieve.

Using a USGA study of green speeds & slope (http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2008/080721.pdf), to support pins on 2.5% slopes, green speeds need to be slightly less than 9 on the stimpmeter.  That leaves a maximum of 2,302 sq. ft. of pinnable area for this green, however to achieve that maximum, a minimum of 3 feet surrounding the hole must have a consistent slope, no greater.

Green speeds of 10 or greater eliminate all slopes of 3% for use as hole locations.

Green speeds of 11 eliminate pins of slopes between 2 - 2.5%, reducing the pinnable area for #16 Pasateimpo to a mere 1,600 sq. ft., the vast majority of which is located on the back, top tier.  



TK

Tyler

Thank you for that post.  Mr. Mucci has done a great job of editing my post to leave out a key part of my comment.  "Cool stuff "on those maps""  was left out of his response for no reason.  I wish we could get back to proper green speeds but will never be able to in the eyes of the average golfer.  

The green should never be softened, IMO but my question is still whether the green is borderline unplayable for most players now.  If you spend a few hours watching groups come through, you might ask the same question.  The better traveled golfer will certainly enjoy such a marvel of design.

My playing partners reminded me more than twice that Mackenzie felt it to be the best par 4 in golf.  No offense, but RTJ digitally mapped all of the greens at Peachtree claiming they were the best in existance, C.B. Macdonald has said that NGLA is the finest course in the world, as has Donald Trump concerning more than one course.  I would expect him to heap praise on his work, but does that mean we are supposed to hop in line and agree?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

That's a great plan analysis of the slopes of the green.

In my "book" a pin position occupies a circle with a diameter of 10 feet or a rectangle of 10 feet x 10 feet which gives an area of 100 square feet.
With 1600 square feet of 2% means that 16 pin positions are available. More than enough for rotation of the pin positions for wear and variety and not limited.

In the second chapter of my "book" a green with more than 50% unpinnable areas is an indication of an interesting green with enough inclination to influence the tracking of the ball on approaches and long putts.

 

[Mark Fedeli]

Mark,

The pin was in the middle tier and my wife went up and down a few times trying to settle on that level.  So playable for all levels of golfer could be questioned there.  That green is the only one so severe on the course.

Thanks, Joey. Even though I thoroughly enjoy the challenge presented by the combo of speed & contour at Pasa, I agree that my experience would be just as good if the greens were slowed down a notch (or two). And I think everyone here agrees that modern speeds should never render useless a great classic green complex.

Where I think we disagree is whether 16 or not represents a notable departure from the other 17 greens. 16 has the most severe and dramatic contours, but if you are on the correct level, or below the correct level, it's not overly difficult to putt to the proper spot. The green is so deep and tilted back to front, and the hole plays so short, that anyone who winds up above the correct level probably deserves the punishment coming down. For what it's worth, I actually think the fall-off on the far middle left portion of the green is the trickiest part (when the pin is over there).

I mentioned that I think 18, with the pin front right, is easily the most severe speed/contour combo on the course. But a better comparison for 16 would be 11, a tougher par 4 that requires a much longer approach. If you have a middle pin there and wind up at all above it, it's very difficult stopping your putt near the hole coming back down. It requires an all-world two-putt. And this is after having probably hit an all-world shot from 175-180 out (playing closer to 200 as it's uphill all the way). I think that's a much tougher scenario than 16. Same with 3 and 5, where you also have much tougher shots in and equally almost-impossible putts from above the hole.

This is a great topic. Pasa has greens that I think we could talk about endlessly, whatever the speed.

[David Stamm]

Cool stuff, the 16th green is almost unpin-able on more than 50% of the green!  

I disagree.
You can't forget that the green is huge
Every tier is pinnable.
The challenge is to be on or below the tier where the hole is cut.
I believe that MacKenzie declared # 16 to be his finest par 4.

Pat,

The facts derived from a digital mapping of #16 green at Pasatiempo confirm that the green is indeed very large, measuring 9,011 sq. ft., however the green has tremendous slope and limited pinnable area.  I know they keep the greens fast at Pasatiempo, although I'm not sure the exact target measurements they strive to achieve.

Using a USGA study of green speeds & slope (http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2008/080721.pdf), to support pins on 2.5% slopes, green speeds need to be slightly less than 9 on the stimpmeter.  That leaves a maximum of 2,302 sq. ft. of pinnable area for this green, however to achieve that maximum, a minimum of 3 feet surrounding the hole must have a consistent slope, no greater.

Green speeds of 10 or greater eliminate all slopes of 3% for use as hole locations.

Green speeds of 11 eliminate pins of slopes between 2 - 2.5%, reducing the pinnable area for #16 Pasateimpo to a mere 1,600 sq. ft., the vast majority of which is located on the back, top tier.  



TK

My playing partners reminded me more than twice that Mackenzie felt it to be the best par 4 in golf.  No offense, but RTJ digitally mapped all of the greens at Peachtree claiming they were the best in existance, C.B. Macdonald has said that NGLA is the finest course in the world, as has Donald Trump concerning more than one course.  I would expect him to heap praise on his work, but does that mean we are supposed to hop in line and agree?

Yes, we should.

The Donald is expected to say such things. He's a sales guy and he's said it enough that no one pays any attention anymore.

RTJ could not carry MacK's jock when it come to course design. I don't think anyone got more mileage out of less substance in course design.

MacKenzie is arguably the greatest course designer of all time. His portfolio of courses demand that we pay attention when he makes such a claim. You may like other par 4 ' s better (and there are others of his that I do), but he felt the hole design was the best. I believe he truly thought so.