16th at Pasatiempo

[Bill_McBride]

I'm confident Dr Mackenzie thought 16 was his best par 4 because he was confident green speeds would never exceed something in the 8-9 range.  

The only pars I can recall making at 16 came when the pin was on the back tier and I just missed the green right.  Up and downs can be made from there.  

The lower tiers are very difficult.  Small and steep.  Only someone with Mucci-esque skills can make pars there!

[Jim Nugent]

David Stamm, I give more credence to Mackenzie as well.  The question is, did he say the same thing about other par 4s he designed? 

On Tyler's map: does it suggest the entire middle tier is unpinnable?  In fact they often put pins on the middle tier.  It sounds like so long as you don't leave your approach above the hole, you're ok -- and the green is plenty big to leave it short or on the right level. 

If so, doesn't that mean the formula for slope, green speeds and hole locations is not exactly a law of physics, but a guideline that can have many exceptions?

In glancing through the older thread on this hole, I saw Mike Beene say that if the pin is in the middle, and he's on top, he will intentionally putt off the green into the fringe on the middle tier, and try to hole his chip for par (or more).  Pretty clear, you don't want to miss long here!

[John Chilver-Stainer]

That has to be a moment of quirk - Putting off the green to get a better attempt at attacking the hole.

Personally I love this kind of unusual golf where a "lateral think" will provide the better strategy.
Some may call it "crazy golf" but surely this is the very spice of ancient golf and sadly lacking in modern golf.

[Tyler Kearns]

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. 

Bill,

Pasatiempo's 8th green has less than 200 sq. ft. with slopes of less than 4% - treacherous at double-digit stimpmeter speeds.



TK

[Tyler Kearns]

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.

Mark,

Here is the digital map of #18 green, which has less than 150 sq. ft. at 3% or flatter slope.



TK

[Tyler Kearns]

David Stamm, I give more credence to Mackenzie as well.  The question is, did he say the same thing about other par 4s he designed?  

On Tyler's map: does it suggest the entire middle tier is unpinnable?  In fact they often put pins on the middle tier.  It sounds like so long as you don't leave your approach above the hole, you're ok -- and the green is plenty big to leave it short or on the right level.  

If so, doesn't that mean the formula for slope, green speeds and hole locations is not exactly a law of physics, but a guideline that can have many exceptions?

In glancing through the older thread on this hole, I saw Mike Beene say that if the pin is in the middle, and he's on top, he will intentionally putt off the green into the fringe on the middle tier, and try to hole his chip for par (or more).  Pretty clear, you don't want to miss long here!

Jim,

The squares shown on the digital contour maps are 15 feet by 15 feet, so each of the three levels can be used for hole locations in theory.  I was just looking through my pictures of Pasatiempo and the hole location when I played was on the front tier just beyond the false front.  I guess the real question worth asking is at what slope & green speed can a ball stay at rest.

TK

[Mark Fedeli]

Thanks, Tyler. Yeah, these digital maps are fantastic. I wish we had them for every discussion.

Below is #11.

[Tyler Kearns]

Thanks, Tyler. Yeah, these digital maps are fantastic. I wish we had them for every discussion.

Below is #11.

Mark,

That digital map of #11 is post-softening!!

TK

[Howard Riefs]

Thanks, Tyler. Yeah, these digital maps are fantastic. I wish we had them for every discussion.

Below is #11.

Now I see why I putted off #11 (from middle left to a middle right pin) .......

and again on #18 (far left to a middle pin).

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

I would imagine that 9 would be an ideal speed.

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.

1, 2 or 3 degrees is a consistent slope, but, there's no question that higher speeds limit hole locations.
Still Pasatiempo has ample room on most greens.
I'd be curious to know what the slope of # 5 green is.

Arthur Weber's treatise correlating slope and green speeds seems to indicate that at a stimp of 10, slopes in excess of 5.5 % are unmanageable.
I think most golfers tend to overestimate green speeds

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

10 on the stimp is fast, especially on greens with even the slightest amount of slope/contour.

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.

11 is too fast for those greens. 




We spent about 20 minutes on the 16th green, putting to and from every possible location.

As I stated, putting downhill is difficult to impossible.
Putting on the same tier or up to a tier isn't overly challenging.

It's putting down to tiers below you that's very difficult.

We putted on the first level and didn't find it unduly challenging if you were short of the green or on the lower tier.

Increased speeds have resulted in the flattened of putting surfaces and when golfers encounter a sloped putting surface that's got some slope/contour, they're generally unprepared for it. 

[Mark Fedeli]

Here's #5 for you, Pat.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

The last time I played Pasatiempo, they had the hole cut right behind the bunker on # 5.

When you look at the shape of those greens and the combination of the protective bunkers, berms and slopes along with the internal contouring/slope, the hole locations and fun factor is almost unlimited.

It is such a wonderful golf course, sporty and fun.

[Josh Bills]

Thought this article by Dr. Hurdzan in 1979 Golfdom, in honor of his interview this month, dealt with slope and green speeds quite nicely. 

[Mark Pearce]

On 5 at Pasa when I played the pin was behind the bunker.  I was about 15 feet past the bunker.  3 feet short of the hole I thought I had left my putt stiff.  My next shot was back over the bunker from the fairway.  I'm not surprised (and, in fact, somewhat reassured) by these digital maps.Twice in my life I have played courses with great greens which were so fast I simply could not cope with the contours.  One was Pasatiempo, the other was Yale (the day after a big college tournament. 

In the UK we rarely see green speeds above 10.  For Regional Open Qualifying in 2013 my home club got its greens up to 12.  They aren't dramatic greens but there is a fair amount of movement in them.  They are nothing like Pasa.  Feeding back on the event the R&A requested that this year the green speed be reduced.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I think you have to factor in the differences in climate in Santa Cruz and your home course when comparing green speeds.

I believe that Pasatiempo has to walk a fine line, where green speeds are challenging but not excessive.

The greens at Pasatiempo are amongst the most creative, interesting greens that I've ever played on.

Having played CPC and ANGC, two of  MacKenzie's classic courses, playing Pasatiempo catapulted my respect for his designs to a new level.  Now my quest is to play as many of his creations as possible.

Green speeds have become a priimary line of defense for many courses due to the "distance" issue and land limitations.

If you have a 340 yard hole and golfers are driving the green or into the approach, how does the hole defend itself other than by increasing green speeds ?

Ditto a 500-540 yard par 5 ?

Josh,

I would take exception with Mike's article.
I've been playing WFW since the 50's and am fairly familiar with the transitional stages the course has gone through.
Luck may play a part in a few holes, but, not 72 or 90 holes.
It requires a unique skill, whether you're at WFW or ANGC, to keep the ball in the correct position.
A position that will enable you to make par or better.

But, reading Mike's article was interesting because it's essentially about protecting par.

For whatever the reason, that seems to be the goal of many to most clubs, especially when an outside event is held.
Witness Mark Pearce's comment about the condition of Yale's greens right after a tournament.

So, back to Pasatiempo.

I don't know what the ideal pace is, I doubt any of us do.
But, I think we know, when we play a course, whether the pace is acceptable or excessive.

When you have relatively flat greens, the consequences for "excessive" speeds is nominal.
At Pasatiempo, it's disastrous, so, they have a pressure on them to "get it right".
Fast enough to present a heightened challenge, but not so fast that judgement and technique are useless.

The fact is that the genius in the design radiates and resonates to all but the deaf, dumb and blind.

The critical factor now becomes the ability to achieve the ideal  "maintenance meld". 

Easier said than done on a daily basis.

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

Agreed.  The difficulty is that in judging green speeds so that a course tests the elite golfers that are thinking about driving a 340 yard par 4 there is a real danger that it becomes a challenge that a low teen handicapper cannot manage.  That said, a lot of my difficulty was simply not being used to these speeds.  Both at Pasa and at Yale I had started to adjust by the end of the round.  That is not to say that i will ever be able to play enough golf to gain the expertise to putt severely contoured greens like those at speeds of 12 or more well.

And yes, the greens at Pasa are brilliant (as are those at Yale).  They would, though, still be brilliant at 10 on the Stimpmeter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I think the forgotten element, the element lost in focusing too myopically on green speeds is "firmness"

I suspect that greens could be slowed up a bit while still retaining their challenge if the course and greens were "firm"

I've played high speed greens where pitch marks were abundant.

I'd probably prefer Pasatiempo and Yale at 9-10 with firm greens rather than trying to go beyond 9-10 with lush conditions.

My other "pet peeve" amongst others, is soft approaches where the greens are very fast and worse, firm and fast/very fast.

I think that's often where the "maintenance meld" is lost.

That disconnect between fairway and green where both are fast & firm but the approach soft.

Pasatiempo impressed me as a mostly aerial golf course, hence I could see how the approaches don't have much significance.

However, one of my all-time favorite hole locations was deep, way, way back on # 17.
What a frightening shot, from anywhere.

[Josh Bills]

Pat,

I have played Pasa twice and loved it both time.  The only green I felt was almost unputtable when I was there was 8.  The rest while quirky and unique, were fun to play and I don't remember them being unfair at all.  The other factor may have been I teed off early morning both times and they were certainly not baked out.  Love the course and greens.

I found Mike's article interesting in that he equates too much slope and too shortly cut greens to create luck and not skill.  I don't think he was as worried about par, but worried about taking the putter out of skilled players hands and making luck a greater factor, at least that is how I read it.  This of course does not take into consideration the players who keep their balls on the proper side of the hole versus others.  Of course a green can be too fast and unfair, but that certainly has not been my experience at Pasatiempo, despite the cool diagrams provided and the mathematical/statistical concerns they raise.  In other words, I think the super is doing a great job of maintenance meld. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Josh,

A dilemma for Pasatiempo is to not raise green speeds to the point where many great hole locations are lost.

One of the beauties of that course is the diversity of hole locations on every green.

As speeds increase, retaining some spectacular hole locations can be lost.

So, therein lies the balance, keeping green speed relevant to test modern skills but not excessive

[Mark Fedeli]

A question I often ask myself is: aren't all men created equal on the greens? Putting is the least physically demanding stroke in golf, something anyone can do. It's a simple act that gets overly difficult, not because of physical limitations, but because players get nervous. Not everyone can blast it 350, or carry it 220, or hit a mile-high 3 iron, but everyone can make a putt. The ability and the potential for lesser players is there.

So I think the level of difficulty of a green for everyday amateur play should be determined by how it challenges very good amateur putters. Finding the right balance, as Pat mentioned, should be done with those players in mind first, because everyone can get to that level.

That doesn't mean Pasa would suffer if they slowed things down a titch or two. I'm more concerned with those who see slope and contour, regardless of speed, as robbing them of their deserved chance at an easy two-putt par, simply because they reached the green in regulation.

[Sean_A]

Not having played Pasa, I am curious as to how much green space cannot be used for cutting holes when the speed goes from 9 to 10.  Maybe Tyler can chime in.  IMO, to say the fast 10, 11 or whatever high green speed number still leaves 16 hole locations when possibly a load more are available and originally designed for is not a good argument for fast greens.  Golf is best when there is a high degree of variety.  I don't see much wrong with putting off a green once or twice in a round because of a loose approach (though I am not terribly keen on automatic putting run thrus), but it strikes me that having a decent chance to remain on the green is an important part of design.  It is interesting that Jim states that if some of the original contouring were left in place the opportunity for clever putting would be increased.  I find that with Ross courses as well.  There are many severe back to fronters, but in my experience Ross left pockets to putt toward.  The hole may not be in that pocket, but at least one could could get a two putt from a bad spot if he recognized the design layout and executed (likely having to make a tough 5-10 footer 2nd)...sort of recovery putting if you will.  I am not terribly keen on automatic putting run thrus 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

Rather worryingly I find myself agreeing with you again.  Firm greens provide more of a challenge in getting the ball to the right part of the green and allow for slightly less fast green speeds.  Like you I'd much rather play firm, heavily contoured greens at 10 than soft, heavily contoured  greens at 12 or, even worse, soft, flat lightening fast greens.

[JC Urbina]

Joey,

Greens are constantly evolving; top dressing, bunker splash, thatch build-up and wind blown contamination are all factors that affect the surfaces of the greens.

Mowing patterns are always in the state of flux.

A few of the greens are more prone to change at a faster rate then others, some greens are very noticeable, others not so much.

Faster is a term I use loosely, 25-50 years.

Tim,

Do yourself a favor and get back out to the West Coast and enjoy the wonders of Pasatiempo.

Pat, 

All of the greens at Pasatiempo have a fascination I never get tired of.

[Tyler Kearns]

Not having played Pasa, I am curious as to how much green space cannot be used for cutting holes when the speed goes from 9 to 10.  Maybe Tyler can chime in.  IMO, to say the fast 10, 11 or whatever high green speed number still leaves 16 hole locations when possibly a load more are available and originally designed for is not a good argument for fast greens.  Golf is best when there is a high degree of variety.  I don't see much wrong with putting off a green once or twice in a round because of a loose approach (though I am not terribly keen on automatic putting run thrus), but it strikes me that having a decent chance to remain on the green is an important part of design.  It is interesting that Jim states that if some of the original contouring were left in place the opportunity for clever putting would be increased.  I find that with Ross courses as well.  There are many severe back to fronters, but in my experience Ross left pockets to putt toward.  The hole may not be in that pocket, but at least one could could get a two putt from a bad spot if he recognized the design layout and executed (likely having to make a tough 5-10 footer 2nd)...sort of recovery putting if you will.  I am not terribly keen on automatic putting run thrus 

Ciao

Sean,

I'll see if I can answer your question.

Based on USGA study, at a stimpmeter reading of 9, recommended hole location should be on slopes of 2.5% or less & having 3 feet of consistent slope surrounding the hole.  Marginal hole location can be cut on slopes of 2.5 - 3.5%, but require 8 feet of consistent slope surrounding the hole.  No holes can be located within 10 feet of a slope greater than 3.5%.

When the greens are sped up to 10 on the stimpmeter, recommended hole location should be on slopes of 2.3% or less & having 3 feet of consistent slope surrounding the hole.  Marginal hole location can be cut on slopes of 2.3 - 3.2%, but require 8 feet of consistent slope surrounding the hole.  No holes can be located within 10 feet of a slope greater than 3.2%.

Even faster greens that measure 11 on the stimpmeter reduce options to the following; recommended hole location should be on slopes of 2% or less & having 3 feet of consistent slope surrounding the hole.  Marginal hole location can be cut on slopes of 2.0 - .9%, but require 8 feet of consistent slope surrounding the hole.  No holes can be located within 10 feet of a slope greater than 2.9%.

Following these results, Pasatiempo's 16th green offers 2,300 sq.ft. of potentially recommended hole locations when the stimp reads 9.  This would be a maximum, as some of these spots may not have 3 feet of consistent slope surrounding them.  By raising speeds to 11 on the stimp, we lose 700 sq. ft. of recommended pinnable area (again, this is a maximum due to the reasons outlined above).

Going the other way, the greens would need to be slowed to 7.5 to add an additional 700 sq. ft. to the recommended pinnable area to Pasatiempo's 16th green.  However, marginal hole locations could be accommodated on slopes of 3.0 - 4.2% (an additional 775 sq. ft.).

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC,

"A fascination"

Yes, I agree, they really are quite unique and intriguing.

The diversity in hole location is spectacular.

I'm jealous of those who get to play there on a daily basis