[GeoffreyC]

Looks like we have another top ten course on our hands...I can't wait for Bandon to have 100 courses so the rating lists will be obsolete....or maybe Golfweek will juat have to go to three catagories.....Classic, Modern and Bandon...

Then you say- "I have no doubt in my mind that Bandon Trails is at least as good if not better than Bandon Dunes.....It's kinda like knowing a Lexus is more dependable than a Peugot...you don't need to drive it to find out."

It seems like your biases are showing and NOT the GW panelists. I'd prefer to go and see for myself before making judgements.

Have you been to Friars Head?  Yet you put it in a top 10 modern list?  

Hasn't it been you who constantly harp on the poor judgement of raters who only want freebies?  Yet once again you would place judgement based on names of a product be it a car or a golf course having never test driven the product.

Shame on you and I think you should be banished from the FOB panel.

[JakaB]

Geoffrey,

I have never subscribed to the notion that seeing is believing...I love faith and the graces it bestowes on me both in car buying and golf courses.   Friars Head is a top ten modern and Bandon Trails will be better than Bandon Dunes.....I could go on and on.

You are a scientist and I am an engineer...I don't care about the why when I can focus on the how...

[Steve_Roths]

Having played most of the courses mentioned I would have to say that Bandon Trails will outdo Pacific Dunes.  However I believe that Friars Head is a better course than Trails.  I am just guessing, but I think GW's rankings will look like this next year:

Sand Hills
Friars Head
Pacific Dunes
Bandon Trails
Whistling Straits
Bandon Dunes


I think you will see in a couple of years that Bandon Trails eventually will move above Pacific.  But again all of this is missing the point.  The point is that they are incredible new courses being added for us to play.  It seems sill to care where they fall in the rankings.  But, I guess if we didn't fight over this we would be bored.  

[Jay Carstens]

Having played most of the courses mentioned I would have to say that Bandon Trails will outdo Pacific Dunes.  However I believe that Friars Head is a better course than Trails.  I am just guessing, but I think GW's rankings will look like this next year:

Sand Hills
Friars Head
Pacific Dunes
Bandon Trails
Whistling Straits
Bandon Dunes
 

This makes me wonder if Bandon Trails will end up in Coore & Crenshaw's Top 10.  I'd guess it might.  So far... (from Bencrenshaw.com):

Houston Country Club (master renovation) 1986; Houston, Texas
Prairie Dunes (green renovation) 1986, 2004; Hutchinson, Kansas
The Plantation Club, Kapalua (18 holes; opened 1991); Maui, Hawaii
Barton Creek Club (18 holes; opened 1991); Austin, Texas
Southern Hills Country Club (9 holes; opened 1992); Tulsa, Oklahoma
Brook Hollow Golf Club (master renovation; opened Oct. 1993); Dallas, Texas
Lakewood Country Club ( renovation; l993,l995,2003); Dallas, Texas
Riviera Country Club (green/bunker renovation; complete Aug. 1993); Pacific Palisades, California
Sand Hills Golf Club (18 holes; opened June 1995); Mullen, Nebraska
Onion Creek Country Club (9 hole addition opened 1996); Austin, Texas
Onion Creek Country Club (renovation; 1996)
Hot Springs Country Club (Arlington Course, restoration; l995)
Shady Oaks Country Club (renovation; 1995)
Klub Rimba Irian (18 holes; opened l996); Kuala Kencana, Indonesia
Cuscowilla Golf Club (18 holes; opened l997) Lake Oconee, Georgia
Talking Stick (36 holes; opened l997) Scottsdale, Arizona
The Warren Golf Course at The University of Notre Dame (l8 holes; opened 2000); South Bend, Indiana
East Hampton Golf Club (18 holes; opened 2000); East Hampton, New York
Austin Golf Club (18 holes; opened 2000); Austin, Texas
Chechessee Creek (18 holes; opened 2000); Spring Island, South
Friar's Head (18 holes; opened 2002); Long Island, New York
Hidden Creek (18 holes; opened 2002); Atlantic City, New Jersey
Old Sandwich (18 holes; will open in 2004); Plymouth, Mass
Bandon Dunes #3 (18 holes; under construction); Bandon, Oregon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

You're not saying that certain architects enjoy "most favored nation" status on this site, are you ?  

Before everyone starts annointing Bandon Trails as the best golf course at Bandon, don't we owe it to ourselves, and the architects themselves, to play the entire golf course first, and then provide evaluations ?.

Matt Ward has it right, the proof is in the tasting, not the look.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

That would be "deity" status.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

This time I think you may've lost your mind. Hole #2 certainly looks like one of the more fascinating visually deceptive true flex holes from various directions by using a huge difference in tee lengths.

Redanman:

It's past time you stop coming up with garbage to act like you're being an intelligent golf analyst. That crap about your wife knowing more than 90% of the people on here is totally unnecessary. You have no real idea what 5% of the people on here know. And apparently Coore's mention of using bunkering that goes beyond strategy just went right over your head. Do all the natural dunes of links courses have a strategic purpose? How about Sand Hills? Tying a site together using random bunkering is obviously something that's beyond you. For some odd reason success just seems to constantly rub you the wrong way.

[Michael Dugger]

Where is that blowhard who was talking all that junk about Bandon's "Melbourne Bunkers" course?

And that guy who guaranteed that C & C would never take the job?

Seems they are perfect choices for that property, from my point of view.

You are all right that it is spliting hairs to compare BD to FH, SH to PD......did I forget WS and BT?

No one can dispute Bandon Dunes Resort is a great place, but doesn't it beg the question why it has taken so long for three courses of this caliber to be made available to the public golfer?

I hear Kenny K when it comes to the hype surrounding the new course being off the charts, however is it too much to ask to wait until we have seen all 18 holes before annoiting it above Pacific Dunes??

[John Kirk]

More opinions:

1.  Jim Wakeman, the pro at Pacific Dunes, believes Bandon Trails may be the best of the three courses.

2.  Some friends of mine from Pumpkin Ridge went down there and played the new holes.  These guys are all low handicap players.  The report back is the 7 holes are quite difficult, and the new course is a more arduous walk than the others.  Three guys lost balls off the tee on #2, and two of them thought they were probably in play.

3.  I haven't seen the course myself, but I will certainly visit next summer.  Calling Bandon Trails better than Pacific Dunes this early in the game is pretty lofty praise.  Remember that Sand Hills just edged out Pac Dunes for the #1 spot of Golfweek's Modern Course ratings.   As far as I'm concerned, Pacific Dunes is the best thing since sliced bread.

[JakaB]

Don't forget about Old Sandwich...it has been said on this site that it blows Friars Head away...

[Chris Kane]

Where is that blowhard who was talking all that junk about Bandon's "Melbourne Bunkers" course

From the photos, the bunkers look fantastic, but they don't look anything like "Melbourne bunkers".  They share a resemblence to Barnbougle Dunes though.

[SPDB]

Mike Cirba:

This time I think you may've lost your mind. Hole #2 certainly looks like one of the more fascinating visually deceptive true flex holes from various directions by using a huge difference in tee lengths.

Tom Paul - How so? With only the benefit of pictures, it looks like a boring 135 yarder, with the benefit that it also combines the possibility of boring holes from 145, 165, 185, etc. What do you find so visually deceptive from the pictures?

[Mike Erdmann]

As an aside, Mike E and I discussed the posting of the pictures and I for example do not see the photos on his post.  They are designated as https:// instead of http:// when I "quote his post".

Apparently my security settings do not recognize this type of link as a picture and that is why I re-posted his original post to show the pictures. My view of his original post does not even show the little red "x" in a white box that appears when language is incomplete or corrupted in some way linking photo url's.

Anyone else experience this?  

I keep pretty secure settings regarding cookies and spyware stays out of my computer most of the time yet most everyone else here seems to see the photos on his first post.  This is new for me.

At any rate, he may change his original post language, any comments appreciated as I am always eager to learn.

Bill, I edited the code on my original post to fix the problems you were having.  If it works for you now, may not hurt to delete your repost just to save download time for those without broadband.  If someone has problems with seeing the pictures now, let me know.

[Mike Benham]

Apparently my security settings do not recognize this type of link as a picture and that is why I re-posted his original post to show the pictures. My view of his original post does not even show the little red "x" in a white box that appears when language is incomplete or corrupted in some way linking photo url's.

Anyone else experience this?  

Maybe the new Director of Homeland Safety has put in place new security measures

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Regarding your post #37---it's just more of your usual crap---a lot more of it. I'm no arbiter of taste on this board and I have no idea where that remark comes from. Well, belay that, coming from you I have a very good idea where that comes from!

Do I like Coore and Crenshaw and their courses I've seen? I certainly do but not everyting about them and I've said so plenty of times on here. The problem with you and your lack of understanding of that is you seem incapable of reading more than one sentence posts.

I think it's pretty obvious why they're so popular both on here and generally and probably for the very same reasons, that, like Doak, they seem to be the new architects in demand because of their incredibly good architecture. That's called success Pal! Maybe it'd do you better if you tried to understand that and talk more about what those postive reasons are!

You really do have a problem with success and practically every post you write on here apparently has to have some component of the negative in it. It occurs to me you do that because you think it a necessary ingredient of an intelligent analysis of architecture and that consequently you'll be more believable and sound more informed. Pointing out negatives in architecture where they exist is extremely important but so is pointing out the positives particularly if a course looks like the one in those photographs.

I better watch out for your wife? I hardly think so. Maybe you forget--I know your wife---she's a fine lady and does seem to have a real natural instinct for golf architecture, I just don't think it's necessary that you feel the need to mention that she knows more about it than 90% on here---or 70%, or any percentage!

Of course the good work of lesser known architects and the reasons why should be mentioned here. But suggesting that when someone mentions something positive about Coore and Crenshaw's architecture they should simultaneously mention something positive about all the other lesser known architects in the world who do good work is just a preposterous thing to say. It's just typical of your natural inclination towards  negativity! And for what?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm in favor of the architecture speaking for itself.  It worked for Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, The Sheep Ranch and hopefully soon, Bandon Trails.

It makes me proud that my second home--the state of Oregon, the state I have spent the most time outside of my own since I was 8 years old, has not one, not two, but three GREAT modern golf courses with-in a 45 minute drive of Florence, Oregon. The place my family and I have utilized as a summer get-away/hideaway for so many years.

I salute the bravado of Mike Keiser for building it all, and I salute the people who both work hard to produce such great golf there. From Shoe to Ken, EJ and all.

I salute the architects of all of the courses there that got such a grand pallate to prove themselves. I salute their crews who equally work as hard to produce the finest golf the land had to offer.

However, I DON'T salute the incessant Bullshit about "how I know more then you do" and all of its senseless derogatory remarks. You really know how to spoil a fine show.

Congrats to all, and to the victors go the spoils! I see many victors here also. Mike Keiser, Kemper Sports, David Kidd, Tom Doak, and Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw, but most, the people who get to experience the most pristine dune settings on the Pacific Coast and the realization of what went into it to make it that way.

Now pipe down both of you......

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

This time I think you may've lost your mind.

C'mon Tom...I won't dispute your basic contention but I do think we can discuss the pros and minuses of various golf holes from what we see in pictures.  

I think the only thing deceptive about the 2nd hole from what I can see is that there is a heckuva lot of high grass blocking the view, and also a lot of high grass impinging very close to the right of the green.  Jmkirk seems to confirm this when he says about his low-handicap friends, "Three guys lost balls off the tee on #2, and two of them thought they were probably in play."

That's deceptive, I'd agree, but probably will need some thought and consideration for day-to-day playability.  That's what I was pointing out.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike & Geoff,

How is the tall grass just off the #2 green any different than a bunch of holes at Bandon D and Pacific in terms of the possibility of affecting pace of play?  There are a number of places to easily lose balls just off greens and fairways at the other two courses.  I know, I did it.  Why is this any different and why do those two courses get a pass?

[Mike_Cirba]

Scott;

There is a lot of room short and left to miss on the 2nd hole, it seems, but that is not apparent from the tee because of the hill covered with high grass.  From the tee, it looks almost as if the entire green is surrounded by knee high rough (see pic below).

Ok, so they’ll basically deceive every first time player (quite a few at a resort) and a lot of balls will be lost in the junk to the right when they could have favored the left had they known.  I guess that’s a legitimate architectural defense, but I’m not all that excited about tricking me into losing my ball.  

At PD, I can’t think of a place where the safe play (often short) wasn’t visually apparent.  There is also LOTS of room around the greens generally at PD, and I can’t recall losing an approach shot.  

[Brian_Gracely]

Isn't one of the ideas behind requiring caddies to prevent the first time players from not knowing that there is room short and left?  

But I'd agree that having a bottleneck Par3 as the second hole (a problem anyways) and then having long grass in the slice area is potentially a problem.  

BUT, this is the GROWING-IN period....grass could always be cutback somewhat before actual play begins or if they find it ACTUALLY is a problem.

I propose a 1yr moratorium on all course evaluation!!  

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba said;

"C'mon Tom...I won't dispute your basic contention but I do think we can discuss the pros and minuses of various golf holes from what we see in pictures.  
I think the only thing deceptive about the 2nd hole from what I can see is that there is a heckuva lot of high grass blocking the view, and also a lot of high grass impinging very close to the right of the green.  Jmkirk seems to confirm this when he says about his low-handicap friends, "Three guys lost balls off the tee on #2, and two of them thought they were probably in play."
That's deceptive, I'd agree, but probably will need some thought and consideration for day-to-day playability.  That's what I was pointing out.  

Mike:

Even if I said I thought now you've really lost your mind  you do know I think you're one of the very best and most impartial golf architecture analysts there is and we certainly can have a legitimate and constructive discussion about the pluses and minuses of this hole.

The very thing you don't apparently like about it--eg it's visual deception of the front left playable area before the green is the very thing I do like so much about that hole. Not just that but apparently the visual deception on that area changes quite considerable with the tee placements and the rather huge tee distance differentials (another progressively brilliant architectural move).

I guess this kind of thing just shows how interesting and variable golf architecture can be to different people--one man's poison is another man's prize so to speak! That kind of semi-subtle visual deception is frankly brilliant in my opinion---architecturally brilliant and it's just another example of that kind of fascinating nuance from Coore and Crenshaw.

I do hear what you're saying about first time players being fooled by that visual deception but, heh, if visual deception can't fool anyone there first time on a course than what's it about anyway? Let the player come back a second time and get it right. That's what I sure as hell would be inspired to do!In my opinion, if public golfers and public golf courses are going to get that upset over something like that then public courses and the archtiects who build them should probably just go ahead and give golfers who play those courses total visiability everywhere, put road signs all over the course explaining where to go and not to go and basically just lead them all around by the nose with no thought at all. If that's what they really want---fine---but for the rest of us I think more than that including this kind of sophisticated subtlty designed visual deception is just the ticket and should be praised regarding a hole like that.

[Scott_Burroughs]

While it is true that Doak admits to not using much blindness
in his designs, I have no problem with it, even on a resort
course.  I don't think that a resort course, especially
a "purist"-type of place such as Bandon should avoid
blindness simply to cater to first-time resort-goers, if
it "dumbs" down the design.

Two things to remember, we can't see where players walk to
the tee from, meaning that you might be able to see that the
grassy knob in front is WELL short of the green ahead of
time.  And even more, that's what caddies are for!  I've used
a caddie for my first round at the other two courses, and I
don't see why I'd change that for this course.  Stuff is only
blind a maximum of once.

There's all sorts of blindness at the public/resort courses in
the U.K./Ireland, but American golfers are too slow, right?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul/Scott;

The funny and ironically inconsistent thing is that I'm one of the biggest proponents of blind shots that I know.  I went to great lengths on a post one time to point out what an interesting and exhilerating hole I think the 11th at Reading CC (PA) is simply because it is as blind as the Alps holes at National or Fisher's Island.  

Deception and blindness and misdirection are all slightly different things, however.  In judging their effectiveness, it gets into a matter of proportion and degrees.  

For instance, the 3rd at National to a green sitting surrounded by a watery moat would not work very well.  The 11th at Reading works because even though an OB road lurks close behind the green, there is plenty of room short, right, and left to miss.    A pond in front of this green would essentially kill the hole.   However, in its present configuration, it works just fine.

It's like the artist who needs to know as much what not to put into the painting as to put in.  

I also generally do not like unrecoverable penalties and that tall grass looks to be a final solution.  It's not much different functionally than a pond, except for the stroke and distance of a lost ball.  

As classic strategists, wouldn't the rest of you like to see something more thoughtful, interesting, and variable to the right of this green than 3 foot tall wheat?    

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Frankly, if you look a bit more closely at the right side of that hole you should notice it's really sandy scrub not 3 foot high hay as you said. It doesn't look any different from what's  right of the green at Maidstone's #8, a far more blind but completely cool hole. The more I look at that #2 Bandon Trails the more I think it just may be on of the neatest looking flex par 3s I've ever seen for a variety of reasons not the least being it's progressive blindness of that fairway area the closer you get to the hole tee-wise. I'd use those three tees for the tip tees about 1/4, 1/2, 1/4---really mix it up.

[Matthew Schulte]

Has anyone seen a map of the routing?  For those of you who attended the media outing, did the scorecard have a map of the course?

I am also curious to know, from those of you who have played the seven holes, to what extent the wind affects play on the more inland holes.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()