[Matt_Ward]

I've previously opined on this and frankly the hoopla connected to the Trails - specifically the idea that the course is equal to Pac Dunes or even the original 18 -- is a bit of a stretch.

No doubt there are some really exceptional holes there -- I am a huge fan of the opeing hole because it offers such an appealing array of options for the widest range of golfers.

Ditto the first few holes -- and summed up nicely with the par-3 5th hole. A really sweet hole indeed.

The issue for me is that internal holes that come in the middle of the round are just not of that caliber -- frankly I find them to be quite dull in spots. I can't blame C&C because the land you find for these holes is simply uninteresting. However, one doesn't get a free pass frome when no less than a third of the layout simply doesn't maintain the kind of sizzle you see with the start and finish.

Not until you get to the approach at the 13th do things pick up a good bit and they crank up to full gear with the controversial 14th -- which I see as being well done.

The closing is quite good -- although the par-3 17th for me is a bit overrated by its supporters.

The closing hole may in fact be the best of the closers at all three courses.

The Trails is a fine layout -- worthy of notice and rating -- but when I see a pub such as Golfweek throw it into the top 20 of all modern courses then I know a good bit of that push stems from the C&C fan club which is giving support tied to the pedigree of the layout and not to the actual design itself IMHO.

[ChipRoyce]

I've previously opined on this and frankly the hoopla connected to the Trails - specifically the idea that the course is equal to Pac Dunes or even the original 18 -- is a bit of a stretch.

No doubt there are some really exceptional holes there -- I am a huge fan of the opeing hole because it offers such an appealing array of options for the widest range of golfers.

Ditto the first few holes -- and summed up nicely with the par-3 5th hole. A really sweet hole indeed.

The issue for me is that internal holes that come in the middle of the round are just not of that caliber -- frankly I find them to be quite dull in spots. I can't blame C&C because the land you find for these holes is simply uninteresting. However, one doesn't get a free pass frome when no less than a third of the layout simply doesn't maintain the kind of sizzle you see with the start and finish.

Not until you get to the approach at the 13th do things pick up a good bit and they crank up to full gear with the controversial 14th -- which I see as being well done.

The closing is quite good -- although the par-3 17th for me is a bit overrated by its supporters.

The closing hole may in fact be the best of the closers at all three courses.

The Trails is a fine layout -- worthy of notice and rating -- but when I see a pub such as Golfweek throw it into the top 20 of all modern courses then I know a good bit of that push stems from the C&C fan club which is giving support tied to the pedigree of the layout and not to the actual design itself IMHO.

Matt;

Agreed on most / all points you make above.

While C&C did a great minimalistic course that nicely compliments the Bandon complex, hard to say that its one of the best out there.

I didn't think the middle holes were complete sleepers. In fact, surprised we don't hear more about holes like #8. I thought this was a very cool short par 4. The risk/reward of trying to drive up close to the green is well created by the funneling of the fairway to the bunkers on the left side. In fact, one of the big compliments to the design is how this occurs quite often all around BT - the bunkers are nicely tied to the contours and magnify a golfers' mistake when hitting in the vicinity of these hazards (similar to Muirfield).

[Matt_Ward]

Chip:

I agree with you in regards to the "sleeper" tag -- but I apply it a bit differently -- the middle holes simply put me to sleep.

The issue for me is not that the course isn't well done -- but that it automatically gets lumped into the highest reaches of the ratings atmosphere because of two factors:

1). Where it's located at.

2). Who designed it.

I don't doubt plenty of people are swayed but for me I didn't see the sheer totality of what you see with the other two. The Trails has plenty to praise but I just see no less than nearly 1/3 of the layout being under the sheer dimensions, scale and reach from which you get with the start and finish.

[ChipRoyce]

Matt;
I'd add a 3rd reason why I suspect its getting the acclaim... continued focus on Minimalism.

C&C attempted to have moved as little dirt as possible. I get the sense that people want them to continue to replicate their winning formula from Sand Hills on as many different locations as possible. While that has a certain cachet - could they have done an even better job to try to move a bit more soil to craft the best possible golfing experience / challenge. While playing the round, there were some holes that I wished
 there was some attempt creating more interesting greensites.

For instance, the course really replicates much of the movement and experience like you'd find at Pine Valley. But its clear, BT doesn't have the push-up / elevated greens like you see at PV which add much of the challenge to that course.

That said, I found BT a great experience and can't wait to play it again. Just hard to elevate it into a Top 30 level.

Then again, and maybe its a better topic on its own.... does it matter who's below the Top 30? Is golf architecture so subjective that after 30, its pure speculation. Should there be different rankings for Links Courses vs. Parkland vs. Heathland vs. Desert vs. Fantasy Tropical Destinations?

[Tim Bert]

If Bandon Trails were the only course on the resort, I would have enjoyed my trip, but I wouldn't be planning any return trips in the near future.  I enjoyed the course, but I too found the middle stretch to be a bit mundane (relative to the rest of the course and the resort.)  #7 and #12 were the least interesting to me, and everything in between was okay but not spectacular.

If PD were the only course out there, I'd have still gone back the second time, and I'd still be up for a third.  I will admit that both BD and PD got better the second trip, so BT may do the same.  I'd still dedicate a day (36 holes) to each of the three courses, but my bonus golf (assuming they don't change the awesome policy!) will be at PD.

At the end of the day, if you took BT and put it in a remote location by itself, I couldn't see it having the same appeal as Sand Hills.  I could see PD going solo if need be.

[Eric Olsen]

Tim Bert,

The return trip concept is how I evaluated BT as well.  Having played it a second time on a recent trip, I did like it better than the first time, and will see how it wears when we return in January.   But I still wouldn't go there just to play BT, which I would for BD and PD.

[Matt_Ward]

Chip:

Good part about the minimalism angle. Unfortunately, sometimes the aspect of "less is more" can mean the opposite reality -- a "less is less" dimension that I personally found when playing the middle section of BT. I mean the start and finish are a good bit beyond the fall-off you enocunter when you start at the tee of the 7th hole.

Frankly, any course that comes forward at the Bandon Dunes facility will have a SPIKE of attention and fanfare because of what's been created there beforehand.

The issue for me is not the considerable talents of C&C but the idea that WHATEVER they design is AUTOMATICALLY given the sainthood mantle by too many people here.

Each new course is a separate project. The slate is clean and frankly if that doesn't happen then a clear bias / preference, call it what one will, is inevitable. What often happens is that people make initial ASSSUMPTIONS simply from finding out who has designed a course. Put Black Mesa as a C&C design and the layout would be much higher than it is today. I stem that fact to the ignorance of the people who do such things and the diss-service it does to someone like Baxter Spann.

You are spot on regarding the nature of the greens -- with you link to PV. In fact, the greens are the key to understanding the greatness of PV.

Chip, one can have different rating categories as you suggest, but I also see a good bit of sense in having one complete category where all the courses are evaluated -- although I do like the split logic of the Golfweek ratings. The Trails is a top 100 course for me -- however, it's more towards the rear than the front of the line as many here have opined.

[George Pazin]

The issue for me is not the considerable talents of C&C but the idea that WHATEVER they design is AUTOMATICALLY given the sainthood mantle by too many people here.

Each new course is a separate project. The slate is clean and frankly if that doesn't happen then a clear bias / preference, call it what one will, is inevitable. What often happens is that people make initial ASSSUMPTIONS simply from finding out who has designed a course. Put Black Mesa as a C&C design and the layout would be much higher than it is today. I stem that fact to the ignorance of the people who do such things and the diss-service it does to someone like Baxter Spann.

It would be hard for me to disagree more with these two paragraphs.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

You can disagree to the high heavens but candidly there is a preference (the PC word) about certain courses / architects here on GCA.

[Phil Benedict]

After following this thread over the past few days I went back and re-read Ran's somewhat lukewarm review of Bandon Dunes.  For all the hoopla about Bandon, there appears to be only one course so far that everyone thinks is great - Pacific Dunes.  

[Michael Dugger]

Really, Phil, only one course that you think is great?

Everyone I play with (all native Oregonians) considers the three courses at Bandon better than anything else in the state.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()