Composite 18 holes at Bandon/Pacific Dunes

[Patrick_Mucci]

Having now played and enjoyed both Bandon and Pacific Dunes
I began to reflect on all of the holes and was wondering, if I had to create two composite 18 hole courses, one sequentially, and the other randomly, which holes would I pick from each course.

How would your composite courses, sequential and random,
be configured ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Would you mind keeping your dirty little sequential and random architectural mind off both Pacific Dunes and its routing? Pac Dunes doesn't need a "composite" anything! If you have to think that way why don't you go out on Pac Dunes at sunrise and play its holes in any order you want to and as fast as you can?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I already did that.

Now I want to know what everyone else thinks.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Honestly, I would not have any interest playing a composite of Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes. They strike me as very different golf courses, despite sitting right next to each other.

I'd prefer to play them both just as they are or just play Pacific Dunes twice.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I'd prefer to play them both just as they are or just play Pacific Dunes twice.

Couldn't have put it better (or more succinctly) myself.

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's amazing how everyone is afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise.

Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions ??

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I really don't think it has anything to do with being afraid or the Bandon courses being sacred cows. I just would not want to play a composite of these courses any more than I would like to play a composite of Winged Foot and St. Andrews.

Another good example of courses side by side but would not work for a composite are the two courses at World Woods. I can enjoy playing either course, but a mixture of the two would be too awkward for my taste.

[TEPaul]

Pat asked;

"Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions ??"

Pat:

You were just there--why don't you criticize away? You just played both courses, didn't you? Therefore, I'm not sure I completely understand why you keep putting everything you say in the form of a question. Why don't you make some statements about the courses, such as what you liked and didn't like?  

Neither Bandon nor Pacific Dunes have been off limits to critical discussion, there's been plenty of it for about two years. But how critical or what negative can one say about a course like Pacific Dunes? But still there were some comments from people about how they thought things could be improved even more. Ran Morrissett thought, for instance, that the landing area on #16 fairway would be even better if it was expanded all the way out to where the irrigation box is on the left. That's a sort of dicey place to get to but would put your approach shot right inline with the length of the green. That would also be an interesting alternative play--sort of a reverse dogleg type option, particularly since most people who see that hole the first time figure they ought to skirt the corner on the right.

And I believe #13 green would be even better if it was extended a good 25+ paces in the rear--that would make a pin back there one of the most challenging of almost any I could think of anywhere--the playability of it wouldn't be that different from trying to hit an approach all the way to the rear of PVGC's #1 green!!

[redanman]

I wouldn't mix the two as they are quite different and wouldn't mix too well.

There's lots of individual tweaks to suggest, as with any course you can change things pretending that you were king, but this is way to global for me to tackle and I can't get motivated to do such a task.

[TEPaul]

Shivas asked;

"Is it THAT good?  Can I possibly oversell the place to my buddies?  What are the flaws?  Obviously, I don't want to tell them it's flawless if it's not.

Shivas:

There's no pat answers to those questions. But Pacific Dunes is THAT good to me. Apparently it's THAT good in Bill Coore's mind. Apparently it may not be THAT good to someone like Rich Goodale. Some golf courses bring out a lot of diverse subjective opinion--and occasionally a very wide spectrum of it. Probably the course in the world that has always done that far more than any other is TOC itself. So one has to ask why that is.

Both Bandon and Pacific Dunes are really terrific courses but in my mind Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders better for various reasons and a lot of little reasons. I could go into what some of those reasons are but when one totals them all up and weighs why those things happened at Pac Dunes compared to Bandon next door, in my opinion, one would have to say because Doak and his really accomplished crew are better architects than Kidd and his crew. Better all the way from conceiving of and pulling off an unconventional routing to the variety of the holes set in what appears to be Nature's very own canvas.

But being contiguous both are on some really great golf ground and in a spectacular setting.

I actually never did play Bandon Dunes so I can't talk about how it plays. But just studying both courses one can get an interesting feel for some differences in architecture particularly the differences in the little details of architecture that totalled up make a real difference to me.

I'd pretty much defy even a good golf analyst to make specific distinctions at Pac Dunes about what really was there and what Doak & Co did. Even if they can do that to a degree they're still going to have a hard time telling where the tie-ins are--and to me a lot of architectural appreciation comes from that alone. As an example there's some bunkering out there on Pacific Dunes that really is what they found and they build some others that no one would or could ever tell wasn't there!

But who the hell knows, maybe to your friends Bandon is a better course simply because in some comparative ways to Pac Dunes it's a bit more conventional--and plenty of American golfers may like that fact alone. If Bandon were there alone, as it was for a couple of years most golfers would think of it as a really rugged and natural course, and it is, but compared to Pac Dunes next to it it doesn't seem as much that way anymore.

I haven't seen all that much that's been built in recent times but what I have seen Pac Dunes has to be right up there in the top few in the world. Those few include Friar's Head and Hidden Creek and obviously Sand Hills (which I haven't seen). It would seem to include Kingsley Club and Rustic Canyon which I haven't seen either.

The reason I say that is all those courses appear to play really well and certainly fun and enjoyable, interesting and somewhat off beat and the aesthetics of all of them appear to combine natural use for golf with architecural enhancement about as well as architects can do. And the latter happens to be really important to me. But I do admit it may not be important to the next golfer. For whatever reasons the next golfer may not even like that at all---just like an endless stream of golfers over the ages have felt about TOC.

But over time, I think even those subjective objections have a way of being overcome generally by courses like the ones mentioned. Certainly that's true of TOC. One of the best architectural analyses I ever saw was from Robert Hunter on TOC. Basically he said there were so many things wrong with the course, it broke so many conventional rules of what modern architecture was supposed to be but despite all that it's still the prototype of all golf courses and golf architecture.

But at Pacific Dunes mentioning things like I did on post #7, particularly the things on #13 and #16, I think of only as interesting potential improvements. If they were never done I surely wouldn't say that indicates either of those holes have flaws.

But some have and will continue to mention a few things about Pac Dunes as flaws, like the odd routing progression against par on the back nine where there're only two par 4s or the long trek between #11 and #12 or even the back to back par 3s. Those kinds of things don't make a bit of difference to me--don't bother me at all, in other words. Matter of fact I think the holes at Pacific Dunes are so interesting that I had no idea there were only two par 4s on the back nine.

You know when you're playing a sort of formulaic course for the first time, Dave, and you say to yourself--I can just feel a par 5 or a par 3 coming next although you haven't even looked at the card? Well, that kind of thing doesn't happen at all at Pacific Dunes. I never really even knew where I was exactly in the round there--that's how interesting and varied the holes were to me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've got to run, but I will be back after I hit some balls,

But, I've got to ask you, how can you make a critical, evaluative and comparitive analysis of Bandon Dunes if you've never played it ?

How can you say that you prefer Pacific Dunes to Bandon Dunes when you've never played Bandon Dunes.

Bandon Dunes has been recognized by many as an extraordinary golf course, but, you've never played it, yet you make critical, evaluative and comparitive statements regarding same.

Yet, you refuse to construct two composite courses in a simple exercise.  Hmmm

I'll be back  

[ed_getka]

Patrick won't be able to comment on Bandon and Pacific because he has not played them in all possible conditions yet.

Patrick,
  I really wouldn't replace anything on Pacific, with the possible exception of #14, which I would replace with (can't remember the #) the long par 3 with the central guarding bunker that plays out towards the ocean (#12?).

At Bandon I would replace #18 with ANYTHING from Pacific. Replace #2 BD with #5 PD.
#6 BD with ANY par 3 from PD.
#9 BD with #15 PD.

I cannot remember #12 PD for the life of me. Someone please remind me please.

Dave,
  When asking for feedback from Mike C & Geoffrey C about their epic west coast swing, one or both of them said only Pac Dunes/Bandon Dunes exceeded their expectations. Thats enough of a recommendation for me. I have yet to play a course that is well-regarded on this site that I didn't enjoy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

# 12 is a terrific par 5 that heads north, parallel to # 4 which heads south.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #11 and how I could make 'critical, evaluative and comparative' remarks about Bandon Dunes without playing it. I guess I shouldn't say I never played it--I did play the holes just never played a full 18 holes at one time as a round. But I certainly spent plenty of time on the course, looking at it and watching others play it and analyzing it with various architects. Same with Pacific Dunes but I did play a whole round there.

I've never been very good at playing a course and analyzing it's architecture at the same time but maybe you are. For me I need to look at courses in other ways to understand them. For me the best way is to play then walk then watch others and walk it again.

But maybe you have a way of analyzing architecture that works better for you.

But spending 3-4 days at Bandon Dunes with about forty architects as well as all those who built both courses certainly didn't hurt in understanding both courses and coming to some sort of critical, evaluative and comparative opinions about them.

Don't get me wrong--I think Bandon Dunes is a terrific golf course and very interesting architecture--I just don't think it's as good as Pacific Dunes. I certainly wasn't alone in that opinion.

And I should remind you again that the caveat that one should not and can not comment about a golf course and its architcture without playing the course is yours---not mine!

I'd never make any comprehensive comments about a golf course if I'd never seen the course but I'll remind you again I spent 3-4 days at Bandon Dunes to study the architecture of both courses.

[ForkaB]

Patrick

This is a very good question, and the fact that nobody seems to want to or be able to answer the question is telling.  Is it the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason?

My only problem with this question is practical rather than theoretical--the way the two courses are laid out, I'm not sure you could get a great "composite" 18 (a la Royal Melbourne).  You'd have to leave too many "ideal" holes out of both layouts.  I think that if a hypothetical composite course were posited, it would include at least 7 holes from each track and 4 from either one, depending on preferences.  Of course, because the courses have very many different characteristics, due to the differences in the land and the style of the architects, such a "composite" course would not be as holistic as (say) Royal Melbourse, or a composite course made from the Old and New Courses at St. Andrews.

Tom P

I very much like PD, as well as BD.  They are both solid 2** courses, in my opinion.  You ought to get out and play BD some day (as well as PD now that it has "matured.")--you might just learn something, and we would be pleased to hear of what you had learned.  Vis a vis your list of great new courses, what do you think of Applebrook?  I think it is as least as good as Pacific Dunes, not quite as good as Friar's Head (which I have walked but not yet played) but then again, I'm not from Philadelphia.......

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Not wanting to offend Tom Doak has nothing to do with it. I just wouldn't have any interest in playing a composite of Bandon and Pacific Dunes. As I suggested above, the mere fact that these two golf courses sit right next to eachother doesn't make them good candidates for a composite any more than Tom Fazio's two courses at World Woods.

Unfortunately, I've never been to Melbourne, but from all the pictures I've seen, the composite holes all fit together and are of a similiar style. I just don't see Bandon/Pacific or Pine Barrens/Rolling Oaks the same way.

[Matthew Schulte]

Alright, I will be the only one dumb enough to try this.  The following is a composite layout that would work logistically, and would offer holes of the most comparable style.  

Front 9
Bandon #3      Par 4  (Play as Par 4 from lower tees, obviously the bunkering is a disconnect)
Bandon #4      Par 4
Bandon #5      Par 4  (The most "Pacific like" hole on Bandon)
Pacific #11      Par 3  (Yes it would be a 200 yard walk from 5th green)
Pacific #12      Par 5  (Nobody complains about this walk)
Pacific #13      Par 4
Pacific #14      Par 3
Pacific #15      Par 5
Pacific #16      Par 4
                     Par 36

How would that front 9 compare with County Down's front side?!!  

Back 9
Pacific #17      Par 3
Pacific #18      Par 5
Pacific #1        Par 4
Pacific #2        Par 4
Pacific #3        Par 5  
Pacific #4        Par 4  (Last of ocean drama, ultimate par 4)
Pacific #5        Par 3  (Demanding par 3)
Pacific #6        Par 4  (Take a chance if you need a stroke)
Pacific #7        Par 4  (Strong par 4 to finish)
                     Par 36

This excludes Pacific 8, 9, and 10.  So the obvious question is, are Bandon's 3, 4, & 5 better than Pacific's 8, 9, & 10?  It is difficult to compare Bandon's #3 vs. Pacific's #8, and Bandon's #5 vs. Pacific's #10 as they are different pars.  I would say that by losing Pacific 8,9, and 10, you gain two world class holes in Bandon 4 & 5.  In my opinion those holes would add to the fun, memorability, and shot values of the "Composite" course.  Not to mention perhaps the finest front 9 on the planet.  Yes there would be a disconnect, especially in bunker style, and cohesiveness is lost.  But individually, you would have 18 great holes.  Ideally a composite course blends holes of the same style to choose the 18 best.  

I guess the fun thing would be to imagine, what if that land had not already been used and Tom had the above land available to use for Pacific Dunes.  Bandon would definately have suffered greatly.  I think the resort is far better off as the two courses are both extremely strong EXACTLY AS THEY ARE.

But if I owned the place, and had it to myself, perhaps these would be the 18 holes I would play.

[ForkaB]

M. Schulte

I agree fully with your last statement that the complex is just fine as it is--2 great golf courses, of very different character and potential.  Sure one could have done "better" with 20/20 hindsight, but so what?

However, if you want to do a hypothetical 18 from the 2, as Pat has asked, here's my best guess:

Short Holes

BD 2,15
PD 14

Medium Holes

BD 4,5,7,10,16
PD 1,2,4,6,7,13,16

Long Holes

BD 3,9
PD 18

[Matthew Schulte]

OK if you want my favorite 18 from the complex they would be:

Par 3s
BD 12
PD 5,11,17

Par 4s
BD 4,5,11,14,17
PD 2,4,6,13,16

Par 5s
BD  3
PD  3,12,18

[Darren_Kilfara]

Patrick and Rich, I don't see why you're being so confrontational about all this. There's nothing "telling" about the relative lack of responses to this thread, Rich - as someone who started any number of GD HOTD threads and received few or no responses to most of them, it would have been very egotistical of me to assume that the non-responsiveness of the group had something to do with having raised subject which were too difficult or touchy to address. People don't always have to rise to Patrick's bait, you know!

BD and PD are both wonderful courses that have differences which outweigh their similarities. Looking back upon my time playing Bandon Dunes, I think about a great golf course, a number of truly outstanding individual holes, and one special evening where I played the front nine in 33 strokes. Thinking back upon Pacific Dunes, I get the same stirrings in my soul (they bring tears to my eyes, really) that I get when I think back upon my days at Cypress Point and Shinnecock, or that others get when they think about Sand Hills, as something which really was THAT good. I don't really wish to muddy any of those memories by overanalysis - I know that there are 16 or 17 holes at PD and maybe 9 or 10 at BD that, given unlimited time and money, I'd drop most anything to go back and play again, but do I have to choose my favorite 18 from the 36 to validate my feelings for all 36? Of course not.

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

I'm puzzled, how have I been confrontational ?

I posed a question relative to the two courses, and the structure of a composite course, sequentially and randomly.

I didn't pit one course against the other.

If a composite course can be created at Winged Foot East & West, Ridgewood West, East & Center, Shinnecock and National, Baltusrol Upper & Lower and other courses, I don't see why it can't be done at Bandon/Pacific Dunes.

There is no absolute answer, no right and wrong, and certainly no baiting, just one's opinion.

I was surprised that few chose to share their opinions.

I'll guarantee you that if it was a match play with Sandpines against either one, the GCA cogniscente would have inundated the thread.

It would seem that there are some who don't mind offending Jones and Fazio, but are sensitive when it comes to others.

[HamiltonBHearst]

If you do not like what Mr. Mucci has to say don't read it.  he is the only intelectually honest person on this site. and a true gentleman.

[Mike_Cirba]

HBH;

I love Patrick too, but I think even he might find your posts sycophantically annoying.

Tell us what YOU think about architecture.  Patrick can debate quite well enough on his own.  

Thanks.

[Tim_Weiman]

HamiltonBHearst:

For the life of me I can't understand why it is "intellectually dishonest" to suggest that the two courses at Bandon Dunes Resort or the two courses at World Woods would not make appealing composite courses.

Can you explain that?

If Pat Mucci feels differently, fine. But, how does that make a person intellectually honest or dishonest?


Darren:

What struck me most about Pat Mucci's initial post was the fact that Pat seemed interested in the possibility of a composite course at Bandon, but didn't lay out a composite course he felt would make sense.

Imagine if a person were to start a thread about a composite course at St Andrews, using say the Old and New Course. Wouldn't it make sense for that person to lay out a composite he thought would be interesting to the group?

Just asking other people to layout their idea of a St Andrews composite probably wouldn't generate any more interest than Pat's post about doing this in Bandon.

[ForkaB]

Darren

If you think I'm being "confrontational" on this thread, you better thicken your skin if I ever try to be REALLY confrontational!

All I was doing was responding to Tom Paul's baiting of me (in his loveably Paulian way) and trying to induce some interesting discussion of Pat's honest question.

The difference between this thread and your HOTD threads is that a large number of people on this site have played both courses at Bandon and have strong opinions on each.  Your threads didn't fly because (IMHO) most of the holes posted were ones that nobody had ever played and the photographic quality (from a GCA point of view) was poor (I'm blaming Golf Digest, not you).