The Irony of Old Macdonald

[Tom_Doak]

For argument's sake, let's say that Old Macdonald turns out to be just as good as the other three courses at Bandon Dunes.  [I like it pretty well so far, anyway.]  And for now, never mind that it may be starting to undermine the ratings of the first three courses, if Mr. Keiser can keep building course after course and they are all perceived to be just as good as their predecessors.

If Old Macdonald succeeds, then I think we've disproven the modern, conventional wisdom that you have to keep hiring different architects to build each new course at a resort.

But the irony is that I don't think Mike would have hired us, if he couldn't have called the new course a Macdonald course, with Jim Urbina and a committee helping on the design, instead of just calling it my second design there.

It's a crazy business, isn't it?

[Billsteele]

Isn't the real irony that a gentleman who is the benevolent dictator of the resort allows a design by committee at all?

[Tom Huckaby]

It is a crazy business, and that is ironic.

But I am praising the lord for this line:

And for now, never mind that it may be starting to undermine the ratings of the first three courses,

Thank you, Tom.  I had a long argument in here with the one and only Matt Ward about how ratings work out for the courses at the resort, and you just supported MY position.

Not that he gives you any credence, but heck, I like the support.   

[Anthony Gray]

  The situation that comes to mind is at Casa De Campo. Three Different style courses all built by the same architect Pete Dye. All three are very different because the land is different. I think the same could have been done at Bandon for the same reason. Same architect but different style courses because of the land. I believe that the resort at Bandon does get more exposure because moer names are on it. Is the golf better because there are several different architects? No. The variety could have been accomplished with just one.

  Anthony

[JESII]

Tom,

Does Mr. Keiser really think anyone else is going to call the course a Macdonald?



Didn't Desert Mountain disprove the theory...maybe even before it was a theory?

[Matt Varney]

Tom,

This is an interesting topic and I have always wondered how well a golf resort destination would succeed with just one architect designing all the courses at a 54 hole facility.  The key would be to allow the architect / designer to design-build in three different styles on a nice piece of property.  Three courses - Links, Classic and Modern and it would allow the architect to be very creative while also building courses that offered players a full range of shot values from hard and fast conditions for the links ground game to precise demanding distance control shots for the modern long bomber aerial game.  You might have one course that is only 6,400 yards from the tips and the modern course could stretch to 7,800 yards.  

Old Macdonald will just add more unique flavor to Bandon.  If this new course ends up being better than the other courses it just shows you and your team are getting better with age like a fine wine.  One thing I would bet money on is this - if Old Macdonald ends up being one of the best courses at Bandon (in the top 2) then plans for course #5 will be in the works in the near future!

[PCCraig]

Tom,

I think it speaks to your open-minded nature that you would allow yourself to be a part of any sort of desgin by committee and do something that is unique (such as build a MacDonald style golf course).

Perhaps the reason something like this never happened in the past was that at other resorts a high profile designer would want to build his style his way. And also many GCA's may of felt that there was no way they would be rehired again anyway, so it was probably best to just get the job done and get on with it.

[Kirk Gill]

The key point, Tom, is in the "for argument's sake" part. What would happen if your team created a stinker, or if you merely duplicated your earlier work? It sure doesn't seem likely, but it is avoiding the creation of a weak or repetitive course that allows you and your team to buck conventional wisdom on this score. The obvious difference between the reality of what is on the ground and the need to market what's there plays in to what you say about Mr. Keiser. Bandon has obviously been a success, but bringing something new to the table sure would help to drive repeat business. The nature of your new course gives the marketing department something to hang their hat on.

[Philippe Binette]

Just a question Tom,

If Keiser would have hired you to built another course at bandon, but no MacDonald concept, what would you have done on that second course?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom.

I think the whole multi-archie philosophy has to do with marketability as much as anything.

Before there were Designer Name brands, this was less prevalent.

However, if Mr. Tufts were building Pinehurst today, I'd bet he'd have a Ross, a Colt, a Mackenzie, a Wilson, etc.

Perception of value is valuable in itself, especially where dollars are concerned.

[Mike Hendren]

To play devil's advocate, is it possible that it's the vision and the land that make Bandon Dunes what it is and will be, and for the casual and even hard-core Bandonista's the architect's name is secondary, if relevant at all? 

I'm just asking.

Mike

[JESII]

Maybe the success of the first course could answer that...

[Don_Mahaffey]

Even though I love golf and I love working on golf courses, I'm learning to dislike the business part of it.

When minimalism was the craze, every architect talked about "working with the land" and had pics of hairy bunkers...soon, and maybe already, it's turning to be all about affordable, practical, and maintainable...which is a complete joke when some of the big names use that angle.

Not everyone is a minimalist nor can everyone build something good and functional that can be maintained with some sensibleness.  

Wouldn't it be a great world if the best at what they do (building, not marketing) got most of the work?

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Shouldn't you be happy that Keiser likes to play the field?  If not, David Kidd would be building his 5th course at Bandon and you would have had to settle for Nanea, the Castle Course, etc......

Merry Christmas

Rich

[Anthony Gray]

Tom

Shouldn't you be happy that Keiser likes to play the field?  If not, David Kidd would be building his 5th course at Bandon and you would have had to settle for Nanea, the Castle Course, etc......

Merry Christmas

Rich

  Rich,

  Exelent point, but does he need to continue to play the field?

  Anthony

[Mike Benham]

... that you have to keep hiring different architects to build each new course at a resort.

... with Jim Urbina and a committee helping on the design, instead of just calling it my second design there.

It is early on a Monday morning, I'm confused so which is true ...

1.  Jim Urbina and the Committee is a sham and you are doing all the design work, therefore it is your second design at Bandon.

2.  Jim Urbina and the Committee is doing all the work and you're are taking all the credit for your second design at Bandon.

3.  George Bahto is the Committee ...

4.  The 5th course at Bandon will be Mackenzie, using templates from his courses, and Geoff Shackelford will rewrite "The Good Doctor Returns", changing the venue to the Oregon coast.  Jim Urbina and Tom Doak will have cameos.

[Bill_McBride]

... that you have to keep hiring different architects to build each new course at a resort.

... with Jim Urbina and a committee helping on the design, instead of just calling it my second design there.

4.  The 5th course at Bandon will be Mackenzie, using templates from his courses, and Geoff Shackelford will rewrite "The Good Doctor Returns", changing the venue to the Oregon coast.  Jim Urbina and Tom Doak will have cameos.

There are "Mackenzie templates?"  I've never seen two holes even remotely alike......

[Rob Rigg]

Mr. Keiser started his unknown art gallery with an unknown artist. I think he realized after building Bandon that there are many advantages to having experienced artists working on the pieces in his collection.

This was proven with Pacific and proven again with Trails. So I do not think he would have brought in a "new" archie for the 4th course, regardless of whether it was a tribute course or not.

If a 5th course was to go up at Bandon, unless he wanted a significantly different "style", I would not be surprised if Renaissance or C&C are chosen to design it, since Mr Keiser obviously trusts both parties and respects their design philosophies. He is beholden to no one and there is no need for him to ensure each course has a different architect, just that the architect is going to create each course to meet his design criteria.

Tom - It seems to me like a lot of resort courses are designed by the same archie - eg) in Maui, RTJ II has done almost every course in Makena/Wailea. So not sure when "modern/conventional wisdom" that you need a different archi for each 18 kicked in?

[Phil Benedict]

What about Kohler?  Four Dye courses.  That's worked pretty well, hasn't it?

[Colin Sheehan]

Would there be nearly the excitement for this course if the land was being used for another  "poor-man's mackenzie"?

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting responses so far.

For Anthony Gray:  There is no question that all the courses at Casa de Campo were going to be built by Pete Dye.  And yet, that resort is not as successful as it should be, considering they've got one (and maybe two) of the best courses in the world.  I think that's because a lot of people shy away from the name Pete Dye ... so maybe that's a point FOR conventional wisdom.

For Jim Sullivan:  Same argument above for Desert Mountain, where there are so many Nicklaus courses that none has taken precedence over the others and (to outsiders) it's all perceived as "more of the same", even though Jack has taken great pains to try and make them different.  I'm not saying the conventional wisdom doesn't have merit if you are going to build 4 or 5 courses.  As for Old Macdonald, you bet your life Mr. Keiser is playing up that name, and not mine so much.  He might not have hired us if that wasn't part of the deal.

For Kirk Gill:  Do you really think we're going to go back there and build a stinker?  Why the hell would we take the job, and ruin our reputation at the place where we made it?  I am under more pressure to perform at Old Macdonald than at Sebonack ... and I'm fine with that.

For Mike Hendren:  Make no mistake, the setting and the land have a lot to do with the success of Bandon Dunes and all of its courses.  But if that's all there was to it, I'm glad Mr. Keiser doesn't know, because no way would he be overpaying us to be back there again.

For Mike Benham:  (e)  All of the above.  But really, our process is no different for Old Macdonald than it was for Pacific Dunes.  I've done the routing, Jim has run the job, our team (with some old faces and some new ones) has shaped the course with my input (and Jim's), and we've had outside input from Mr. Keiser and several other sources [they're just more formalized into a committee now].  The only real differences are the Macdonald theme and the fact that the designer label is being marketed much differently, because my name is old news in Bandon.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I understand the Macdonald mantra..but in all honesty most of the people going to play there wont know who the hell he was anyway!
They will just be playing another good course, named after some "old guy"
they probably wont even know what period he was building courses.
I understand Mr Keisers idea...but it will go down as a Doak course in everybody's eyes.

Somewhat of a homage course which I imagine puts even more pressure on Mr Doak...who to a lot of non students may look upon the work..in the same manner as those who play the "tour 18" courses.

opinions?

[Kirk Gill]

For Kirk Gill:  Do you really think we're going to go back there and build a stinker?  Why the hell would we take the job, and ruin our reputation at the place where we made it?  I am under more pressure to perform at Old Macdonald than at Sebonack ... and I'm fine with that.

The pressure must be intense. I can only imagine. But you get my point, I hope, that if conventional wisdom is that different architects are necessary at a golf resort, then the only way your work would play into that convention is if you built a course that either wouldn't live up to the quality of Pacific Dunes, or one that was so similar to PD that it gave golfers a feeling of deja vu' when playing it. Building another world-class course that has notable differences to your first effort most certainly will not play into the conventional thinking of which you spoke.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -

I think successful businesspeople have this in common: not that they always make the best decision, but that they make sure that whatever decision they make proves to be the best one in the end. They do this by staying confident in themselves and their decision over time, and by supporting and nurturing that decision consistently and by all available means for as long as it takes.  Which is to say, I'm guessing Mr. Keiser would've done his part to ensure that going with a second "Tom Doak" course proved to be as good a decision as the one to create "Old Macdonald" undoubtedly is, and that you would've done your part.

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I do think Mike B asked a really good question and is deserving of further elaboriation.  It would be interesting to know which scenario was most common in how Old Mac has played out so far.