News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
I probably should have included that the new American Links Style course also share walkability as a common trait.

Wine Valley Golf Club is very walkable. The rolling terrain doesn't strain you too much and the walk from green to tee is generally quite short. If I was playing just 18, there is no question I would walk instead of cart.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
CB is definitely an 8. It is THE best course in the region. It is worth traveling to see.


This has probably been discussed on here before, but what the heck.  The Doak scale could be read to suggest that a course gets a higher rating if it's the best (or one of the best) in its region -- but that can't be right, can it?  Chambers Bay obviously wouldn't be the best course on 17-mile drive, but that can't mean it deserves fewer Doak scale points than it gets in Tacoma.

It's better than any other 8 on 17 mile drive. ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall. You appear to be suffering from the mindset that created the dark ages of GCA. The rationalization that constantly narrow is more testing and that width has no place in the world for real golfers. Well the reality is providing a narrow target through narrow corridors makes the sport infinitely easier for the better lazy thinking golfer. While not providing that obvious line through width gives the golfer a sense of uneasiness because the path is less obvious. Augusta was designed with that in mind emulating the feedom found on the suld sod.

Adam

Your post made me go back and read my own as I couldn't see how you came to the conclusion that I had a dark ages mindset, I still can't. I respectively suggest you didn't read my posts fully or are jumping to conclusions.

What I'm challenging is the idea that you require what you would call width (in my view excessive width ie. 50-80 yard fairways which I think were mentioned in Richards original post) to create interesting strategic choices. In the example at Kingsbarns that I gave, my view is that there is no real preferred route, either obvious or not, and therefore strategy is irrelevant. A sense of uneasiness doesn't come into it. The hole simply fails to engage my mind or spark my imagination.

Adam, I assume you are making an oblique reference to TOC above. The width on the Old Course largely comes from being able to play on adjoining fairways, the obvious example being the 14th hole. While this is not unique in the UK it is certainly not common and there are a lot of classic courses out there that are neither penal nor excessively wide.

Niall 

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall,
   It is very interesting about Kingsbarns and there not being a favored position on some holes. Is the course so popular mainly because of the aesthetics/popularity of the course,  and once you get past that it loses some of it's luster?

Adam,
   The flip side of not having a defined route to the hole is that a squirrely driver of the ball off the tee (i.e. me) is allowed to take a freer swing than he would if the hole were a bit tighter off the tee. I don't think you need US Open width to lessen that freedom, but it should be addressed in some way IMO.

Ed

I think you have summed it up nicely. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing there and happy to recommend it to anyone, but I don't get the same buzz of anticipation that I do for other courses. It is easy to see why it is so popular because the aesthetics are amazing and there is plenty to engage the eye on your first (or second) visit but as I said it doesn't engage my golfers brain as well as other courses do.

Niall

Matt MacIver

  • Karma: +0/-0
Kingsbarns is one of my all-time favorites, but I (begrudgingly) agree re: #12.  What I really like about KB is the way you can play the ball on the ground, esp. around the greens, to keep below the wind and get at certain hole positions.  The angles are probably different on these approaches given how good or bad your drive was, but I'm not sure they can be characterized as strategic or non-strategic.  But these low-running approach shots up and down the green surrounds is what separates KB from many, many others. 

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
I have been lucky enough to play a few great "new links" courses this year.

I would rate PD slightly ahead of BT - both are tremendous routings with massive attention to detail that is missing at BD. BT is a tougher walk, which puts it just a touch behind PD for me. BT gets a knock on the scenery side but I think that is somewhat bs - BT is striking with several vistas that are all world. Strategy also abounds and the green complexes are some of the most intersting I have ever seen. Of course, for me, PD is a dream course which makes it tough to beat.

I would rate PD and BT ahead of CB, although I think CB is a great layout that will continue to mature over time.

I would rate CB ahead of BD - BD is a solid course, but falls way short of the other two that are open at the Resort in terms of design interest, finish work and strategy, and IMO it is not as strategically interesting or diverse as CB or Tetherow. BD benefits tremendously from its setting and a few strong holes that incorporate the ocean such as 4/5/6 and 16.

CB is also ahead of Tetherow for me - both are fairly challenging walks but CB is all about elevation change while Tetherow is routed through a residential development. Tetherow is located in a beautiful setting and I think Kidd did better work there than at BD (which is understandable as he is maturing as an architect). The par fours at CB and Tetherow are both very strong, while the par 5s at CB are superior in IMO and the par threes are only "good" at both.

Based on the preview, OM will be in the class of PD and BT, if not better for a certain type of links junkie golfer. The scale of OM is epic, like nothing I have seen on this side of the pond. After 10 holes, it was a close battle between OM and PD for my favorite course on the property.

I would agree that we are currently living through another golden age in great links course design. It is a great time to be a walking golfer - I mean golfer.


Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rob, you MUST get out to Wine Valley Golf Club, because the scales there are as epic as it is at Bandon Trails. I would love to hear your toughts on it.

I like CB over BT, but I think I do need to play BT a lot more before forming a firm opinion.

I do think that I am very very lucky to be living in this part of the country where all of these courses are within driving distance (7 hours ain't so bad).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 02:03:27 PM by Richard Choi »

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall, I read you fine. Just because KB doesn't utilize it as strategic, does not mean other holes on other courses can't or shouldn't.

My comment was more about slippery slopes and formulaic thinking, as it relates to actual widths. I meant no offense to you and was just trying to widen your horizons. ;)

One need only look at the rows of trees planted at a place like Beverly CC in Chicago, to see how the slippery slope constricted the corridors. One row from the 1940's one from the 50's and one from the 60's. The justification for these types of wholesale strangulations can always be traced back to the better golfer. Or, the limiting mindset of precluding anyone from creating a shot that might have a bit more curve on it than they think should be allowed. As I write that sentence I can't help  but laugh at the subjectivity.

One more reason a corridor may need ample width is the wind speeds prevalent in a region.

Here in Nebraska JN built a course with probably the widest corridors he's ever built. Guess what? They weren't wide enough for the days when the wind speeds went over 25mph. Which are many days.

Variety and non-formulaic thinking precludes a statement such as 30-40 yards wide should be ample.

Good day.


"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
I would like someone to explain to me, when discussing Bandon Dunes, what their comment "lack of finish work" or "lack of finish detail" entales exactly?

Because I don't see it.  I know in my mind what I think it means, and I've helped build golf courses, but I think it's a horse pucky thing to say.

Seems to me it's a catch phrase for "I'm not sure what to say but I think the popular opinion is it's not as good as the other two at the resort."

And I agree, it's my third fave of the Bandon courses, but just barely.

Yet to say it's lacking finish detail or somehow "inferior," is, well, bogus, IMHO.

One of the great things about Bandon Dunes Resort is the variety in the three, soon to be four, courses.  

The auld course is a little less demanding than the other two, but not by much.  It's still THRILLING TERRAIN.  It reeks golf.

When I read so much on this site about the overemphasis on frilly bunkers, I start to agree because I think that's why people rip on Bandon Dunes.

There are some KILLER holes on BD.  Love 1 & 2, love 5, love 7, love 8  That's 5 ! to !! on one 9 hole loop

I think #10 is vastly underrated.  #13 is very unique, and #16 might be the best hole ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.  It's certainly my fave and I'm a huge Pacific Dunes nuthugger.

Bandon Dunes is a fabulous course and neck and neck with Chambers Bay, IMHO.  

Until CB's maintenance issues are cleared up, I think BD is better.
  



  



« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 07:07:49 PM by Michael Dugger »
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Michael,

My issue with some of the inland holes on Bandon is that they did not captivate me as much as those on Pacific or Trails. When I speak of superior finish work on the other courses it is the attention to detail around the greens, how the bunkers look incredibly natural and fit the terrain so seamlessly. I thought both of those routings felt more "thoughtful" and "natural" while BD feels a lot more "man made" to me and on many holes the fairways are quite flat.

I am not debating that BD is a great course - but I do not think it is in the class of BT, PD, or even CB.

While BD has some very good holes, both my playing partner and I thought the round was a lot less memorable overall. The strength of BD is the way in which Kidd used the ocean for great effect - and those are the only holes that really stick out in my mind. I also had a less than ideal caddy experience during that round which put me in a bad mood.

From memory,  3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18 were only "so so" in comparison to the work on the other courses IMO.

I am kind of looking fwd to playing it again on the next visit to see if I change my tune at all. As I look through the photos and think back on the trip, I doubt it.

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rob

Just so I have the story straight, you've played Bandon Dunes once?



What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
BD - Walked it once and played it once - yes.
PD - Walked it once and played it twice.
BT - Played it once.
OM - Played it once.

Ross Waldorf

Michael:

Yeah, I'm with you on the whole Bandon Dunes thing. For whatever reason, it just seems to get less love from the GCA crowd. For the record, I'm in the Pacific Dunes is my favorite camp, because there's just something special about the whole feel of PD that gets me every time. But I'm almost a pick 'em between BD and BT. Haven't played Old Mac yet, but I have a five day trip planned for next year to remedy that situation. When I'm there next year, I've got two rounds planned for the Trails and only one for Bandon Dunes, but that has more to do with the fact that I've only been around the Trails three times, while I've played Bandon Dunes six, I think. Want a bit more time to explore the Trails since it's grown in a bit.

But Bandon Dunes has some absolutely fantastic golf holes. I think 1 is the best opener on the property, and I like 2 way more than most on here seem to. Obviously 4 and 5 are superb, and 6 is a beautiful oceanside par three. 7 I quite like, although the tee shot could probably use a bit more interest -- however, there's a bigtime crosswind there usually, and I like that the correct line isn't obvious from the tee. 8 is a bit so-so, although the fairway bunkering is quite attractive. 9 is also kind of bland -- and I do agree that both nines have something of a weak finish. But that's compared to a very high standard -- if most people played those two holes at their home course, I think they'd certainly be considered at least interesting, if not spectacular.

10 is a great golf hole, I think -- quirky, a bit of an oddball in a very good way, and again not at all obvious from the tee. Plus I like that much of the downside of choosing a poor line on that hole is simply one of stance or blindness, rather than a more obvious penalty. That more people don't rave about 11 I don't get at all. That is a very stern and superb golf hole in my opinion, with a really terrific green guarded by that deep front bunker -- I love that hole, even though it routinely kicks my ass. 12 is also nice one-shotter for sure. 13 is one where I can see why people don't get all that wowed by, but I always enjoy the extreme undulation of the fairway, which may not make up for some of the hole's shortcomings, but certainly keeps it interesting. 14 -- an excellent two-shotter, 15 -- a very testing par 3, with a great skyline green, and I'm in the total love of 16 camp. That is a great, great hole in an unbeatable setting. 17 is pretty good and 18 is fine, but again, the nine ends with a little bit of a letdown, although not a terrible one.

So again, I think the course deserves way more praise than it gets here. I think the bunker style just isn't loved on GCA because it's not quite so artistic, but I think it fits the course well. And while I agree that there are places where the contouring tends to be a bit simpler and has perhaps less finesse than much of what you see on PD and BT, I wouldn't really call it lack of attention to detail, personally. So I'm in agreement that the things that make the course so much different tend to elevate it for me, because it makes the whole Bandon experience richer and more varied.

Anyway, that's my $.02.

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ross,

All good points. I think part of it comes down to which courses fit ones eye - and we are all different. The fact that Bandon Dunes is different from PD and BT and OM is a great thing, because it does provide variety. If you ask 20 golfers who visit the resort which is their favorite course I am sure that the vote will be split across all three.

Have you played any of the other new "Links style" courses in the US - eg) Chambers, Tetherow, Wine Valley, Rustic?


Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rob,

Good morning!  So I'm feeling better about my position, obviously, having had Ross chime in here affirming what I stated.

Dude, don't get me wrong.  I love blow out bunkers, crumbling edges and "frill" as much as the next guy.  Of those I've played, Pac Dunes is hands down my favorite golf course.

And I too think a few holes at Bandon Dunes could use a facelift, so to speak.

But don't let the frilly bunkers, or rather lack thereof, completely drive your boat.  There is some neat stuff at Bandon Dunes

 
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall, I read you fine. Just because KB doesn't utilize it as strategic, does not mean other holes on other courses can't or shouldn't.

My comment was more about slippery slopes and formulaic thinking, as it relates to actual widths. I meant no offense to you and was just trying to widen your horizons. ;)

One need only look at the rows of trees planted at a place like Beverly CC in Chicago, to see how the slippery slope constricted the corridors. One row from the 1940's one from the 50's and one from the 60's. The justification for these types of wholesale strangulations can always be traced back to the better golfer. Or, the limiting mindset of precluding anyone from creating a shot that might have a bit more curve on it than they think should be allowed. As I write that sentence I can't help  but laugh at the subjectivity.

One more reason a corridor may need ample width is the wind speeds prevalent in a region.

Here in Nebraska JN built a course with probably the widest corridors he's ever built. Guess what? They weren't wide enough for the days when the wind speeds went over 25mph. Which are many days.

Variety and non-formulaic thinking precludes a statement such as 30-40 yards wide should be ample.

Good day.




Adam

I don't want to get into some sort of Merion type slagging match but frankly, and with respect, you don't read me fine if you think I am advocating narrow playing corridors and penal design. Fairways of 30 to 40 yards aren't narrow in my book but then maybe we are merely disagreeing on definitions.

I agree with your comments on courses becoming more penal/tighter to suit the low handicap mindset and I also could give you plenty of examples from here in the UK. Also I'm all for variety, and yes that includes an element of penalty, however when I think of an 80 yard wide hole I think why ? The land costs/maintainance costs etc for this much of a land take in this age of relative austerity makes me question whether it is a prudent thing to do. Yes I know that isn't a purely golf architectural reason not to do it, but when you can produce a well thought out hole which can challenge you to exercise your mind as well as challenging your ability to execute a variety of possible shots, and do it within a fairway width of 30 yards, then why design holes with 80 yard wide fairways ? Like I said previously, width (as in 80 yard fairways) isn't required IMHO.

Niall


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Niall:

I have probably been as big an advocate of wide fairways as anyone the past few years, but I agree with you that 80 yards of width is not often wise, nor necessary.  I am always surprised when I get back to the UK how narrow the fairways are on most links courses compared to my memory of them, and I'm sure my trip in two weeks will be another reminder.  At the same time, unirrigated rough on the great links does not play the same as the irrigated bluegrass or bermuda rough on many American courses ... my forearms still ache from a week of bad tee shots back East a week ago.

Fairway width has to be tied to grass choices, first and foremost.  When we are building fescue fairways (in Bandon, or at Ballyneal or Barnbougle), the per-acre cost of fariway maintenance is not much more than leaving it as mowed rough, and the aesthetics and fun factor of the wide fairways are far superior, which to me outweighs the need to "test" a player's ability to drive the ball into a narrow area, which we do instead with bunkers and bad angles to the flag.  But when we are in an area of bentgrass fairways and bluegrass roughs, our fairway widths generally go down to a more reasonable 30-50 yards, because of the per-acre costs.

I will never be a big proponent of "standard" fairways at 25-35 yards.  When you build these you rob the course of any strategy ... there isn't room to let a bunker protrude into the fairway and narrow it, so all of the bunkers wind up being window dressing to the sides of the line of play.  And, unless the course management keeps the rough as gentle as we would prefer (which they seldom do), a course of that width is hell on 15-handicaps and above.

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Michael and Ross have said it well, but I'm going to come to Bandon Dunes' defense as well.  I think holes such as #7, #10, #11, #12 and, perhaps to a lesser extent, #8 and #15, are superb.  I do agree that the par 5s are the weakest aspect of BD.  For the sake of variety and for the feel of a UK links course, I'm thankful that the bunkering at BD is not the blowout or frilly style.  Holes such as #11 and #12 make great use of the pot bunkers.  And, I too rate BD 3rd among the current courses at the resort.  
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 02:14:37 PM by Tim Pitner »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Tim:

I am not questioning your defense of Bandon Dunes as a very good course, but I have to question your characterization of those bunkers.  Have you ever been to the UK?

To me the bunker styling at Bandon Dunes is not a links, pot-bunker style.  It has a few of those, but most of the bunkers are bigger and more grass-faced.  They look more like the bunkers at Gleneagles than the bunkers at Troon.  Which is not surprising since David Kidd grew up at Gleneagles, and since Jim Haley built bunkers for Rees Jones before David.

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tim:

I am not questioning your defense of Bandon Dunes as a very good course, but I have to question your characterization of those bunkers.  Have you ever been to the UK?

To me the bunker styling at Bandon Dunes is not a links, pot-bunker style.  It has a few of those, but most of the bunkers are bigger and more grass-faced.  They look more like the bunkers at Gleneagles than the bunkers at Troon.  Which is not surprising since David Kidd grew up at Gleneagles, and since Jim Haley built bunkers for Rees Jones before David.

Tom,

Yes, I have been to the UK and I take your point.  I was imprecise, referring more to the size (to me, they're smallish by US standards) and depth of the bunkers as opposed to grass-faced vs revetted. 

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Michael,

It is not the frilly bunkers that drive my boat at all - it is the thoughtful design that went into each and every hole at BT and PD that make those courses superior to BD in my humble opinion. That perception, of course, could simply come from the "what suits my eye" element which everyone is entitled to.

Again, BD is a great course with a few spectacular holes and a bunch of stong ones - and it is not one single element that makes me prefer the others.

I think everyone who has chimed in has agreed that BD is their 3rd fav at the resort which is no slight to BD at all in such tremendous company.

What are your reasons for ranking it 3rd?
Or anyone elses if they want to chime in?

Also, why do people think it is superior to CB (which is probably the majority opinion and understandable although I disagree by a hair)?

Ross Waldorf

Rob:

Not too much more to add, really. other than that I haven't decided if I prefer the Trails or Bandon Dunes. All in all I lean toward the Trails, but only slightly. I do think there's more subtlety in the routing and detail -- the pieces seem to fit together perhaps a bit more coherently all in all with the Trails. But I also think that Bandon Dunes is a bit more fun for me. The distinctions are pretty slight, though. Which, by the way, isn't to say that the differences in the COURSES are slight -- I think they feel completely different, which is what makes the resort so damned good.

I think that if I liked the middle section of the Trails better (around 8, 9 and 10, especially), it would be an easier call. That's why I want to play it a few more times.

As for other courses, of the ones you mention I've only played Rustic Canyon. But I play it a lot -- it's my home course. So that's a course I'd say I know intimately.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall, I read you fine. Just because KB doesn't utilize it as strategic, does not mean other holes on other courses can't or shouldn't.

My comment was more about slippery slopes and formulaic thinking, as it relates to actual widths. I meant no offense to you and was just trying to widen your horizons. ;)

One need only look at the rows of trees planted at a place like Beverly CC in Chicago, to see how the slippery slope constricted the corridors. One row from the 1940's one from the 50's and one from the 60's. The justification for these types of wholesale strangulations can always be traced back to the better golfer. Or, the limiting mindset of precluding anyone from creating a shot that might have a bit more curve on it than they think should be allowed. As I write that sentence I can't help  but laugh at the subjectivity.

One more reason a corridor may need ample width is the wind speeds prevalent in a region.

Here in Nebraska JN built a course with probably the widest corridors he's ever built. Guess what? They weren't wide enough for the days when the wind speeds went over 25mph. Which are many days.

Variety and non-formulaic thinking precludes a statement such as 30-40 yards wide should be ample.

Good day.




Adam

I don't want to get into some sort of Merion type slagging match but frankly, and with respect, you don't read me fine if you think I am advocating narrow playing corridors and penal design. Fairways of 30 to 40 yards aren't narrow in my book but then maybe we are merely disagreeing on definitions.

I agree with your comments on courses becoming more penal/tighter to suit the low handicap mindset and I also could give you plenty of examples from here in the UK. Also I'm all for variety, and yes that includes an element of penalty, however when I think of an 80 yard wide hole I think why ? The land costs/maintainance costs etc for this much of a land take in this age of relative austerity makes me question whether it is a prudent thing to do. Yes I know that isn't a purely golf architectural reason not to do it, but when you can produce a well thought out hole which can challenge you to exercise your mind as well as challenging your ability to execute a variety of possible shots, and do it within a fairway width of 30 yards, then why design holes with 80 yard wide fairways ? Like I said previously, width (as in 80 yard fairways) isn't required IMHO.

Niall



Niall

30 yard wide fairways sounds awfully narrow to me on any course.  How wide are the famously narrow US Open fairways - 22-25ish? 

The main thing that intrigues me about these new style links being built in the States is the width.  The frilly bunkers don't mean anything to me and the contoured greens don't mean much to me.  One aspect I don't hear much about is the balance of bunkers with natural hazards - which imo plays directly into the theory of wide courses (its not just about rough narrowing courses) and how loose shots leave awkward angles rather than immediate punishment.  Many of these courses are meant to be on excellent terrain, yet it still seems as though bunkering is the main form challenge.  I could be wrong though.  From pix, it did look like Doak chilled a bit with the bunkering of Ballyneal. 

To stay on the topic of bunkering, I have a question.  Without a doubt the best bunkered course I have seen in the US is Lederach.  KBM mainly relied on centre-line bunkers to create challenge, but he used relatively very few.  It seemed like there were more, but that is only because all of them had to be thought about by the golfer.  Are these new links offering more centre-line bunkers?  What do folks think the trend is?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
A course like Black Mesa is a great example of using angle to expand the playable width. The reason its important is the water. That region requires conservation and putting in a four row system would've been prohibitive. Niall, varying the widths is what I've noticed on many on the intelligent designs. Not every hole has 80 yards. Tom has even pinched a few to 15 yards.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Will Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think Tom's point about grass type is the most revealing and important of the thread. Having played the Old Course on Monday, I can attest to how playable the rough is. It allows for the player to find the ball and advance it. Of course if you are in the rough, it normally means that you have a horrible angle at the green.

Interestingly the only hole that had rough that seemed out of place was the legendary seventeenth. The rough left of the fairway which gets a ton of play was not long and wispy but thick and gnarly. It was about six inches and the grass appeared to resemble blue grass found on the east coast. It could be that they have narrowed the fairway and this strip of rough was getting more irrigation then other areas of rough. But it was definitely not ideal.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back