The Old Macdonald dilemma....

[Kevin Pallier]

2  OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole,  which is both cool and disturbing.

How do they compare in size to those on TOC re. surface area ?

[jonathan_becker]

I say Old Macdonald yields shots of great interest.  Pacific Dunes is prettier and more coherent, but Old Macdonald is a shotmaker's dream.  So many fun shots to look forward to.
 

This sums it up for me. 

And to comment on the "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"  I don't buy this comment.   There's enough room out on OM to where many recoveries would be better executed by using a pitch or even a lofted shot.  This is especially true when the shot is into the wind.  Obviously, this is aimed more towards the better player but I came across a few recoveries out there where the putter was last club that I would have used.   

[Andy Troeger]

With such large greens, golfers get away with wayward approach shots that are 20-30 yds off line. Perhaps the issue here is that they don't acknowledge that on any another course they would probably have ended up in a pond, thick rough or OOB. They end up with a 100 ft putt, and not surprisingly they three putt it. What's the first emotion they feel? Frustration. they may have hit the green in regulation but they end up with bogey. Golfers hate to three putt and during a post mortem of a round, will highlight the number of GIRs and the three putts they had.

I'm sure for some golfers that this is true, but I think my issue is more that the variety of recoveries isn't as good as it could be because you're "recovery putting" from such a large percentage of the course. Given that you have to putt once on the green, I'd like to see a little more variety of shot required when you're not. Its still a huge improvement over thick rough that requires a sand-wedge flop shot all the time.

Jonathan,
That's only true about better players that can pitch or loft shots off tight lies. Its a risky shot for the regular golfer.

[Adam Clayman]

I've found, on a freedom filled canvas, that recovery putting is often the last resource, for a creatively challenged shot maker. Since the era of shot makers is at least a generation past, most have no idea of the infinite possibilities. Don't blame yourselves. Blame the equipment for being so one dimensional in their design.

Joe, I hope that when the unfair word gets spoken, your ears shut down.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
That is a fair point. You can bump an 8-iron or use a hybrid and achieve similar results (with perhaps a bit less grab until the ball gets on the green), but you've got to be pretty good with your sand wedge to consider that a real option off tight lies. I'm not proficient enough, but of course that can be blamed on my lack of practice as much as the course itself. I still think most golfers are going to want to keep the ball on the ground though for the vast majority of recovery shots.

[Adam Clayman]

Sand or Lob wedges off tight lies is only for the most skilled, agreed. But, even with the amount of desired roll, some carry is needed before the roll begins. That's the creative part.

The fact that the course takes golfer's out of their comfort zone, is a good thing in my opinion. It illustrates just how much short grass, is a strategy inducing, worthy, hazard.

Everything is right in front of you. You just have to figure it out, which most modern golfers are unaccustomed to. Isn't hat the crux of the C Guide? That the American landscape of courses were not worthy of calling themselves complete tests.

[Anthony Gray]

  Isn't the point of the design to emphasize the short game. This is not a design flaw but one of the objectives. Does it make OM a little unbalanced? Of course it does but it was ment to be unbalanced. Does that keep it lower on the top 100 because it is unbalanced? Of course,but its not designed to meet the perfect criteria of highly ranked more balanced courses. In the long run I'll take unbalanced over balanced.

  Anthony

 

[Tom_Doak]

Given that you have to putt once on the green, I'd like to see a little more variety of shot required when you're not. Its still a huge improvement over thick rough that requires a sand-wedge flop shot all the time.

Jonathan,
That's only true about better players that can pitch or loft shots off tight lies. Its a risky shot for the regular golfer.

Okay, Andy, I think I'd like to summarize your views.

What is crystallizing for me in this discussion is that good players don't like a course if they feel it doesn't reward their greater skill appropriately.  They want the course to be relatively tight off the tee, so their driving is rewarded.  They want a variety of recovery shots around the greens, so their ability to recover is rewarded -- especially bunker shots, which are easy for them.  So, they are uncomfortable with a course which seems to allow people to "get away" with bad shots and to make easy bogeys and the occasional par with nothing more than a putter.

But, that's not enough!  You've got to also criticize the design because "only better players can pitch or loft shots off tight lies," which is too risky for the regular golfer.  [I did not see the Public Links event on TV, but noted that in later matches the competitors often tried something besides a putter for recovery shots ... sometimes successfully, but other times to their detriment.]

Here's the rub.  Golf is really only about one thing -- it's about getting the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible.  It's not an obstacle course where you have to succeed at ten different shots in order to finish.  If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault?  Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often?

Part of the point of Old Macdonald is to let the C player just make his bogeys and doubles all day and enjoy the course and get out of the way.  Good players usually don't have a problem with that, but it seems to bother them much more when they sometimes can't do better than bogeys and doubles themsleves.

[Tom_Doak]

  Isn't the point of the design to emphasize the short game. This is not a design flaw but one of the objectives. Does it make OM a little unbalanced? Of course it does but it was ment to be unbalanced. Does that keep it lower on the top 100 because it is unbalanced? Of course,but its not designed to meet the perfect criteria of highly ranked more balanced courses. In the long run I'll take unbalanced over balanced.

  Anthony

Anthony:

I do not think Old Macdonald emphasizes the short game.  There are a lot of long shots out there which are very exciting for a real shotmaker to try.

As for unbalanced -- the course is not deliberately unbalanced -- it is just that I do not believe the objective of golf architecture is to produce a "balanced test of golf".  That's what I was just trying to get across to Andy -- he's assuming that that is the ultimate goal.  Why would it be?  If I had to always build a balanced test of golf, then 99% of players would walk off every course feeling inadequate.

[jonathan_becker]

Sand or Lob wedges off tight lies is only for the most skilled, agreed. But, even with the amount of desired roll, some carry is needed before the roll begins. That's the creative part.

This is true.  The problem with the putter in some situations around OM and even all of the courses at Bandon is that some of the humps and bumps are severe in spots and you realistically can't use the putter and expect to get the ball close.  Once the putter gets the ball rolling....it's gone.

If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault?  Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often?


Tom,

I don't think the course is at fault. The good players in the wide spectrum of things aren't really that good.  Touring professionals are good and that's about it!

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I don't have time to address this properly until this evening, but I'm not a particularly good player these days, although perhaps I've retained the mindset. I'm an especially poor chipper, so these types of surrounds if anything work to my advantage as it encourages others to try the shots I'm more competent to pull off.

However, I've never cared for the idea that courses try to level the playing field. I'm ok with there being an advantage to proper execution, even if I can't benefit from it. I understand why higher handicaps love courses that level the playing field, but I wouldn't expect better players to universally like the idea!

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:

I am not trying to "level the playing field" any more than I'm trying to "produce a balanced test of golf".  That's your interpretation, subtly influenced by your own biases.

I am trying to give each different description of golfer something they'll enjoy.  For the C players, it's getting them around in one piece.  For the A players, it's giving them a challenge.  I think Old Macdonald does both -- maybe too well for some people's tastes and preconceptions!

P.S.  I do not mean to be picking on you, in particular.  I am trying to discuss this in terms of "the better player" and their biases, which you have tried to articulate.

[Anthony Gray]

Andy:

I am not trying to "level the playing field" any more than I'm trying to "produce a balanced test of golf".  That's your interpretation, subtly influenced by your own biases.

I am trying to give each different description of golfer something they'll enjoy.  For the C players, it's getting them around in one piece.  For the A players, it's giving them a challenge.  I think Old Macdonald does both -- maybe too well for some people's tastes and preconceptions!

  Do you see the A player being more critical than the C player because of the grren sizes?

  Anthony

[Peter Pallotta]

Andy, Tom - fine discussion.  It strikes me that there is an element of reality vs perception here. I'm of the mind that  a course can't actually 'level the playing field', i.e. a better player will alway has the advantage....IF he is indeed the better player (in truth as opposed to in his own mind).  And it is the golf course, ANY golf course, that will tell him this.  Sometimes the better player doesn't like what the course tells him.

Peter

[George Pazin]

My next t shirt:


Terrific post, Bart, seriously. Probably the best one for someone who hasn't seen the course in person.

-----

Okay, Andy, I think I'd like to summarize your views.

What is crystallizing for me in this discussion is that good players don't like a course if they feel it doesn't reward their greater skill appropriately.  They want the course to be relatively tight off the tee, so their driving is rewarded.  They want a variety of recovery shots around the greens, so their ability to recover is rewarded -- especially bunker shots, which are easy for them.  So, they are uncomfortable with a course which seems to allow people to "get away" with bad shots and to make easy bogeys and the occasional par with nothing more than a putter.

But, that's not enough!  You've got to also criticize the design because "only better players can pitch or loft shots off tight lies," which is too risky for the regular golfer.  [I did not see the Public Links event on TV, but noted that in later matches the competitors often tried something besides a putter for recovery shots ... sometimes successfully, but other times to their detriment.]

Here's the rub.  Golf is really only about one thing -- it's about getting the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible.  It's not an obstacle course where you have to succeed at ten different shots in order to finish.  If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault?  Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often?

Part of the point of Old Macdonald is to let the C player just make his bogeys and doubles all day and enjoy the course and get out of the way.  Good players usually don't have a problem with that, but it seems to bother them much more when they sometimes can't do better than bogeys and doubles themsleves.

I'm saving this one to my computer for future reference.

[Phil McDade]

Two thoughts (and take this with as many grains of salt as you want, since I've never been to Bandon):

-- I read somewhere -- maybe Ran's review, or in Tom's comments elsewhere (and he gets at it here in this thread) -- that of the four Bandon courses, OM may be hardest for the low-handicapper and easiest for the high-handicapper. Some of the criticism that Joe and Tom reference about OM is some of the same criticism you hear about Scottish links courses (esp. TOC) -- little definition, random outcomes, the arbitrary nature of many holes. High handicappers are used to playing on a broader canvas than the low handicapper -- they hit the ball all over the place! So maybe OM appeals to them for providing that broader canvas.

-- Is OM criticized unduly or unfairly because it's the most "Scottish" (or "Irish" or "UK-ish") of the courses at Bandon, and thus the pencil-scoreboard-KEEP A SCORE AT ALL COSTS golfers doesn't see the appeal of it? I'm struck by how many references to scoring there are on this thread; when I went to Scotland and played with locals, hardly anyone kept score on individual holes -- they were either playing match-play, or simply playing the course for enjoyment and challenge, and not for keeping a score. Does OM lend itself (moreso than the other three Bandon courses) to match-play, and NOT being obsessive about one's score? The public-links match-play earlier this year looked like it was producing some really interesting play and choices out of the golfers.

[Tom_Doak]

  Do you see the A player being more critical than the C player because of the grren sizes?

Anthony:

I don't really know, I haven't received enough feedback on the course yet.  Joe Bentham would probably have a better idea than me.  I would GUESS that A players think the greens are too big in theory -- they think they should be harder to hit.  Meanwhile, C players don't worry about the size of a green in concept at all -- but some of them will three-putt and four-putt all day.  Some of the C players will hate the course for that, but others won't care at all, they'll just be happy they didn't lose many balls.

[Lou_Duran]

I've spoken to multiple people that have played Old MacDonald this year who have very little to zero interest in playing it again.

This is a great illustration of the problems with sampling error.  I too have spoken to numerous golfers who've played Old Mac and I am surprised how almost to the man they thought it was an outstanding, fun, unusual course.  In fact, from my three trips to Bandon and many discussions with golfers from all over the place, there appears to be much less concensus on the popularity/greatness of Pacific Dunes- a number of people I've talked to prefer Bandon Dunes.  It does appear that Bandon Trails sucks hind teat, an estimation I do not share.  I'd thought that by now I would have strong preferences among the four as I do with most things but I don't.  Put me out there on a moderately decent day on any of the four and I am happy as a clam.

Joe Bentham,

You have my admiration and sympathy for your work at Bandon.  You are a much better man than I could be, chasing the ball of my two opponents, yet obliging their need to consult on each of their shots.  I actually thought about shanking one your way with hopes of temporarily disabling you (and getting on with things), but I don't remember hitting a ball close (or hard enough) to where I was aiming that day so it would have been for naught.

From the loopers' perspective, please rank the courses in terms of the difficulty of your work (hardest to easiest) and why.  Does it resemble how difficult they are for the player to walk?  And how they would be ranked in terms of popularity?

Are the Trails greens that difficult to read and putt in comparison to the other courses?  Would repeated play/familiarity/experience diminish the variance among the four?

It will be interesting to see what happens to Old Mac when the greens mature and the speeds get up to Trails'.



    

[Sean Leary]

Joe,

What percentage of your loops are for total hacks? Seems to me like Bandon would get less of those than other places because if the nature of the place. Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.

[Phil McDade]

Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.

Why? They make up the majority of golfers...

[Sean_A]

  If I am understanding you correctly the disturbing aspect is the wide open choice with seemingly little trouble no matter which route (if they can be called that) is taken.  This may the sort of the feature which takes time to understand and may be more appreciated once one learns pin positions, wind and a general idea of what score one hopes to acheive.

Sean:

That's the sort of feature that many people are NEVER going to appreciate; many will give up on it before they understand it.

But, that's the course.  So far, the criticisms are that's it's too wide open, you hit a putter for your recovery shot, it's too random, it's unfair.  I don't hear many people telling me it's too easy -- because it's not.  It's just difficult in unconventional ways that frustrate some types of players.

Tom

Just so I understand what we are talking about, is the 4th tee shot at Pennard an example?  While I understand that this hole only plays wide open off the tee because the rough is virtually non-existent, the effect is literally a wide open tee shot - ironically with the only trouble if one actually follows the fairway and hits it too far.  Another course which has a many of these wide open holes is Bulls Bay, but because so often blindness or elevation change is involved the tee shots don't seem nearly as perplexing.  

So far as the putter recovery issue is concerned, to me this is the ultimate in options because different skills can be utilized to great effect.  I happen to have a great respect for a well judged long putt and think it one of the most beautiful shots in golf, but for more skilled players they can use a more lofted club for anything from the runner to the one bounce and check shot.  Not having the skill to pull off these spin spins shots from short grass is not a shortcoming of the course because there are often other options.  On the flip side for say a course like Yeamans Hall, I do think the there is a shortcoming in the rgeen complex designs because so often there is no option of type of recovery - even Pinehurst offers more options and if I believe that something is amiss with the design.  

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

I recently spoke with a member of my club who just came back from a trip to Bandon.  He was part of a foursome of seniors who are all very good players - 0 to 5 handicaps.  He said they didn't like OM and just didn't get it - especially the enormous greens.  I think that the size of the greens is even more of a factor than the width of the fairways as to why there is some dislike of the course.  You can score pretty well on a course if you hit it long and perhaps a bit crooked but if you are not a good putter you cannot make low scores.  Higher handicap players accept that they will 3 putt some greens but better players will not.  The greens are OM are so enormous that 3 and 4 putts are quite common and this goes for better players as well.  The better player can use his skill to get up and down from off a regular sized green  but at OM he winds up on the green with an enormous putt where his skills are not as much of an advantage.  Yes, he is a good putter but a 70 foot putt across an undulating green is difficult for all players but the better player is simply not enthusiastic about a challenge like that because he is not able to take as much advantage of his skills.

 

[George Pazin]

Joe,

What percentage of your loops are for total hacks? Seems to me like Bandon would get less of those than other places because if the nature of the place. Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.

I know you don't mean it by this statement, but a 20 is not a total hack. Comparing a 20 to a 2, that is one extra stroke per hole - and in my limited experience, that one extra stroke is frequently lost around the green. And many 20s play a lot of good holes and good shots, they just have a few more blow ups. More than anything else, I'd guess a 20 is a 20 due to lack of play and practice, not because he doesn't have any skills.

Ok, John, fire away with both barrels...

[Joe Bentham]

With such large greens, golfers get away with wayward approach shots that are 20-30 yds off line. Perhaps the issue here is that they don't acknowledge that on any another course they would probably have ended up in a pond, thick rough or OOB. They end up with a 100 ft putt, and not surprisingly they three putt it. What's the first emotion they feel? Frustration.

No question they don't acknowledge the fact that the shot they just hit would have been in a pond, thick rough or OB at home.  Then once they get the putter in their hand, no matter from where they are, they expect to get it close.  I find myself saying "well if you'd hit that with a wedge you'd love the result".  High handicappers are happy when greenside recovery shots get on the green when they are hit with wedges but give that same golfer his putter from that spot and he'll expect to burn an edge and two putt.

Sean--
90 percent of golfers who kept a USGA index last year didn't break 100 on a regular basis.  We are all hacks.  We get the whole spectrum at Bandon but the default setting is at least guys who play golf on a regular basis.  Even if it is bad golf.

Lou--

The greens at Old Mac have been the quickest on the resort since the Pub Links.
The caddie yard as a whole LIKES working Trails because of the greens.  They are smooth and way easier to read then Old Mac's so a good putter has a chance to make some putts there.
In terms of working the courses, I'd rank them:
1. Bandon Dunes
2. Pacific Dunes
3. Old Macdonald
4. Bandon Trails

And the reason trails is 4th is simply the walk.

[Carl Johnson]

Given that you have to putt once on the green, I'd like to see a little more variety of shot required when you're not. Its still a huge improvement over thick rough that requires a sand-wedge flop shot all the time.

Jonathan,
That's only true about better players that can pitch or loft shots off tight lies. Its a risky shot for the regular golfer.

. . . .

Here's the rub.  Golf is really only about one thing -- it's about getting the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible.  It's not an obstacle course where you have to succeed at ten different shots in order to finish.  If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault?  Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often? . . . .

Amen, Tom.  Much of this sort of discussion begs the question of "what is a good player"?  I subscribe to the idea that if player A beats player B on course C, then on that day on that course player A is better than player B.  Over time and on a number of different courses player B may be player A more often than not, in which case I'd say player B is generally a better (I should interject that I mean "better" in a playing skill sense) player than player A?

This analysis doesn't answer the question of whether either player A or B is a "good" player.  I have no idea how you determine who a good player is, except by competition against other players, and then the ranking is only relative.  Where is the good cut-off from the not-good?  Against the course, I say the course always wins (absent some future player's ability to make 18 consecutive holes-in-one during a round).

Another pet peave of mine about the term "good golfer."  I have a "friend" I play with from time to time who's about my age (near 70).  He was a mid-single digit handicapper at one time, but now is in the 11 - 13 range.  I now play to a 19.  So I grant you that I would consider him to be a better (more skilled) player than I am, looking at it generally.  However, he has told me that unlike himself, I am not a "real golfer."  He's thinking in terms of skill, of course, and of course he's being rediculous, and I can ignore him.  My perspective is that the phrases a "good golfer" or "real golfer" should be used to describe characteristics inclusive of, but far beyond, the skill level, a good part of which is summed up in "the spirit of the game" and other etiquette considerations as laid out in Section I of the USGA's Rules of Golf book.  It should not take too much to figure out some of the other "good golfer" characteristics.

I've never played OM or any other other Bandon Resort courses, so my comment is not in that particular context.  Also, I don't mean to highjack the thread.  I just felt like this was a good opportunity to vent a little.