The Old Macdonald dilemma....

[Andy Ryall]

One thing that surprises me reading the discussion is the general surprise/disdain for the OM green complexes.   Given the age of the internet and the resources available to scout out courses prior to arriving, I would think people could plan appropriately and even start practicing the different types of shots one might face on OM.   If you understand what you are about to experience is unique, shouldn't one take the next logical step and throw your conventional thinking out the window.   Part of succeeding in anything is one's ability to adapt - golf is no exception!

[Sean Leary]

George,

Total hacks and 20 cappers are not the same.

[Bryan Izatt]

Joe,

I'm surprised by how little comment there has been about the template/homage to Macdonald aspect of the course on this thread.  Based on your experience, are the majority of the players aware of, intrigued by, or enthralled with the templates.  Or, are most unaware and uncaring and more focused on the cool and disturbing features of the course?  Or, are they just trying to golf and score?

On my first couple of plays I was somewhat disappointed because I was looking too much for the templates and trying to compare them to the originals and was let down a bit when I did make the comparisons.  On subsequent plays, I was more able to just play it as a golf course and ended up much happier with the experience. 

Do you find that the majority of people come to the course with expectations about the template nature of the course? Does it impact their initial assessment of it.  Do you spend any time with your players discussing the template genesis of each of the holes or for most are you just trying to manage them around the course?

[JMEvensky]

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

We need one of those popcorn emoticons.

[George Pazin]

Sean, got it, thanks, that was my bad on a misread.

One thing that surprises me reading the discussion is the general surprise/disdain for the OM green complexes.   Given the age of the internet and the resources available to scout out courses prior to arriving, I would think people could plan appropriately and even start practicing the different types of shots one might face on OM.   If you understand what you are about to experience is unique, shouldn't one take the next logical step and throw your conventional thinking out the window.   Part of succeeding in anything is one's ability to adapt - golf is no exception!

Golf is indeed no exception: my experience is many people think they want to try something new, but once they do, they aren't always objective about the experience!

[Jud_T]

Just returned with a group of 16 guys ranging from +1 to 23.  Unsurprisingly the 2 sticks in the group liked Trails best.  We had strong winds the entire trip, even by average Bandon standards.  The criticism that most had about OM was that the greens were running too fast for the winds we played in.  A few of us really liked the course, particularly the big hitter who sprayed it and didn't lose a ball.  Most didn't, but that might change with less wind and/or slower green speeds.

[Rick Shefchik]

I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.

The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.

1. Old Macdonald lacks the definition of hole corridors seen on most other golf courses and ends up seeming to be a course built without boundaries,  which is both cool and disturbring.

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.

3.  At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts.  I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.

4.  The course utilizes concepts on most of its holes that I have seen repeated many times (admittedly in interesting and creative ways... but nonetheless, my favorite hole is the unique 7th) which is both cool and disturbing.

5.  The course offer tremendous numbers of options and plays remarkably different depending on hole location and wind...so many options that one can never really get to know and understand the course, which is both cool and disturbing.

I am certain someone will come on and claim that I posted without much thought.  However, any lack of clarity comes strictly from the limits of the quality of my thought and not the effort .

Bart

Never having played the course, I think this post helped me understand it in a way that even photos couldn't. Nice job, Bart.

[Dan Kelly]

I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.

The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.

1. Old Macdonald lacks the definition of hole corridors seen on most other golf courses and ends up seeming to be a course built without boundaries,  which is both cool and disturbring.

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.

3.  At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts.  I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.

4.  The course utilizes concepts on most of its holes that I have seen repeated many times (admittedly in interesting and creative ways... but nonetheless, my favorite hole is the unique 7th) which is both cool and disturbing.

5.  The course offer tremendous numbers of options and plays remarkably different depending on hole location and wind...so many options that one can never really get to know and understand the course, which is both cool and disturbing.

I am certain someone will come on and claim that I posted without much thought.  However, any lack of clarity comes strictly from the limits of the quality of my thought and not the effort .

Bart

Never having played the course, I think this post helped me understand it in a way that even photos couldn't. Nice job, Bart.

I'm returning, tardily, to this thread -- and concur, as I so often do, with Rick. Thanks, Bart. (Apropos of nothing: Bart Bradley would be a good name for a fictional private eye. Or maybe an Old West sheriff.)

Reading your list of cool and disturbing things, I thought: Is he describing Old Macdonald -- or the Old Course ... another course that seems to divide opinions.

Perhaps what we have here is a bastard cousin to the Raynor Paradox -- succinctly defined as "Why do I like what I shouldn't?" In this case, the Old Macdonald Paradox, perhaps: Why don't I like what I should?

Just a thought.

[Ted Cahill]

Bandon loopers frequently hand the putter to players for recovery shots around the greens because most of the players attempt the sand wedge fluff shot they would use back home. That shot is a recipe for a bounced skull at OM. The shame is that more players don't learn the fairly simple bump and run chip shot with a no bounce club (7,8 iron) at home that is a wonderful tool at Bandon. That shot, even marginally executed, will provide a decent outcome and is so much fun. I enjoy it so much, that I now have the opposite problem- I attempt it too much at home and the conditions are too slow. I am a recovering sand wedge flop/flip shot player. It has been 6 months since my last........

[Dan Kelly]

I enjoy it so much, that I now have the opposite problem- I attempt it too much at home and the conditions are too slow. I am a recovering sand wedge flop/flip shot player. It has been 6 months since my last........

Bless me, Father, for I have skulled...?

Dan (bump-and-run addict)

[Ted Cahill]

This discussion should be a reason to think back to the principles of why Bandon Dunes was started.  BD is a connoisseurs' choice, yet lacks pretension and is welcoming to any with a willingness to try new things.  It's level of popularity and success has led to a growth that could hardly have been envisioned 15 years ago.  All good.  But this success has resulted in more players traveling to BD who expect fairness at all times and their skill advantage to always be rewarded.  Their commiserating has resulted in this debate- fine- but I want to make the case that their viewpoints are not valued.  These courses were not designed to always reward their skill.  For those of us who can't get enough of Bandon- I would make the case that part of our adulation is because, prior to Bandon, (in the USA) we dutifully played the courses we were supposed to play, but usually left with the thought, "I paid $$$$ for that?  Dozen lost balls, water everywhere, approach shots that come up short and stop dead- am I missing something?"  These type courses are great for the sticks.  More power to them- god knows they have a lot to choose from.  I ask that when you come to Bandon, you accept that it's a different type of golf- and adjust your expectations accordingly.  Don't be the golf version of the ugly American who goes to a foreign place and can't understand why the surroundings don't comply with him. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
Higher handicappers usually play better then their handicaps here....

I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there, with whomever he gets paired with (therefore, he had the misfortune of being paired with me). He told me almost everyone plays well over their handicap. What I think you will find is that high handicappers that spray the ball (me) will play closer to their handicap than others at Old MacDonald.

[Garland Bayley]

Here's another ringing endorsement for Tom.

People figured it was just about time for Tom to have a high rated course so they did it for him with Pacific Dunes. They were mistaken, they should have waited until he helped Jim Urbina bring the truly great course there.

Clearly sticks are going to like Pacific Dunes. Clearly sticks are more apt to travel to places like Bandon. Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.

  Are you saying that OM is easier for the higher handicapper than PD?

  Anthony

Most definitely.
At least for one that sprays his shots.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

It surprises me that there aren't more. Maybe Kalen and I post so much you think we're all 20 handicappers out here.

[Greg Tallman]

Bart,

Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"

I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.

  For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.

  Anthony

So it's "fun"... OK. What is the difference in the argument for those who pan the rough surrounding the greens arguing that it leaves only one option over and over?

Isn't one option over and over a sign of poor design? And before someone chimes in that it is not the only option the above quote was from a very solid player who has good command of an array of short game shots includiung the bump and run and flop shot.

And before Tom has a stroke (with a putter) this same guy grudgingly placed it in his top 100 albeit near the bottom.

Having never seen the course I would go out on  a limb and say I would love it and would likley not use a putter everytime around the green... unless laying for a fair amount of money in a stroke play situation. AHA!

[Anthony Gray]

  Well said greg. There are many recovery options at OM. Think about this for a momment. How many courses allow for one of those options to be a putter consistantly?

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

Surprisngly....or maybe not, I'm actually a 14.8 now, (dropped 5 strokes just this year), who played like a 20 at Chambers Bay...sigh!!   

This thread has gone so many directions, its hard to know where to start.

First for Joe,

Thanks for the explanation.  In retrospect, I probably over-reacted to the not losing balls issue.  I don't doubt that the resort is better than average in the lost balls department.  In my mind, I just went to the logical extreme and that was my bad....nothing personal was meant by the "looney tunes" comment! 

I too have been interested in hearing all the feedback on Old Mac.  When the original 10 holes were opened, all I recall hearing was epic this and epic that.  Since then its been difficult to weigh that against folks who have played it recently who are more in "not sure what to make of it" camp.


Overall I am a little surprised to hear some of the comments that Old Mac isn't trying to be all things to various types of players.  I thought the mark of a brilliant design was that it was challenging to the good player, keeps the medium cap player engaged, and is forgiving/interesting to the high capper.  It would seem based on some of the comments that Old Mac isn't this, or that it wasn't even the goal to begin with?  Perhaps I'm just intrepretting the various comments incorrectly.


Carry on gents, this has been a super terrific thread and I've really enjoyed all the comments....

[Greg Tallman]

  Well said greg. There are many recovery options at OM. Think about this for a momment. How many courses allow for one of those options to be a putter consistantly?

  Anthony

Thanks but that is not really what I was saying. My closing comment says more about my refusal to let go of the good ole days and prove that 1 of 5 times I can hit a shot that used to be somewhat routine as well as the influence of stroke play versus match play.

[Garland Bayley]

Bart,

Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"

I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.

  For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.

  Anthony

So it's "fun"... OK. What is the difference in the argument for those who pan the rough surrounding the greens arguing that it leaves only one option over and over?

Isn't one option over and over a sign of poor design? And before someone chimes in that it is not the only option the above quote was from a very solid player who has good command of an array of short game shots includiung the bump and run and flop shot.

And before Tom has a stroke (with a putter) this same guy grudgingly placed it in his top 100 albeit near the bottom.

Having never seen the course I would go out on  a limb and say I would love it and would likley not use a putter everytime around the green... unless laying for a fair amount of money in a stroke play situation. AHA!

There is a big difference between leaving the same option over and over, and choosing the same option over and over. I suspect the person choosing the putter over and over chooses it because it is marginally better to him than each of the other options. To me, another option will be marginally better than the putter in most situations. This is opposed to the ball in the rough, where the wedge is grossly better than the other options probably for the both of us.

[Garland Bayley]

Surprisngly....or maybe not, I'm actually a 14.8 now, (dropped 5 strokes just this year), who played like a 20 at Chambers Bay...sigh!!   

...

Then how come I can't find you on ghin.com? Is your name really Balen Kraley?

[Kalen Braley]

Surprisngly....or maybe not, I'm actually a 14.8 now, (dropped 5 strokes just this year), who played like a 20 at Chambers Bay...sigh!!   

...

Then how come I can't find you on ghin.com? Is your name really Balen Kraley?

Why bother with keeping it on a "USGA" approved site.

I  got the formula and a xls...thats all I need 

[Greg Tallman]

Bart,

Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"

I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.

  For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.

  Anthony

So it's "fun"... OK. What is the difference in the argument for those who pan the rough surrounding the greens arguing that it leaves only one option over and over?

Isn't one option over and over a sign of poor design? And before someone chimes in that it is not the only option the above quote was from a very solid player who has good command of an array of short game shots includiung the bump and run and flop shot.

And before Tom has a stroke (with a putter) this same guy grudgingly placed it in his top 100 albeit near the bottom.

Having never seen the course I would go out on  a limb and say I would love it and would likley not use a putter everytime around the green... unless laying for a fair amount of money in a stroke play situation. AHA!

There is a big difference between leaving the same option over and over, and choosing the same option over and over. I suspect the person choosing the putter over and over chooses it because it is marginally better to him than each of the other options. To me, another option will be marginally better than the putter in most situations. This is opposed to the ball in the rough, where the wedge is grossly better than the other options probably for the both of us.

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

[Anthony Gray]

  Well said greg. There are many recovery options at OM. Think about this for a momment. How many courses allow for one of those options to be a putter consistantly?

  Anthony

Thanks but that is not really what I was saying. My closing comment says more about my refusal to let go of the good ole days and prove that 1 of 5 times I can hit a shot that used to be somewhat routine as well as the influence of stroke play versus match play.

  Sorry I misunderstood you. I couldn't understand your english.

  Anthony

[Jud_T]

Greg,

I disagree.  You can chip with any less lofted club quite easily.  Personally I prefer a rescue club as you don't have to hammer it like a putter from distance.  There are no shots that are off limits, just degrees of difficulty..

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.