The Old Macdonald dilemma....

[SL_Solow]

Gib,  In case there was any doubt; and indeed in case it makes a difference to anybody; put me in the camp that loves the golf course.  My post was an attempt to rationalize the different reactions.

[Gib_Papazian]

Shelly,

It is certainly not a mystery to me that Old Mac elicits wildly different reactions because the sheer scope of the golf course is difficult to wrap your mind around. Sometimes you have to read a complicated novel two or three times to fully digest all the nuances. That golf course has so much strategic content that trying to dissect each hole from the various approach angles requires a slide rule and a compass.

Some people (most) do not want to be intellectually challenged when they play golf or see a movie. They crave defined boundaries of right and wrong and are uncomfortable when the answer to the riddle is ambiguous. Most of my friends do not understand why Bill Griffith and Zippy the Pinhead comics are funny because it is lost on them that "the point" is sometimes  . . . .  there is "no point!"

Even after pulling out the tweezers on every hole, I'm still not sure there is a correct answer because with such expansive greens, every move of the pin reintroduces a golf hole with alternate routes and contours to direct the golf ball along the ground. Anybody who lives and dies by the aerial game is going to hate Old Mac because you have to plan every swing backwards. Chess is not for everybody.
 
As usual, it comes down to the preference between looking at golf (and life) as a whimsical adventure or an objective examination.      

[JMEvensky]

Gib,you really gotta stop by here more often.Thanks for taking the time to type that.

[John Shimp]

I havent played OM but I watched the us publinx and just got back from playing toc.  There seem to be similarities and OM may be even more confusing in it's open ness, green size, and wind variability? It also seems to be the kind of course where the player often doesnt make the score they think they "deserve" due to the inability to stop iron shots near the hole due to wind and green firmness and a multitude of 3 putts.   Along with straight driving (not necessarily long), dealing with longer first putts than one would expect and good lag putting are the main challenges of links golf.  Question:  is OM much closer to pure links golf than the other bandon courses?  Btw, I personally think toc models pure links golf.

[Bill_McBride]

Gibby, I'm very disappointed to hear about the destruction of four of the greens at Peacock Gap.   I played that course some 40 years ago and thought it one of the most boring courses I had ever played.   I thought Forrest's remodel was the best job I had ever seen of adding spunk and character to an otherwise bland, boring course.    If the powers there are blowing up some of those wild greens, they are headed back toward mediocrity in a hurry.  

Back to our regular programming........

[Bill_McBride]

Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?

A lot of enthusiasm about great golf design comes from comprehension, even if execution is a challenge!

[William_G]

Shelly,

It is certainly not a mystery to me that Old Mac elicits wildly different reactions because the sheer scope of the golf course is difficult to wrap your mind around. Sometimes you have to read a complicated novel two or three times to fully digest all the nuances. That golf course has so much strategic content that trying to dissect each hole from the various approach angles requires a slide rule and a compass.

Some people (most) do not want to be intellectually challenged when they play golf or see a movie. They crave defined boundaries of right and wrong and are uncomfortable when the answer to the riddle is ambiguous. Most of my friends do not understand why Bill Griffith and Zippy the Pinhead comics are funny because it is lost on them that "the point" is sometimes  . . . .  there is "no point!"

Even after pulling out the tweezers on every hole, I'm still not sure there is a correct answer because with such expansive greens, every move of the pin reintroduces a golf hole with alternate routes and contours to direct the golf ball along the ground. Anybody who lives and dies by the aerial game is going to hate Old Mac because you have to plan every swing backwards. Chess is not for everybody.
 
As usual, it comes down to the preference between looking at golf (and life) as a whimsical adventure or an objective examination.      

Golf clap,  Well said!

[Forrest Richardson]

I regret not visiting Bandon for quite some time. My guess is that I will enjoy OM because there seems so much to like, question and relive according to what I have seen, read and am listening to here in this discussion.

"Sound of Music Moment" ?  really, Gib. Did you need a change of pants afterward ?  

[Re: Peacock ... I am not sure "puke" is a good description. A good friend played there yesterday and he felt they did a good job softening the greens that the new owners were uncomfortable with. Gary Linn did the work and he was kind to let me know it was purely owner-driven and was not amounting to any outright blow-up or redesign. I have not seen them, so I am merely reporting third party accounts.]

[William_G]

I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there....

Stop it already.  Nobody plays 4 days a week at Bandon.

Maybe you should talk to your starters who call him and his wife "dear" friends and exchange hugs with them.

Why don't you stop the BS?
Just because you are a caddy at Bandon, doesn't make you omnipotent.

Wow G! throwing JB under the bus and backing up over him?

You must have spent hours with this golfer and if you had simply respected him by remembering his name, Kent, then your story would have not been questioned.

Old Mac is definitely not an an objective exam but a whimsical experience, thanks

[Greg Tallman]

Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?

Because when playing from the preferred angle they can cold top a hybrid and run it up next to the hole.

[Gib_Papazian]

Forrest,

The new owners are clearly unclear on the features that separate a mundane 6100 yard golf course from something with real strategic merit, surprise and amusing quirk. Filling in the bathtub green and then softening the wild undulations on #10 is inexcusable, egregious stupidity by the new owners. I like Gary Linn too. He is a nice guy and I generally really like the work he and Don Knott turn out.

Doubtless they were doing the bidding of the new regime at Peacock Gap - and work is work in this horrible economy; but let us say arguendo that the new architect liked what was there. Is it not a violation of a philosophical moral code to deface the creation of another? Does temporary ownership of an artistic expression such as a sculpture, painting or golf course automatically transfer the right of absolute power to deface or destroy?

Paging Ayn Rand. White courtesy telephone please . . . . . Ayn Rand, white courtesy telephone please.

    

[George Pazin]

George,
Part of me is not sure how to respond. Of course I favor the aspects of architecture I think are important--so do you! Isn't that the point of having an opinion? Perhaps my labels aren't worded correctly.

Of course we all favors aspects we think are important. Where we differ is you seem to be defining balance, or your idea of srategy and execution, in terms of your own ideas. I believe when you say "I prefer balance that favors..." or that you favor execution, there is an implicit assumption that your ideas favor balance or that your ideas favor execution. As Tom says, the bottom line is getting the ball in the hole. And as Don says, there's no style points in golf, where the pretty shot deserves to be more rewarded than the ugly shot.

Some seem overly fixated on the notion that someone can top a ball into favorable positions - repeatedly and consistently, no less. If you're losing to a guy who is topping his way to halving every hole, you're not losing to an inferior golfer, you're being hustled by a superior gambler.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
I'm actually the guy hitting it all over the yard most of the time off the tee. The irony, perhaps, is that the iron game is easily my strength so if I can find the drive in a reasonable location my chances of getting it on the green are pretty good. Hence why I'm not totally in the "execution" camp, because some days I'm in the woods/water/OB all day.

On the flip side, as an example, I find centerline bunkers aren't strategic at all (for me) because I aim at them and swing hard knowing I'll only hit it that straight about 1 in 10 (depending on the size of the bunker, etc) and the rest will find one side of the fairway or the other. 

So as much as I enjoy getting away with that kind of thing--I don't think its great design if I can do it all the time. Everything in moderation...

[Greg Tallman]

George,
Part of me is not sure how to respond. Of course I favor the aspects of architecture I think are important--so do you! Isn't that the point of having an opinion? Perhaps my labels aren't worded correctly.

Of course we all favors aspects we think are important. Where we differ is you seem to be defining balance, or your idea of srategy and execution, in terms of your own ideas. I believe when you say "I prefer balance that favors..." or that you favor execution, there is an implicit assumption that your ideas favor balance or that your ideas favor execution. As Tom says, the bottom line is getting the ball in the hole. And as Don says, there's no style points in golf, where the pretty shot deserves to be more rewarded than the ugly shot.

Some seem overly fixated on the notion that someone can top a ball into favorable positions - repeatedly and consistently, no less. If you're losing to a guy who is topping his way to halving every hole, you're not losing to an inferior golfer, you're being hustled by a superior gambler.

Great final statement.

[Kalen Braley]

TO channel some Matt Ward here, now that he's gone...

...not everyone likes to eat Thai Food.  And in my experience, that number is actually MOST people don't what Thai Food.  They want to eat Steak and Potateos night in and night out and not leave thier little boxed in domain of comfort.

Time and time and time again, folks on GCA.com forget that the whimsy, out-of-the box quirk and charm that we admire so much is usually greeted with a "WTF is that" when showed to the average joe as they march back to their conventional Doak 2 munis.

Gib,

I'm guessing you must have switched gears and been referring to Pac Dunes with the "only 2 par 4s on the back 9" statement.  But hey I'm right there with you, the back 9 at Pac Dunes is easily in my top 5 of favorite 9s

[Gib_Papazian]

Kalen,

Correct on the back nine at Pac Dunes. Sometimes when I'm riffing away, I mix my metaphors. Maybe I need an editor. It has been a while since I wrote anything but a legal brief.

-g

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

Correct on the back nine at Pac Dunes. Sometimes when I'm riffing away, I mix my metaphors. Maybe I need an editor. It has been a while sincve I wrote anything but a legal brief.

-g

Not a problem big guy.

We'll give you a pass on this one cause ur posts are usually so interesting to read.   

[Jim Hoak]

First of all, I have been to Bandon 5 times, and have played OM once and loved it.  But a couple of random thoughts--
First, I love the history of golf and golf courses.  OM was terrific to me because I was looking for features from other Macdonald and Raynor courses that I have played and loved.  Not to be snobbish, but I wonder if most other golfers have had the opportunities to play as many Macdonald/Raynor courses as I have, and whether they are as obcessed with golf history as I am.  Would this affect their opinion of the course?  If you are judging it without the back-drop of history, and the role therein of Macdonald and Raynor, I suspect you might not love it as much--and might find some of the features quirky.
Second, as much as I have enjoyed Bandon, I think this discussion group gives Bandon a bit of a pass on its biggest negative--the wind.  I know and accept that wind is a part of the history and ambiance of golf.  But, having played several times in Scotland and Ireland, the Bandon wind is still extraordinary--and in my opinion is a detraction from the enjoyment of the golf there.  In my time at Bandon, I have played at least 25 rounds of golf, and I have never (except very early in the morning) played in less than a 3-4 club wind.  I was told by locals that the wind blows this much 300+ days a year.  This is more than anywhere else I know--and certainly lessens the quality of the experience (at least to the repeat visitor).
So, while I am a fan of both Bandon and OM, I recognize the limitations of both--and can't be as over-the-top fanatical on either as what seems like most of the crowd here.  It is a great place and a great experience, but not without negatives.

[John Kirk]

Jim,

Although your 25 rounds give you a large sample of rounds, I think it's unusual that you feel the majority are played in 3-4 club winds.

Typically, I would expect to play in a gradually increasing wind each summer morning, with one club winds early and two clubs winds late.  Play the ocean in the morning and head inland to play the Trails each evening.  The underrated Bandon Trails is beyond artistic in its presentation.  Bandon Dunes #5 and #6 are brutal in the wind, but overall, it gives you the best chance, and is best suited, to the heavy afternoon winds.  One reason why Bandon Dunes is a bit under-appreciated by the congoscenti.

Along with my beloved Ballyneal, Old Macdonald is a marvel of wind design, a spectaclular wide shotmaker's course which allows for the wind.  Play five second shots at the 4th, The Hog's Back, a 500 yard downwind par 4, and tell me I'm wrong.  Is it better than NGLA?  Maybe; I only played NGLA once.  I'm going to go down there and play that thing a lot.  Pacific Dunes is more artistic, but Old Macdonald is Shotmaker's 301.  And Tom, I can't believe you gave it only one star.  That course rewards greatness and invention more than very few.

Before I go, let me emphasize the need to play Pacific Dunes with the prevailing northwesterly winds some summer.  The four holes #10 through #13 near the water and into the wind form the backbone of the greatest walk in golf.  The climax is early, but keep your cool as ou play foxy, rumpled holes downwind.  The best walk in golf.

[Jim Hoak]

Maybe I've just been unlucky on the wind, but I know other people who feel the same way.  But I want to emphasize that I like some wind and I like Bandon, only that the wind is a blemish on an otherwise good experience.

[Terry Lavin]

I've been to Bandon on four occasions.  We had several days with virtually no wind in the morning, but 20-25 mph in the afternoon.  Given the generous fairways on all of the courses, that is a challenging, but playable wind.  On several other days, we had 15 mph in the morning and over 30 mph in the afternoon.  That is really a test of one's endurance, focus and general state of mind, because the wind plays on your mind and fatigues your body.  Finally, on two occasions, we played with winds in excess of 40 mph.  At those wind speeds, you really have to start laughing and go with the flow.  Avoiding sidespin and making sure that you're not too hard on yourself are keys to enjoying these courses under those extreme conditions.

[George Pazin]

George,
I'm actually the guy hitting it all over the yard most of the time off the tee. The irony, perhaps, is that the iron game is easily my strength so if I can find the drive in a reasonable location my chances of getting it on the green are pretty good. Hence why I'm not totally in the "execution" camp, because some days I'm in the woods/water/OB all day.

On the flip side, as an example, I find centerline bunkers aren't strategic at all (for me) because I aim at them and swing hard knowing I'll only hit it that straight about 1 in 10 (depending on the size of the bunker, etc) and the rest will find one side of the fairway or the other. 

So as much as I enjoy getting away with that kind of thing--I don't think its great design if I can do it all the time. Everything in moderation...

Your game doesn't sound all that different than mine; you probably just do everything a little bit better.

I think where we differ on design is that I define execution differently than you. If you are 30 yards off-line, but draw a favorable lie but maybe not a favorable stance, if you can get that ball back into a good position, that is execution to me; I don't think you "got away with something". I think the recovery shot is very much the essence of the game - even more than strategy, which George Thomas called the soul of the game. When the best players in the world are hitting 60-70% of fairways or GIRs, I think there is often not enough attention paid to the scrambling aspects of the game.

I seem to recall you saying something on this thread about a golfer having 4 options, which worked out to too many options and maybe too easy, not enough emphasis on execution (broad paraphrasing there, I know). What you don't seem to consider is that you can have even more options, and it doesn't mean there is no emphasis on execution, as the options need not be equally valid. The sort of thing like, I can favor the side without the bunker, but that means I'm looking at a downhill putt; if I play short, I may flirt with the water, but I will be putting uphill. Those things are options, but that doesn't mean they are equal and that someone can just hit it anywhere.

I haven't played OM yet, and call me crazy or a butt boy, but I just can't believe Tom designed a course where it doesn't matter where you hit it. Just because there may not be an obvious downside to a shot doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's usually what I refer to as grayscale golf versus black and white golf. The best is of course full color!

-----

Sean, I guess I'm weird. I aim for sides of the fairway all the time. The side may change depending on how I'm playing, but it's rare that I don't at least try to hit a particular side. I frequently tee it on one side of the tee box and play away from trouble. Just because I don't hit it where I'm aiming much of the time doesn't mean I shouldn't at least try. If anything, I think angles and strategy can be more important to the lesser golfer, who can't just rip a high spinning wedge from anywhere over anything.

[Jin Kim]

I just got back from my 5th trip.  Fantastic as always.  I have a hard time choosing a fave between BD/PD/OM, but, for today, I put OM at the top of the list.  We played 8 rounds this time and I chose to have it 3/2/2/1, with 3 rounds at OM and 1 at BT.  I went the extra round on OM since I have played it the least.  It's quite a forgiving course to the bogey golfer (although there is a tiny gorse bush left of 13th fairway in which you can in fact lose a ball!), but I find it maddingly difficult to score well on.  I'm a 10 hdcp and I've been able to break 80 on both BD and PD (my low round this trip was a 78 on PD), but haven't come close on OM.

On wind at BD:  to me, it wouldn't be the same without the normal 20 mph summer wind; it is 50% of what the experience is about, to play in conditions unlike what we do on a normal basis; the requirement to hit a solid shot at a specific trajectory and the satisfaction of pulling it off and being rewarded.

[Joe Bentham]

While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player.  The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit.  A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture.  A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.

[Phil McDade]

While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player.  The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit.  A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture.  A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.

"The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit."

But then golf simply becomes a matter of execution, which strikes me as pretty boring.