[John Kavanaugh]

John,

What is very difficult for you on 18?  How often do you make 6 or higher?

[John Kirk]

Hey John,

I've played the course maybe 15 times, and if that number is correct, I've probably made about 5 pars, 9 bogeys and 1 double.

If your tee shot slides right and ends up in those right hand bunkers, that's when I believe you put double into play.  Similarly, any really bad tee shot, way left or way right, into the wind, goes way out into the dunes and is not findable, therefore, automatic double or worse.  I can't remember whether I've lost one off the tee there...maybe.

Into the wind, and especially from the back tee (I play about half of my rounds back there), the tee shot is very intimidating, very scary.  Assuming a decent tee shot, the second shot plays into the wind, and often plays 20-25 yards longer than the stated yardage.  You're not done yet, because the green, though it looks relatively benign, is tilted sharply from back to front.  I find putting that green very difficult.  Downhill putts are frightening.  On uphill putts, it's hard to get it there.

I like the hole just fine, but I would rate it the second hardest par 4 on the course, with #14 being the hardest for me on a stroke average.  #18 is more of a par-bogey hole, where #14 is a birdie-to-triple kind of hole.  I think would be frustrating as a final hole for the strong mid-handicapper, and it could ruin a mood at the end of the round.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hey John,

I've played the course maybe 15 times, and if that number is correct, I've probably made about 5 pars, 9 bogeys and 1 double.

If your tee shot slides right and ends up in those right hand bunkers, that's when I believe you put double into play.  Similarly, any really bad tee shot, way left or way right, into the wind, goes way out into the dunes and is not findable, therefore, automatic double or worse.  I can't remember whether I've lost one off the tee there...maybe.

Into the wind, and especially from the back tee (I play about half of my rounds back there), the tee shot is very intimidating, very scary.  Assuming a decent tee shot, the second shot plays into the wind, and often plays 20-25 yards longer than the stated yardage.  You're not done yet, because the green, though it looks relatively benign, is tilted sharply from back to front.  I find putting that green very difficult.  Downhill putts are frightening.  On uphill putts, it's hard to get it there.

I like the hole just fine, but I would rate it the second hardest par 4 on the course, with #14 being the hardest for me on a stroke average.  #18 is more of a par-bogey hole, where #14 is a birdie-to-triple kind of hole.  I think would be frustrating as a final hole for the strong mid-handicapper, and it could ruin a mood at the end of the round.

Even though you are way, way......way better than most golfers, those stats sound like a perfect 18th hole to me.


So, tell me, what % of classic holes have been changed to be made easier vs harder?  I would go 90% easier. 

[John Kirk]

John,

Would it reasonable to say that, for many years, most changes to classic courses generally made the hole harder, and in recent years, the trend has changed, and now most changes make the holes easier?

[John Ezekowitz]

At the risk of creating the mass confusion of three Johns replying to one another in the same thread, I have to echo John Kirk's comments. When I have played the hole from the back tees, into the teeth of the summer wind, I hit driver-3 wood both times. The issue for me is that hitting a 3 wood into a stiff wind to an uphill target means that any slight mishit is magnified by the wind, and that drift is in turn magnified by the slope on the front of the green and the deep bunkers surrounding it.

With that being said, the change I would most want to see made is not anything to do with the green, but rather to lower some of the fairway mounding to make the tee shot less blind.

[Michael George]

I love Bandon Trails and hope they don't touch #15 and #17 as they could be 2 of the best holes on the course.  If they want to make minor modifications to #14 to make it more playable for the higher handicapper, I am fine with that as long as they still require a well played 2nd shot for a birdie chance (I personally thought the hole was fair, but understand the criticisms as it should be easier to at least make bogey from the left collection area). 

However, I am excited that they are changing #16 and #18, as I think they are currently the 2 worst holes on the course, and am sure that they would not be changed if C & C did not agree with the revisions. 

#16 - there is very little strategy on the hole.  Hit a drive straight, hit a second shot straight 100 yards short of the green and see where it ends up, and then hit your wedge and hope it stays on the green despite the wind.  It would seem to me that there has to be a tee position to the right that would be higher into that hill that would provide a decision on the angle of your drive and provide a better "look" to the hole.  Further, I would have liked to see "levels" of the fairway where you can try and get to certain levels to make an easier approach.  I love the green complex and hope that they don't change it much, but there is certainly room for improvement on this hole.

#18 - The drive on that hole just does not feel like every other C &C course that I have played.  They are known for wide driving areas that don't penalize the short hitter.  This driving area first requires a carry over the hill, severely penalizing the shorter hitter.  Then it propels balls left and right and rarely gives the golfer a nice approach shot.  Consequently, I think the green complex is being unduly criticized as the approach shot is coming from odd places.  I actually like the green complex and the false front.  My hope is that they cut the hill down in the driving area and provide more of a "shute" through the 2 dunes ala many of the holes at Dismal River.  It will still be a challenging finish.
     

[Ted Cahill]

When this type of work has happened in the past this board is quick to blame the architects. This time we must blame the critics.

I call BS on this. The jury has spoken. 14 still sucks. 18 makes little sense off the tee. 16 is quirky and debatable. 17 is tough but good. C&C did great on the rest, but the finish was spotty.


+1  Very glad to hear changes are being made.  BT is my sentimental favorite at BDR.  I'm certain C&C will improve the course]

[Raphael_Larson]

I've always tried to talk myself into liking #14 even after making a mess of the whole more times than not, but after playing #14 at Dormie Club last week, I realized how BT #14 is just too difficult.  Granted Dormie plays slightly uphill to a much more level fairway instead of extremely downhill to a severly slanted fairway, but the strategy on both holes is similar -- a drive left is the preferred line while a drive or lay-up right leaves a much more challenging shot to blind green.  But at Dormie #14, a drive or layup down the right is not dead, rather it just makes the second shot more difficult.  I think expanding the green, softening the slope left of the green even more, and adding a bunker or two behind the green would make recovery from a poorly executed blind shot from down the hill on the right side of the fairway doable.  As it is now, if you mishit your drive and end up down the hill right, you have to pull off a perfectly executed wedge to a skyline green to have any chance.  Otherwise you are likely looking at double or worse.  I don't want to see the par made easier, but fully support changes that make 5 or 6 more likely than 7 or higher.  

[Will Lozier]

At the risk of sounding whiny, I must say how tired I am of hearing GCA posters (or anyone) complain about BT's 14th.  I don't think I've heard anyone on here disparage minimalist design...and this hole is the epitome of minimalism, and thus is does have some extreme features.  But, if you make worse than a 5 (or 6!) on a downhill 325-yard par-4 and blame the design, I am ashamed for you.  Having caddied and played the hole maybe 50 times combined, proper planning and adequate execution will get you home in no worse than 5.  Two of the last three times I've played the hole, I made 3.  I am a good player (3-8 depending on my putting) but have guided many poor players through that hole without catastrophe.  I've suggested the only tweak I'd find acceptable would be to mow the low area to the left of the green as green creating a new section still lower than the original.  Still, one should be able to play a safe second shot left and get up and in in no more than three additional strokes.  

The griping about the 16th I don't get either!  Someone mentioned that there is only one place to hit it off the tee?  Are you kidding me!  That is perhaps the widest effective fairway I've ever seen.  One of the most enjoyable shots on the whole property is hitting a little draw up to the blind right side and seeing your ball reappear flying down that slope.  Yes, the second shot is fairly demanding and it is a big hill to climb and usually into the wind...and it is one of the best par-5's at the resort.

I am all for creating more width on the left side of the blind fairway of #18.  It was very rare for players to hit the fairway at all and mowing that area would seem to allow for well struck drives to have better than a 50-50 shot of being in the short grass.  I love the hole other than that and wouldn't touch that green.  

I think Stan, Brian C., Gary , Brian S., Garland and Michael have it about right.

Cheers

[Tim Pitner]

As it is now, if you mishit your drive and end up down the hill right, you have to pull off a perfectly executed wedge to a skyline green to have any chance.  Otherwise you are likely looking at double or worse.  I don't want to see the par made easier, but fully support changes that make 5 or 6 more likely than 7 or higher.  

I contend the vast majority of big numbers at #14 are due to players not taking their medicine.  If you've played #14 before or you've read about the hole (particularly apt for members of this site), you know the risk of trying to pitch on the green from the right and failing to keep the ball on the green.  So maybe you shouldn't try this shot!  Maybe you should play toward the front of the green and try to make par with a pitch (or putt) and putt.  You may not like having to play away from the hole (or even the green) but that doesn't mean one's only play is to attempt a shot that brings X into the equation.  It's only a do or die hole if you rush headlong toward death. 

I fully concur with Cristian's observation earlier that if #14 were on an older course, we'd all be championing its preservation. 

[William_G]

in regard to 14, I agree with Will.

Also, for those golfers who predominantly hit fades and slices off the tee, 14 is more difficullt.

The tee shot at 14, as I see it, calls for a slight draw to stay up a green level in the fairway.

Are those that dislike 14 faders/slicers?

Furthermore, "golf as it was meant to be" is not about the score.

[Will MacEwen]

Furthermore, "golf as it was meant to be" is not about the score.

unless you get a letter congratulating you on the course record 

[Raphael_Larson]

As it is now, if you mishit your drive and end up down the hill right, you have to pull off a perfectly executed wedge to a skyline green to have any chance.  Otherwise you are likely looking at double or worse.  I don't want to see the par made easier, but fully support changes that make 5 or 6 more likely than 7 or higher.  

I contend the vast majority of big numbers at #14 are due to players not taking their medicine.  If you've played #14 before or you've read about the hole (particularly apt for members of this site), you know the risk of trying to pitch on the green from the right and failing to keep the ball on the green.  So maybe you shouldn't try this shot!  Maybe you should play toward the front of the green and try to make par with a pitch (or putt) and putt.  You may not like having to play away from the hole (or even the green) but that doesn't mean one's only play is to attempt a shot that brings X into the equation.  It's only a do or die hole if you rush headlong toward death. 

I fully concur with Cristian's observation earlier that if #14 were on an older course, we'd all be championing its preservation. 

I agree with the need to take your medicine if your drive ends up right.  However, I haven't found the pitch to the front of the green to be much easier than hitting a pitch to the middle of the green.  Both shots are very exacting and make the hole extremely difficult.  I do not hate the hole as many other do.  I simply will not be outraged if it is changed ... and I will be thrilled if it ends up more like Dormie 14 which is a fantastic golf hole on a fantastic course. 

[BCrosby]

Good post Will. Few of us can claim to know BT as well as you.

I too like the holes. I can't put my finger on it, but there is something unsettling about BT's finish. I actually think it starts with the wild 13th green. I felt like I was negotiating with architecture that was always several steps ahead of me, if that makes any sense.

Bob

[Tim Bert]

If they want to make minor modifications to #14 to make it more playable for the higher handicapper, I am fine with that as long as they still require a well played 2nd shot for a birdie chance (I personally thought the hole was fair, but understand the criticisms as it should be easier to at least make bogey from the left collection area). 

The vast majority of the griping and whining I hear about this hole comes from pretty low handicappers. I hope they won't make changes under the guise of doing it for high handicappers. The hole is pretty playable for the guy willing and used to making double bogeys and/or picking up. It is the whiny good players used to expecting birdies on a hole of this length that complain.

I think I have a better scoring average on this hole than any other hole on the course and I have been between a 10 and 15 handicap every time I played it. I have made birdie. I have made tap in para from the collection area on the left.

Go ahead and blow up 16 and the tee shot on 18 but the criticisms of 14 have always confused me.

[John Kirk]

Furthermore, "golf as it was meant to be" is not about the score.

A purely subjective comment, and not the majority opinion.  They play medal tournaments at Bandon Trails, and if there is only one problem with the course, it is the unbalanced importance of playing one hole (#14) well.  I like it fine, but let's face facts.  First, one must walk (or take a cart ride) 300 yards uphill to climb a big ridge.  The reward for this difficult walk is a very severe golf hole, way downhill.  I'm sure it's an unavoidable consequence of finding the best routing, without spending big money to alter the landscape.  It's a disruptive part of the course, and it's not ideal.

Will Lozier,

What makes you think the 14th green at Bandon Trails is a minimalist creation?  The difficulty of the hole is the raised green, and I would be very surprised if the green is natural.

Once again, I adore Bandon Trails, just the way it is.  But it is easy to play devil's advocate to those who suggest it should be left as is.

[Tom_Doak]

The vast majority of the griping and whining I hear about this hole comes from pretty low handicappers. I hope they won't make changes under the guise of doing it for high handicappers. The hole is pretty playable for the guy willing and used to making double bogeys and/or picking up. It is the whiny good players used to expecting birdies on a hole of this length that complain.
 

Bingo.  It's funny that while Bandon Trails is often the favorite of the 5 courses among low handicappers, it is those same players who do the majority of the complaining about 14.  I think it is mostly the card-and-pencil mentality that one hole might ruin their precious score, a reality that higher handicappers have gotten used to but low-handicappers don't think should apply to them.

I'm sort of sorry to hear that there will be changes, although I'm not surprised to hear it.  I suspect the schedule for the changes have as much to do with Bill's crew not being that busy this winter, as with a sudden shift in his view of the hole.

[William_G]

Furthermore, "golf as it was meant to be" is not about the score.

unless you get a letter congratulating you on the course record 

hahahaha, love you too Will, but you score well only after you forget about the score...

that is what life is all about 

[John Kirk]

Life is described by a broad spectrum of emoticons.

[Sven Nilsen]

One vote for keeping 16 exactly as it is. 

As for 15 and 17, I don't even know where one would start if suggesting changes.

It says a lot to me that those that have spent a good bit of time on the course are those that defend it as it is.

[William_G]

Life is described by a broad spectrum of emoticons.

and of course golf is the analogy of life 

[Will MacEwen]

One vote for keeping 16 exactly as it is.  

As for 15 and 17, I don't even know where one would start if suggesting changes.

It says a lot to me that those that have spent a good bit of time on the course are those that defend it as it is.

I have played Trails about a dozen times, and I really like 16, and don't mind 18.

I remember someone on here once, it may have been Ian Andrew, saying that courses lose their way by making easy holes harder and hard holes easier.

[Stephen Davis]

When I was at Bandon in Seotember I asked the people at the Trails pro shop about what they were planning on doing during the closer. They said that the focus was going to be on reducing the severity if the right t left slope on #16 and widening the right side of 18 to make the tee shot more manageable and softening the front part of the green complex on the 18th green. I asked if anything was going to be done with #14 and he said no. I was glad to hear that. I also hope they don't touch 15 and 17 because those are great holes already.

[Will Lozier]

When I was at Bandon in Seotember I asked the people at the Trails pro shop about what they were planning on doing during the closer. They said that the focus was going to be on reducing the severity if the right t left slope on #16 and widening the right side of 18 to make the tee shot more manageable and softening the front part of the green complex on the 18th green. I asked if anything was going to be done with #14 and he said no. I was glad to hear that. I also hope they don't touch 15 and 17 because those are great holes already.

Stephen,

That's good news that the work seems to be minimal and includes only plans for 16 & 18 (although I'll still argue vehemently that 18 should be the ONLY candidate for nips and tucks).  I am surprised they would widen the right side of 18 rather than the left side?

Cheers

[Stephen Davis]

Will,

I would be surprised if they touch any of the other holes, I don't think they need it. Also, I am pretty sure he said right side, but that could have been me misremembering or projecting my own weakness with that hole

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()