Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on May 24, 2003, 09:06:46 AM
-
Having now played and enjoyed both Bandon and Pacific Dunes
I began to reflect on all of the holes and was wondering, if I had to create two composite 18 hole courses, one sequentially, and the other randomly, which holes would I pick from each course.
How would your composite courses, sequential and random,
be configured ?
-
Pat:
Would you mind keeping your dirty little sequential and random architectural mind off both Pacific Dunes and its routing? Pac Dunes doesn't need a "composite" anything! If you have to think that way why don't you go out on Pac Dunes at sunrise and play its holes in any order you want to and as fast as you can?
-
TEPaul,
I already did that.
Now I want to know what everyone else thinks.
-
Pat Mucci:
Honestly, I would not have any interest playing a composite of Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes. They strike me as very different golf courses, despite sitting right next to each other.
I'd prefer to play them both just as they are or just play Pacific Dunes twice.
-
I'd prefer to play them both just as they are or just play Pacific Dunes twice.
Couldn't have put it better (or more succinctly) myself.
Cheers,
Darren
-
It's amazing how everyone is afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise.
Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions ??
-
Pat Mucci:
I really don't think it has anything to do with being afraid or the Bandon courses being sacred cows. I just would not want to play a composite of these courses any more than I would like to play a composite of Winged Foot and St. Andrews.
Another good example of courses side by side but would not work for a composite are the two courses at World Woods. I can enjoy playing either course, but a mixture of the two would be too awkward for my taste.
-
Pat asked;
"Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions ??"
Pat:
You were just there--why don't you criticize away? You just played both courses, didn't you? Therefore, I'm not sure I completely understand why you keep putting everything you say in the form of a question. Why don't you make some statements about the courses, such as what you liked and didn't like?
Neither Bandon nor Pacific Dunes have been off limits to critical discussion, there's been plenty of it for about two years. But how critical or what negative can one say about a course like Pacific Dunes? But still there were some comments from people about how they thought things could be improved even more. Ran Morrissett thought, for instance, that the landing area on #16 fairway would be even better if it was expanded all the way out to where the irrigation box is on the left. That's a sort of dicey place to get to but would put your approach shot right inline with the length of the green. That would also be an interesting alternative play--sort of a reverse dogleg type option, particularly since most people who see that hole the first time figure they ought to skirt the corner on the right.
And I believe #13 green would be even better if it was extended a good 25+ paces in the rear--that would make a pin back there one of the most challenging of almost any I could think of anywhere--the playability of it wouldn't be that different from trying to hit an approach all the way to the rear of PVGC's #1 green!!
-
I wouldn't mix the two as they are quite different and wouldn't mix too well.
There's lots of individual tweaks to suggest, as with any course you can change things pretending that you were king, but this is way to global for me to tackle and I can't get motivated to do such a task.
-
Shivas asked;
"Is it THAT good? Can I possibly oversell the place to my buddies? What are the flaws? Obviously, I don't want to tell them it's flawless if it's not.
Shivas:
There's no pat answers to those questions. But Pacific Dunes is THAT good to me. Apparently it's THAT good in Bill Coore's mind. Apparently it may not be THAT good to someone like Rich Goodale. Some golf courses bring out a lot of diverse subjective opinion--and occasionally a very wide spectrum of it. Probably the course in the world that has always done that far more than any other is TOC itself. So one has to ask why that is.
Both Bandon and Pacific Dunes are really terrific courses but in my mind Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders better for various reasons and a lot of little reasons. I could go into what some of those reasons are but when one totals them all up and weighs why those things happened at Pac Dunes compared to Bandon next door, in my opinion, one would have to say because Doak and his really accomplished crew are better architects than Kidd and his crew. Better all the way from conceiving of and pulling off an unconventional routing to the variety of the holes set in what appears to be Nature's very own canvas.
But being contiguous both are on some really great golf ground and in a spectacular setting.
I actually never did play Bandon Dunes so I can't talk about how it plays. But just studying both courses one can get an interesting feel for some differences in architecture particularly the differences in the little details of architecture that totalled up make a real difference to me.
I'd pretty much defy even a good golf analyst to make specific distinctions at Pac Dunes about what really was there and what Doak & Co did. Even if they can do that to a degree they're still going to have a hard time telling where the tie-ins are--and to me a lot of architectural appreciation comes from that alone. As an example there's some bunkering out there on Pacific Dunes that really is what they found and they build some others that no one would or could ever tell wasn't there!
But who the hell knows, maybe to your friends Bandon is a better course simply because in some comparative ways to Pac Dunes it's a bit more conventional--and plenty of American golfers may like that fact alone. If Bandon were there alone, as it was for a couple of years most golfers would think of it as a really rugged and natural course, and it is, but compared to Pac Dunes next to it it doesn't seem as much that way anymore.
I haven't seen all that much that's been built in recent times but what I have seen Pac Dunes has to be right up there in the top few in the world. Those few include Friar's Head and Hidden Creek and obviously Sand Hills (which I haven't seen). It would seem to include Kingsley Club and Rustic Canyon which I haven't seen either.
The reason I say that is all those courses appear to play really well and certainly fun and enjoyable, interesting and somewhat off beat and the aesthetics of all of them appear to combine natural use for golf with architecural enhancement about as well as architects can do. And the latter happens to be really important to me. But I do admit it may not be important to the next golfer. For whatever reasons the next golfer may not even like that at all---just like an endless stream of golfers over the ages have felt about TOC.
But over time, I think even those subjective objections have a way of being overcome generally by courses like the ones mentioned. Certainly that's true of TOC. One of the best architectural analyses I ever saw was from Robert Hunter on TOC. Basically he said there were so many things wrong with the course, it broke so many conventional rules of what modern architecture was supposed to be but despite all that it's still the prototype of all golf courses and golf architecture.
But at Pacific Dunes mentioning things like I did on post #7, particularly the things on #13 and #16, I think of only as interesting potential improvements. If they were never done I surely wouldn't say that indicates either of those holes have flaws.
But some have and will continue to mention a few things about Pac Dunes as flaws, like the odd routing progression against par on the back nine where there're only two par 4s or the long trek between #11 and #12 or even the back to back par 3s. Those kinds of things don't make a bit of difference to me--don't bother me at all, in other words. Matter of fact I think the holes at Pacific Dunes are so interesting that I had no idea there were only two par 4s on the back nine.
You know when you're playing a sort of formulaic course for the first time, Dave, and you say to yourself--I can just feel a par 5 or a par 3 coming next although you haven't even looked at the card? Well, that kind of thing doesn't happen at all at Pacific Dunes. I never really even knew where I was exactly in the round there--that's how interesting and varied the holes were to me!
-
TEPaul,
I've got to run, but I will be back after I hit some balls,
But, I've got to ask you, how can you make a critical, evaluative and comparitive analysis of Bandon Dunes if you've never played it ?
How can you say that you prefer Pacific Dunes to Bandon Dunes when you've never played Bandon Dunes.
Bandon Dunes has been recognized by many as an extraordinary golf course, but, you've never played it, yet you make critical, evaluative and comparitive statements regarding same.
Yet, you refuse to construct two composite courses in a simple exercise. Hmmm
I'll be back ;D
-
Patrick won't be able to comment on Bandon and Pacific because he has not played them in all possible conditions yet. ;)
Patrick,
I really wouldn't replace anything on Pacific, with the possible exception of #14, which I would replace with (can't remember the #) the long par 3 with the central guarding bunker that plays out towards the ocean (#12?).
At Bandon I would replace #18 with ANYTHING from Pacific. Replace #2 BD with #5 PD.
#6 BD with ANY par 3 from PD.
#9 BD with #15 PD.
I cannot remember #12 PD for the life of me. Someone please remind me please.
Dave,
When asking for feedback from Mike C & Geoffrey C about their epic west coast swing, one or both of them said only Pac Dunes/Bandon Dunes exceeded their expectations. Thats enough of a recommendation for me. I have yet to play a course that is well-regarded on this site that I didn't enjoy.
-
Ed,
# 12 is a terrific par 5 that heads north, parallel to # 4 which heads south.
-
Pat:
Regarding your post #11 and how I could make 'critical, evaluative and comparative' remarks about Bandon Dunes without playing it. I guess I shouldn't say I never played it--I did play the holes just never played a full 18 holes at one time as a round. But I certainly spent plenty of time on the course, looking at it and watching others play it and analyzing it with various architects. Same with Pacific Dunes but I did play a whole round there.
I've never been very good at playing a course and analyzing it's architecture at the same time but maybe you are. For me I need to look at courses in other ways to understand them. For me the best way is to play then walk then watch others and walk it again.
But maybe you have a way of analyzing architecture that works better for you.
But spending 3-4 days at Bandon Dunes with about forty architects as well as all those who built both courses certainly didn't hurt in understanding both courses and coming to some sort of critical, evaluative and comparative opinions about them.
Don't get me wrong--I think Bandon Dunes is a terrific golf course and very interesting architecture--I just don't think it's as good as Pacific Dunes. I certainly wasn't alone in that opinion.
And I should remind you again that the caveat that one should not and can not comment about a golf course and its architcture without playing the course is yours---not mine!
I'd never make any comprehensive comments about a golf course if I'd never seen the course but I'll remind you again I spent 3-4 days at Bandon Dunes to study the architecture of both courses.
-
Patrick
This is a very good question, and the fact that nobody seems to want to or be able to answer the question is telling. Is it the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason?
My only problem with this question is practical rather than theoretical--the way the two courses are laid out, I'm not sure you could get a great "composite" 18 (a la Royal Melbourne). You'd have to leave too many "ideal" holes out of both layouts. I think that if a hypothetical composite course were posited, it would include at least 7 holes from each track and 4 from either one, depending on preferences. Of course, because the courses have very many different characteristics, due to the differences in the land and the style of the architects, such a "composite" course would not be as holistic as (say) Royal Melbourse, or a composite course made from the Old and New Courses at St. Andrews.
Tom P
I very much like PD, as well as BD. They are both solid 2** courses, in my opinion. You ought to get out and play BD some day (as well as PD now that it has "matured.")--you might just learn something, and we would be pleased to hear of what you had learned. Vis a vis your list of great new courses, what do you think of Applebrook? I think it is as least as good as Pacific Dunes, not quite as good as Friar's Head (which I have walked but not yet played) but then again, I'm not from Philadelphia.......
-
Rich Goodale:
Not wanting to offend Tom Doak has nothing to do with it. I just wouldn't have any interest in playing a composite of Bandon and Pacific Dunes. As I suggested above, the mere fact that these two golf courses sit right next to eachother doesn't make them good candidates for a composite any more than Tom Fazio's two courses at World Woods.
Unfortunately, I've never been to Melbourne, but from all the pictures I've seen, the composite holes all fit together and are of a similiar style. I just don't see Bandon/Pacific or Pine Barrens/Rolling Oaks the same way.
-
Alright, I will be the only one dumb enough to try this. The following is a composite layout that would work logistically, and would offer holes of the most comparable style.
Front 9
Bandon #3 Par 4 (Play as Par 4 from lower tees, obviously the bunkering is a disconnect)
Bandon #4 Par 4
Bandon #5 Par 4 (The most "Pacific like" hole on Bandon)
Pacific #11 Par 3 (Yes it would be a 200 yard walk from 5th green)
Pacific #12 Par 5 (Nobody complains about this walk)
Pacific #13 Par 4
Pacific #14 Par 3
Pacific #15 Par 5
Pacific #16 Par 4
Par 36
How would that front 9 compare with County Down's front side?!! :D
Back 9
Pacific #17 Par 3
Pacific #18 Par 5
Pacific #1 Par 4
Pacific #2 Par 4
Pacific #3 Par 5
Pacific #4 Par 4 (Last of ocean drama, ultimate par 4)
Pacific #5 Par 3 (Demanding par 3)
Pacific #6 Par 4 (Take a chance if you need a stroke)
Pacific #7 Par 4 (Strong par 4 to finish)
Par 36
This excludes Pacific 8, 9, and 10. So the obvious question is, are Bandon's 3, 4, & 5 better than Pacific's 8, 9, & 10? It is difficult to compare Bandon's #3 vs. Pacific's #8, and Bandon's #5 vs. Pacific's #10 as they are different pars. I would say that by losing Pacific 8,9, and 10, you gain two world class holes in Bandon 4 & 5. In my opinion those holes would add to the fun, memorability, and shot values of the "Composite" course. Not to mention perhaps the finest front 9 on the planet. Yes there would be a disconnect, especially in bunker style, and cohesiveness is lost. But individually, you would have 18 great holes. Ideally a composite course blends holes of the same style to choose the 18 best.
I guess the fun thing would be to imagine, what if that land had not already been used and Tom had the above land available to use for Pacific Dunes. Bandon would definately have suffered greatly. I think the resort is far better off as the two courses are both extremely strong EXACTLY AS THEY ARE.
But if I owned the place, and had it to myself, perhaps these would be the 18 holes I would play.
-
M. Schulte
I agree fully with your last statement that the complex is just fine as it is--2 great golf courses, of very different character and potential. Sure one could have done "better" with 20/20 hindsight, but so what?
However, if you want to do a hypothetical 18 from the 2, as Pat has asked, here's my best guess:
Short Holes
BD 2,15
PD 14
Medium Holes
BD 4,5,7,10,16
PD 1,2,4,6,7,13,16
Long Holes
BD 3,9
PD 18
-
OK if you want my favorite 18 from the complex they would be:
Par 3s
BD 12
PD 5,11,17
Par 4s
BD 4,5,11,14,17
PD 2,4,6,13,16
Par 5s
BD 3
PD 3,12,18
-
Patrick and Rich, I don't see why you're being so confrontational about all this. There's nothing "telling" about the relative lack of responses to this thread, Rich - as someone who started any number of GD HOTD threads and received few or no responses to most of them, it would have been very egotistical of me to assume that the non-responsiveness of the group had something to do with having raised subject which were too difficult or touchy to address. :) People don't always have to rise to Patrick's bait, you know!
BD and PD are both wonderful courses that have differences which outweigh their similarities. Looking back upon my time playing Bandon Dunes, I think about a great golf course, a number of truly outstanding individual holes, and one special evening where I played the front nine in 33 strokes. Thinking back upon Pacific Dunes, I get the same stirrings in my soul (they bring tears to my eyes, really) that I get when I think back upon my days at Cypress Point and Shinnecock, or that others get when they think about Sand Hills, as something which really was THAT good. I don't really wish to muddy any of those memories by overanalysis - I know that there are 16 or 17 holes at PD and maybe 9 or 10 at BD that, given unlimited time and money, I'd drop most anything to go back and play again, but do I have to choose my favorite 18 from the 36 to validate my feelings for all 36? Of course not.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Darren,
I'm puzzled, how have I been confrontational ?
I posed a question relative to the two courses, and the structure of a composite course, sequentially and randomly.
I didn't pit one course against the other.
If a composite course can be created at Winged Foot East & West, Ridgewood West, East & Center, Shinnecock and National, Baltusrol Upper & Lower and other courses, I don't see why it can't be done at Bandon/Pacific Dunes.
There is no absolute answer, no right and wrong, and certainly no baiting, just one's opinion.
I was surprised that few chose to share their opinions.
I'll guarantee you that if it was a match play with Sandpines against either one, the GCA cogniscente would have inundated the thread.
It would seem that there are some who don't mind offending Jones and Fazio, but are sensitive when it comes to others.
-
If you do not like what Mr. Mucci has to say don't read it. he is the only intelectually honest person on this site. and a true gentleman.
-
HBH;
I love Patrick too, but I think even he might find your posts sycophantically annoying.
Tell us what YOU think about architecture. Patrick can debate quite well enough on his own.
Thanks.
-
HamiltonBHearst:
For the life of me I can't understand why it is "intellectually dishonest" to suggest that the two courses at Bandon Dunes Resort or the two courses at World Woods would not make appealing composite courses.
Can you explain that?
If Pat Mucci feels differently, fine. But, how does that make a person intellectually honest or dishonest?
Darren:
What struck me most about Pat Mucci's initial post was the fact that Pat seemed interested in the possibility of a composite course at Bandon, but didn't lay out a composite course he felt would make sense.
Imagine if a person were to start a thread about a composite course at St Andrews, using say the Old and New Course. Wouldn't it make sense for that person to lay out a composite he thought would be interesting to the group?
Just asking other people to layout their idea of a St Andrews composite probably wouldn't generate any more interest than Pat's post about doing this in Bandon.
-
Darren
If you think I'm being "confrontational" on this thread, you better thicken your skin if I ever try to be REALLY confrontational!
All I was doing was responding to Tom Paul's baiting of me (in his loveably Paulian way) and trying to induce some interesting discussion of Pat's honest question.
The difference between this thread and your HOTD threads is that a large number of people on this site have played both courses at Bandon and have strong opinions on each. Your threads didn't fly because (IMHO) most of the holes posted were ones that nobody had ever played and the photographic quality (from a GCA point of view) was poor (I'm blaming Golf Digest, not you).
-
Patrick, I thought it "confrontational" (for lack of a better word) for you to say:
"Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions??"
And Rich, for you to say:
"This is a very good question, and the fact that nobody seems to want to or be able to answer the question is telling. Is it the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason?"
Some of us don't think that Pat's question was very good - full stop. My point is that I didn't see why Pat had to throw his toys from the pram just because people didn't chime in on a thread he started. (And a thread he started, as Tim suggests, by throwing out an open-ended question with no opinions of his own to kick-start the discussion.) The impression I got from the two of you is that you thought the only possible reason why people weren't responding to the question is that everyone has been repressing their very real criticisms about PD for whatever reason - whereas the simpler explanations, i.e. that the question wasn't very good, or that not everyone has to always rise to the level of debate that you wish it to, make more sense.
(Rich, I agree that the HOTD threads failed for a number of reasons. All I was trying to say is that not every thread started up on these boards generates interest, a fact which I though should be self-evident...)
Cheers,
Darren
-
There're some excellent posts on this thread, particularly about the efficacy (or lack of it) of trying to imagine a composite course out to the two Bandon Dunes courses. Darren Kilfarra's post #20 sums it all up by far the best, in my opinion.
I suppose it could be done theoretically somehow but like many of the others on here I can't see the usefulness of such an excerise or even such a theoretical discussion. One can probably imagine some individual holes from each course strung together into a composite but the lack of reality of doing something like that in the all important routing sense alone makes it an effort that isn't worthwhile, even for discussion, in my opinion.
For instance, I think both Shinnecock and NGLA which are immediately contiguous to each other are both two of the top courses in the world architecturally but the holes on each course are very different from the other course in so many ways and therefore I can't imagine the interest in even thinking about a composite course out of their holes.
This kind of thing is also why I've never been that interested in the comparative match play game some do between the similarly numbered holes on two different courses.
And I do agree with Rich, I think it was, who mentioned why the very interesting AOTD or HOTD didn't get more general responses on here. I think it's a very interesting excercise in architectural analysis in one way but the fact that so many are not really that able to understand the nuances of certain holes they've never actually seen is a drawback.
And Rich:
You asked me about Applebrook and why didn't I put that up there with the likes of Friar's, Pacific Dunes or Rustic Canyon? I sort of hate to have to say it but I suppose for me I don't think either Applebrook or certainly Inniscrone is in that league simply because I really don't think either site is up to the others.
I realize I've said a number of times on here that I believe the architecture of a golf course should be looked at and analyzed only in the context of what the architect had control over and not what surrounded it. In other words, an architect probably shouldn't be criticized for what he can't control---ie what's off the course or even the restraints and drawbacks inherent in some sites (that he has no ability to influence).
I guess I might say I do believe that in the context of criticzing an architect on a single course but not in a comparative course context.
In my opinion, the holes of Applebrook are good ones, mostly, in an architectural and playability sense, and a bit less so in a total quantitative way at Inniscrone, but it'd be hard to deny that Gil Hanse just did not have the canvas to work with in an overall sense at Inniscrone and even Applebrook compared to Rustic Canyon, for instance, and certainly not compared to Friar's Head and Pacific Dunes or the Kingsley Club.
No refection on Gil's ability, just that some sites don't have the potential that others do, both on site and off site and good architects understand that and accept it. Gil Hanse, has been a standup guy though and has never even bothered to mention some of the drawbacks inherent in a few of the courses he's done or to use those problems and inherent drawbacks as excuses.
The same is true of Coore and Crenshaw at a course like Easthampton. What they did there, the actual architecture, is excellent given what they had to work with which was plenty of drawbacks! And they're very honest about that. I once told Coore I thought Easthampton was a terrific course and he said he wasn't exactly of that opinion only that they felt they did as well as they could have with a fairly problematic situation.
And that explains the answer perfectly to me when a Pat Mucci asks why courses like Easthampton or Notre Dame don't make the top 100, or other such nonsense, and doesn't that show that Coore and Crenshaw can't hit a homerun every time out?--I suppose proving in his mind that C&C may not be as good as someone like me tries to make them out to be.
What Pat isn't considering is they didn't intend to hit a comparative homerun every time out--just to do the best they could with what they had. If one could really look honestly and accurately at why a Coore and Crenshaw or a Gil Hanse took on projects like those one would surely see they weren't trying to hit top 100 comparative homeruns and they knew and understood that.
I hope you understand what I mean here and the distinctions I'm trying to make. I admire architects who sometimes take on tough situations when they know they don't have to. But although I can say I think they did the best they could have under certain circumstances and situations I don't see it as inconsistent to say that despite that some of the courses they've done will never measure up to others in a comparative sense for all kinds of reasons beyond their contol.
And frankly, all this brings up an interesting question--who has best made a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Certainly an interesting question for another thread which I'll make momentarily.
-
Tom Paul:
I share your feeling about Shinnecock and NGLA. Both are wonderful courses, obviously, but mixing the two for a composite course would be more of a turn off than something interesting, at least to me.
Pat Mucci:
I'm curious. If you think Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes would make for a good composite, why didn't you lay out the composite course you feel would be interesting and appealing?
-
Tom
Many thanks for your thoughts about Applebrook. I hear what you are saying, but does not the fact that you know the site very well, both pre- and post-course, influence your thinking? To me Applebrook seemed very much like Merion (OK site, great course)--without the trees and 80-90 years of "tradition." Of course, I've only played each course once, so this is a very underinformed opinion.
Darren
What's wrong with Pat's initial question?
-
To me Applebrook seemed very much like Merion (OK site, great course)--without the trees and 80-90 years of "tradition." Of course, I've only played each course once, so this is a very underinformed opinion.
Rich;
Were the new bunkers at Merion THAT upsetting to you? ;)
I think Applebrook is a very fine course, as well, but I think Tom's description of it is apt. I'm pretty sure that Gil would blush and chuckle a bit at your comparison.
Are you suggesting that if Merion were a brand-new course, it would likely fall under the radar screen as you believe Applebrook has?
-
I too have no desire to make a composite of two courses that have little in common except being next to each other and the weather that goes with it. Tom made the comment he had the better piece of land to begin with. I feel he is a much much better architect too. Bandon Dunes has a few great golf holes that will live in my mind forever. 5 and 14 are amoung them. It is also a very good course that deserves our discussion if for no other reason there are very few courses being built on land like this or of this style anymore. Pacific Dunes is to me one of the great courses in America. I mean when all I can say in the negative is I am not sure a blind 2nd shot on the first hole is a great idea at a resort course. And I do not like the risk reward component of 16 in the summer wind. Otherwise it is a dream to play. I could play there everyday for life and feel blessed. The 2nd shot at 8 is as much fun for me as the 2nd shot on 4 at Spyglass if not more so. I would love to play a match play event there. Oh that right I did play a match there. David M, I am parched.
-
Mike
Possibly, particularly if Applebrook were 90 years old and had already held several Opens. PS--as I've said many times, I likede the bunkers, in a strategic sense.....
-
Rich:
Personally, I can't see much at all in similarity between Merion's preconstruction site and Applebrook's. Merion is a tight little mother but the natural golf ground is pretty awesome both in contour and natural features and Wilson & Co used what they had to the max, in my opinion.
Of course on the other side of the architectural ledger Wilson used something that most architects didn't like to use if possible and that was flanking OB. Wilson balanced his architectural features (and thereby his risk/reward strategies) on the super OB holes about as well as imaginable though!
That kind of thing (OB to create strategy), again, may not be ideal in golf architecture generally but it's certainly very reminiscent of golf of an era and golf of a sort of suburban variety (in both Europe and America) that Merion East has always been and was intended to be. Golf and railroad tracks and the necessity of that transportation mode near (as well as auto roads) and very contiguous to golf courses and holes was just a standard of that era in many parts of the country and should be looked at with interest and as a standard of a certain era and architectural variety.
Applebrook was once a nice Pa farm with land that would've been quite interesting for golf holes but for the 25 or so years previous to Applebrook a good deal of that original farm site had been graded into enormous flat terraces for office buildings. That was obviously a challenge for Hanse and I think he made quite clever use of that problematic situation. But the residential contiguousness in two sections of that course just take something out of Applebrook that tree planting or another other potential fix will never be able to overcome, in my book.
Given all that, though, I think Hanse & Co did the best anyone could have. He knew as well as did everyone that the housing component was going in there. What could one expect considering the original principals are some of the biggest residential and commercial developers in this area?
But despite those sometimes offensive earsores I think it's super, super, super important that Applebrook NEVER plant that golf course up with trees to try to block out those earsores to open golf.
-
Thanks for your thoughts, Tom. You know the lay of the land(s) much better than I do and I respect your judgement on this.
Nevertheless, I do wonder, how much preconception has to do with how we look at the architecture of a golf course. If people have told us it is great, who are we to say it is not? If we are not told by others it is great, who are we to say that it is? When we look at the 18th of Merion, say, how much are our perceptions biased by the fact that we have seen the picture of Hogan hitting his famous 1-iron so many times. Does that make it, in our minds, a better hole than the 18th at Applebrook?
I also wonder about visual distractions. The Pebble Beach effect (or in the case of Applebrook, the anti-Pebbble Beach effect). Who of us out there is strong enough to block out the condos at Applebrook or the ocean at Pebble Beach? Should we even aspire to do so, or does GCA include the context as well as the content?
Still wondering.....
-
TEPaul,
You're wrong with respect to my comments about Notre Dame and Easthampton.
They are not directed at C&C, rather, the idolaters on this site.
C&C are extremely selective in their site/project selections, and as such, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard ?
If one "cherry picks" sites, one would expect the product to be superior. I understand, at Easthampton, that the routing was inherited.
Darren Kilfara,
I've started an abundant number of threads by posing a question, without offering my opinion, and those threads became very active.
I don't see the need for me to state my views when posing a question in order to form an interesting topic, or the basis for discussion.
Sometimes you learn more by asking and listening to the responses, without offering your views.
-
I like Pacific Dunes better as a 12-hole course, so the composite course doesn't have a lot of appeal to me.
But I'd love to just have unlimited access to both courses, just walking around playing which ever hole suites my fancy. I don't think I'd have a set pattern, just jumping around, from hole to hole, where ever my mood struck on that day.
After playing Pacific Dunes for the first time I had this vision of being the Archie Baird of Bandon Dunes, walking around with my dog, playing the holes that are open, with no regard to which course or which order. I tried to convince the powers that be at the resort that they needed a better golf library, but they never bought into the idea. Fitivver
Dan King
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Liberty of action, liberty of movement.
--Jean Claude de Gournay
-
Pat Mucci:
I noticed you expressed to Darren Kilfara that you often start a thread by posing a question without expressing your own point of view. Okay.
But, I'm wondering whether you also feel some obligation to express your own point of view when directly asked to express it.
I'm wondering because when asked whether you felt the two courses at Bandon would make for a good composite, you chose to ignore the question.
What's more puzzling is that you suggested people here felt that these two courses were somehow off limits for criticism and that this might explain why the response to your original question was less than enthusiastic.
That struck me as odd. If you were looking criticism, why not simply ask people what they don't like about either course? If you really just wanted to know whether people felt these courses would make a good composite, why not accept the prevailing view that they wouldn't? Or layout your own case for a composite course?
-
on 05/24/03 at 6:17pm, Patrick_Mucci wrote
It's amazing how everyone is afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise.
Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions ??
Rich Goodale said:This is a very good question, and the fact that nobody seems to want to or be able to answer the question is telling. Is it the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason?
I find it odd that the two of you-- both of whom have played both these courses-- would find it so baffling that many have no interest in creating a composite. While both are next to each other, are part of the same golf complex, and have views of the ocean, they feel absolutely nothing like each other, by design I suppose. They are each complete works, not puzzle pieces-- Neither has a single piece which feels like it could be picked up and transferred elsewhere (with the exception perhaps of No. 1 and No. 18 on Bandon.)
Shivas,
You are sure to have a great time. This isnt critical, but one thing that amazed me about both courses is how well established they feel. Both exude a sense of timeless beauty that overwhelmed me with the false impression that they have been classics for a very long time. That being said, they they are quite dissimilar classics. This should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never played overseas, but Bandon felt like I expect Murfield would feel-- somewhat polished, with sharp shadows and the quite confidence in its ability to hold its own with anyone. Quite like Mr. Hunley, if he were a golf course.
I can't even place Pacific, but I hope there are courses like it somewhere in the isolated back-edges of Ireland, where I image everything to be somewhat wild, arbitrary, and undefined. Like a surprisingly erudite stranger one might meet in a small town pub, scruffy and unkempt in appearance but much sophisticated and substantial than he first appears.
Mixing them would be like pouring Laphroaig into fine wine. Bandon is Cole Porter. Pacific is Mississippi John Hurt or maybe even Son House. Both are brilliant, but not in ways that makes sense to combine.
To take it further, perhaps because I don't find much of value in creating composite courses, but I find it somewhat insulting to the architecture of each course to hypothetically shuffle and redeal. (Note I said architecture and not architect.)
Patrick Mucci said:I'm puzzled, how have I been confrontational ?
I posed a question relative to the two courses, and the structure of a composite course, sequentially and randomly.
I didn't pit one course against the other.
Perhaps you weren't trying to be confrontational, but it certainly seemed you were.
After a passage of time with only a few responses to your original post, you immediately jump to the conclusion that
. . . everyone is afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise.
It may be my shortcoming, but when people start a conversation by calling me afraid to speak openly and honestly, I have trouble refraining from questioning their motives.
-
David Moriarty:
You have no shortcoming. I, too, wondered why Pat would suggest people were "afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise".
What would we possibly be afraid of?
Your assessment is correct. Bandon and Pacific are separate, dissimiliar courses. Treating them as puzzle pieces just doesn't make sense.
-
Dave and Tim et. al.
Good puzzles are always confusing, but also always fun--if you like puzzles. If you don't like puzzles, just don't play them.
-
Tim Weiman,
Creating a composite 18 hole golf course from a 36 hole complex inherently dictates that you make choices, that you include certain holes to the exclusion of others.
Here are two of the best courses built in some time, courses that many have played, yet, responses were absent.
To me, it would seem to indicate that one or both courses had been deemed sacred cows, and as such, exempt from any discussion that might be deemed critical. And, of course, including 18 holes, to the exclusion of 18 holes could be deemed as critical, hence the lack of response.
Certainly, the intellect of the site is up to the exercise.
With respect to my composite courses, sequential and random, I was only asked that question earlier today, by you.
I'm still formulating my answer.
Dave Moriarty,
NGLA and Shinnecock are far more different than Bandon/Pacific Dunes, yet composites weren't taboo for these neighboring courses, nor was a match play contest.
I recalled an earlier thread that asked about the frequency of play on each course at Bandon/Pacific Dunes, given a set number of total plays.
It seemed that the response was weighted toward Pacific Dunes.
With all the talk and praise these courses have received in the past four years, one would have thought that this topic would have created some good discussions, but I guess, having to make critical choices that nominate some holes and eliminate others is too sensitive a task at the present time.
Sensing the reluctance to make choices, I created two other threads asking participants to name their favorite Par 3's.
Par 4's and Par 5's on each course.
This allowed respondents to only choose from one course and to only eliminate from one course, without having the traumatic task of having holes from each course vye against one another.
I think that both courses have their own, unique character, despite their proximity, but that doesn't preclude an exercise that requires analysis and decisions.
I view it no differently then a topic discussing the 17th at TPC and the 16th at CPC.
I sure hope that TEPaul doesn't start a thread asking GCA'ers to choose holes between Sand Hills and Friar's Head.
I suspect his fan club Presidency would be revoked. ;D
One could conclude that critical comments on either course are unofficially, off-limits.
But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
-
If you don't like puzzles, just don't play them.
Fair enough. And perhaps you could refrain from questioning our motives when we choose not to play.
-
Dave
I wasn't "questioning motives", just posing a hypothetical. I thought you lawyers (and even some non-lawyers!) liked those sort of puzzles, but I might be wrong......
-
Pat Mucci:
If you feel there is a composite course at Bandon that would be appealing, by all means present it to the group. The fact that other people are turned off by this notion doesn't mean either course is "too sensitive" to discuss.
The fact that you continue to use such language suggests that you really want to hear what people don't like about either Bandon or Pacific. If so, why not start a thread on "What's wrong with Bandon Dunes?" or "What's wrong with Pacific Dunes?"?
Pat, I'll even start it for you:
"I just got back from Bandon, Oregon where I played both Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes. I know these courses have been rated highly and many people here really enjoy them, but I felt each course had its flaws.
The problems I saw at Bandon Dunes were........
The problems I saw at Pacific Dunes were........
Does anyone see things the same way? Does anyone think we may have rated these courses too high?"
-
Tim Weiman,
You've taken my comments to the extreme, but that's okay.
Please go ahead and initiate your post.
I promise that I'll contribute and that I'll be critical in my assessments.
-
I wasn't "questioning motives", just posing a hypothetical. I thought you lawyers (and even some non-lawyers!) liked those sort of puzzles, but I might be wrong......
Lawyers love hypotheticals and love posing them. Lawyers also love to get their point across without ever technically committing to a position. I hear some poets love to do this too.
One easy method is to let someone else do the speaking for you, by using a phrase like "I hear that . . . ." or "One could say . . . ."
Another is to turn assertions/accusations into a questions/hypotheticals, simply by flipping a couple of words. For example, instead of saying:
It is the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason.
. . . one could avoid definitively taking a position by simply flipping the first two words.
-
Dave
I know you were just trying to make a lawyerly point, but you shouldn't have used the word "quote" when you in fact misquoted what I said. Over here in Old Blightly that sort of folderol might lead to some serious libel action. Not to mention the fact that by "flipping" my first two words you ended up with a much inferior sentence fragment than the one which I originally wrote.....
Do you care to answer Pat's question or are you content to wallow in semantics today?
-
Puzzle solving is at the heart of routing a golf course; that's why I am successful at it.
I will not be offended if anyone answers this question. In fact, I'm sort of curious to hear which holes at Pacific Dunes people would pass over for a hole at Bandon Dunes ... just as my question of which top-50 courses you'd throw out to make room for another.
Whatever you say, I'm pretty happy with where the golf course stands.
-
Tom Doak,
The first hole at Pacific Dunes reminds me in concept, not topography, in its relationship to the rest of the golf course, of the first hole at NGLA, Westhampton, and GCGC. I'm curious if some find the hole disarming or difficult to deal with, versus the first hole at Bandon Dunes, which isn't as subtle.
-
Mr. Doak,
I'll chime in here. I love what you said about puzzle solving. It is this reason that I have little to offer when it comes to this notion of a composite course.
I don't like to break each golf hole down individually. A truly GREAT course should play like a great composition, IMHO. A three act play, if you will. Ebb and flow.
How much have we all read about the routing of Pacific Dunes? A lot, that's how much. There has been a lot said about the routing, about it not coming back to the clubhouse, about two back to back par threes, about the alternate greens on #9.
An 18 hole golf course is the way it is (in theory) because it is meant to be played as an 18 hole golf course starting with #1 and ending with #18. Mr. Doak routed the best possible 18 holes that he saw for that piece of land. As Mr. Doak pointed out in the Confid. Guide, often times golf course architects have to sacrifice in order to preserve. As Mr. Doak also pointed out in his assessment of Ballybunion, Tom Simpson was genius for using two par fives to take up the "poor" portion of the property. I think #12 at Pacific Dunes is a great example of this philosophy. If asked to choose the BEST 18 holes at the 36 hole complex, #12 at Pac Dunes might not make it.....but so what!
#12 at Pac is a great hole for what it is. It takes up a lot of dull property, so does #3 a little for that matter. It is a nice respite after the demanding 'sink or swim' carries presented by #10 and #11. A hole that offers a guy a little breather after two toughies is a good thing, every GREAT course should afford a player such a thing.
Thus, I can see talking about the "best" 18 holes at Bandon Dunes Resort, but even then I find it somewhat insignificant to consider any holes the "best" in light of my point about the flow of the course being greater than the sum of its' parts.
-
Pat Mucci said:
"TEPaul,
You're wrong with respect to my comments about Notre Dame and Easthampton."
Pat:
Am I? I don't think so. Some time back out of the blue you asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses. You can say now that remark has nothing to do with Coore & Crenshaw and only to do with idolators. That doesn't make much sense to me Pat.
I don't recall anyone at all saying that either Easthampton or Notre Dame were courses worthy of top 100 ranking--nobody at all--not the people you label as C&C idolators or anyone else.
So basically in that post above I gave you my feeling about why they aren't top 100 courses--plus I've never seen Notre Dame except for a bunch of photos of Coore's---and furthermore I've never said anything about Notre Dame on Golfclubatlas. And I don't remember anyone else on here saying Notre Dame was a top 100 golf course.
So where were you coming from when you asked us on this board to explain why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses? You're taking shots at a bunch of people you gratuitously label as C&C idolators who aren't anything of the kind. The only earthly reason you do things like that on here, in my opinion, is to constantly attempt to make the point that various people are bashing Rees Jones and Tom Fazio and being biased towards them.
There're some people on here who don't really like the architecture of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio for a number of reasons and I really can't see why that's so hard for you to accept. People have different preferences in architecture and some happen to like the work of architects like Coore/Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse. I can't understand why you have a problem with that and I don't think many on here can either. At the very least you must admit that the architecture of C&C, Doak and Hanse is very little like the architecture of Fazio and Rees Jones. You can at least see the differences and distinction, can't you?
You said;
"C&C are extremely selective in their site/project selections, and as such, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard ?
If one "cherry picks" sites, one would expect the product to be superior. I understand, at Easthampton, that the routing was inherited."
What kind of bullshit is that that one would expect their product to be superior and your question that shouldn't they be held to a higher standard? Talk about lack of facts! What do you know about the facts of why Coore and Crenshaw took on various projects?
What do you mean by 'cherry picking' sites? Please tell me exactly what you mean or are implying by that. Tell me at least you don't mean to imply that they select sites simply so each and every one of their courses has the best chance possible of making something like the top 100. Because if you're even remotely implying that you don't have the vaguest idea about Coore and Crenshaw and what motivates them in all their project selections. It certainly can be a number of things and it certainly sounds like you don't really know much about why they probably selected the projects they've already completed.
And what's this about idolators? What's that supposed to mean? Do you have any preferences in living architects Pat? Do you have any real preferences in architecture of current architects? And if you do who are they and what are they? Are you afraid to go on the record and commit to a preference in architecture and architects? I guess most of us on here would have to say what you generally do on here is ask a hundred questions and then take people to task for answers that don't suit you for some reason.
My preferences in architects happen to be Coore & Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse. And I'm sure there'd be a number of others if I'd get out there and familiarize myself with the work of others more. I don't idolize those three either, I just really like most of the work they do more than I like the work of anyone else I've seen. That's no idolatary in my book---that's nothing more than architectural preference!
What's your preferences in current architects and architecture Pat? Why don't YOU answer THAT quesiton for a change and go on the record instead of just asking everyone else questions?
Commit to a statement of your preferences for a change. Or are you concerned that someone is going to accuse you of being an idolator? And shitcan, at least for a little while, all the questions about what everyone else thinks! ;)
Matter of fact, when some of those you accuse of being Coore/Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse idolators say nice things about the product of Tom Fazio and Rees you don't seem to even notice or acknowledge that or you're oddly silent on that FACT. Why is that?
-
TEPaul,
Is it true that C&C are selective in their site/project selection ?
Your memory must be fading, I was the one who asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses.
The answer I received was because of the site.
If that's the case then why shouldn't other architects get the same pass when the site's they work on are inferior ?
Why is it that their (the architects) work is inferior when a poor site is designed on, but the site itself is inferior when C&C produce a less than terrific design on an inferior site.
I'm just trying to understand the apparent double standard that seems to exist.
If Fazio creates a less than top 100 course on a poor site, just give him the same consideration that you give C&C on a poor site, nothing more, nothing less, it's called fair play.
And, that was my point from the get go, that you missed.
You know, from direct discussions that I've had with you, and from my postings, that I think they did a marvelous job at Friar's Head. So you can't say I don't like their work or am biased against their work.
You may also recall in my earlier discussion that I likened their work to mortality rates of surgeons who do routine cases and the mortality rates of surgeons who do more difficult cases.
Just because the mortality rate is higher for surgeons who do more difficult cases doesn't make them inferior surgeons.
And, Likewise, architects who take on difficult sites shouldn't be hammered for a less than spectacular product.
I think it's valid to hold to a higher standard, architects that get prefered sites, versus inferior sites, whether it's Rees, Fazio or your beloved C&C.
I like C&C's work that I've seen, Tom Doaks work that I've seen and Gil Hanse's work that I've seen.
I noticed in another post, in response to Rich Goodale, that you indicated that Gil Hanse did good work, but that the Applebrook and Innescrone sites were inferior. Just give other architects the same exemption when they work on inferior sites.
I've got to head out to dinner with an architect, but,
I'll be back.
P.S. Go back and reread your post and stop hyperventilating ;D
-
Patrick, you just said:
"Your memory must be fading, I was the one who asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses."
Well, that's just typical! Why is my memory fading when I just said to you on the post above;
"Some time back out of the blue you asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses."
No wonder you only ask questions--it looks to me like you're either incapable of reading or at least understanding what you've just read!
You said:
"I'm just trying to understand the apparent double standard that seems to exist."
I know you are Pat--we all know you're trying to understand--but one of the necessary requirements of understanding on this website is to read correctly what's been written and then understand what you've just read. You seem to have an ongoing problem with one or the other or both! ;)
Can you read this?
NO DOUBLE STANDARD EXISTS!! We all realize you keep saying that but it doesn't make it true! We all understand that you have a very difficult time coming to that realization but none of us really expect much more from somebody who's wrong 98% of the time and apparently on the increase to a booby prize winning 100%!
-
Mr. Mucci
It seems that you are the one who is hung up on analyzing architects based on their Top 100 results. Most others seem to be focused on whether an architect makes the most of the site. Big difference don't you think?
I don't see where certain architects are given a free pass and others are not. In the case of Easthampton and Applebrook, by way of example, many on this site don't think they are Top 100 but they do think that C&C and Hanse made the most out of what they had to work with. They don't seem to think the same of many of the courses that Rees and Fazio have designed. Doesn't mean they are right, but that's what they think.
So maybe you would answer these questions.
Given the sites they had to work with,
Did C&C do a great job with Easthampton? If not, why not?
Did Hanse do a great job with Applebrook? If not, why not?
Did Rees do a great job with Sandpines? If not, why not?
Did Rees do a great job with The Bridge? If not, why not?
Did Jack do a great job at Bear's Club? If not, why not?
I suspect many will look forward to your answers.
-
AWT,
I've never been hung up on architects based on their top 100 results, I don't where you conceived that notion.
Probably the bad air in your tomb.
In order to answer your questions intelligently one would be required to have seen the sites pre and post development, and have all of the pertinent information relative to restrictions.
I did not examine any of the sites prior to development, and I don't have the restricted information, and I have never seen Easthampton and The Bridge post development, hence I'm unqualified to make an evaluative, qualitative analysis.
Perhaps others who have this information can offer their opinions.
Have you seen all of the sites pre development ?
If not, how could you evaluate the answers ?
-
Dave
I know you were just trying to make a lawyerly point, but you shouldn't have used the word "quote" when you in fact misquoted what I said. Over here in Old Blightly that sort of folderol might lead to some serious libel action. Not to mention the fact that by "flipping" my first two words you ended up with a much inferior sentence fragment than the one which I originally wrote.....
I didnt misquote you because I didnt quote you. Far be it from me to put words in your mouth. My quote was merely a hypothetical, attribited to the elusive "one." If I had been quoting you, I would have said "you."
You are right, though, one's quote is awkward, perhaps one should have said: We are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site, but many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason.
Still not great, but one didnt leave me that much to work with.
Do you care to answer Pat's question or are you content to wallow in semantics today?
I dont like the question, and couldnt even begin a compilation course of PD and BD.
Take, for example, the first hole at Bandon, which I think is the least artful hole on either eighteen. Obviously the one I should throw off, correct? But my main problem with BD No. 1 is that it just doesnt fit as well as the other holes on BD. So now you want me to replace it with a hole from Pacific that fits in even less? What is the point of that?
So, I dont care to answer. I am quite happy wallowing in semantics today, like a pig in sh!t.
-
mdugger:
I don't believe Tom Doak ever suggested Tom Simpson was a genius for using the relatively poor part of the Ballybunion property for par five holes.
He avoided doing so for good reason: Simpson, in fact, inherited the routing which included the par fives that now play as #4 and #5. In the plan he submitted to the club in 1937, Simpson compliments the existing routing and advises the club to simply focus on making improvements to the existing holes.
Moreover, the Simpson plan didn't make any recommendations for changes to the 4th (formerly #17) and only minor changes to the 5th (formerly #18).
Nonetheless, Tom Doak's observation giving credit to whoever made the Ballybunion routing decision makes sense and the lesson may well apply to Pacific Dunes' #3 and #12.
-
Dave
The "exercise" as I see it, is:
1. To see if there is a real and feasible "composite" course out there in Bandon, a la RM and TCC.
2. To hypothecize about an "ideal" 18 from the current holes on the property.
Both of these exercises are just meant to be fun, but also as a means for us to learn more about GCA. For example, your brief comments on #1 at Bandon could lead to an interesting discussion about hte pros and cons of that hole, the role of 1st holes in general, your issue of "fit", etc.
Why do some on this site find it so hard to go through simple "contrast and compare" exercises when talking about golf courses? I personally think that the two courses at Bandon are an ideal laboratory for us to explore what we really think GCA is all about. Many of us have played the courses, and each of them is an outstanding example of what can be done today by the profession. Also, each course has examples of great GCA and some not so great GCA, IMHO. Different people will have diferrent takes than me on these issues, and I'd love to hear them and compare them with my own recollections of my bfrief time on the two courses. However, few people seem to want to go through this sort of exercise, which I find to be sad.
PS--I do like your current predilection for semantic wallowing (as well as the Cliff Notes summaries of Aristophanes etc.). Keep up the good work.
-
Rich Goodale,
As I've expressed, the idea of a composite course at Bandon is a turn off just like the same holds true for the Fazio courses at World Woods. That's what I hear people saying.
But, I also feel Pat Mucci made two mistakes in the way he initiated this thread and with his follow up comments.
First, I noticed that Pat never really expressed whether he thought a composite would make sense at Bandon and, if so, what holes he thought would work well. Like you say, many people on this board have played these courses, but Pat just returned from a visit. If he wasn't willing to lay out his own views before asking anyone else to do the same, chances are people would only feel less inclined to bother with the exercise.
The second mistake Pat made was to make suggestions why people didn't have any interest in the Bandon composite exercise. Pat came across as if he wasn't willing to accept the view that people just don't like the idea of a Bandon composite. None of us who expressed this view worried about offending David Kidd, Tom Doak or Mike Keiser. We just don't think these courses - as good as they are - would fit together as an appealing composite. If David, Tom, Mike or even Pat feels offended, well too bad. I see each course working quite well on ts own but not together. Period.
Rich, it is possible that a composite at Bandon might make sense. I don't see it, but perhaps it is there. Nothing prevents you or Pat from laying out such a case. For the sake of the thread it would have been better for Pat to do so while initiating the discussion and skipping the part of trying to assess other people's motives for not participating.
-
mdugger:
I don't believe Tom Doak ever suggested Tom Simpson was a genius for using the relatively poor part of the Ballybunion property for par five holes.
Nonetheless, Tom Doak's observation giving credit to whoever made the Ballybunion routing decision makes sense and the lesson may well apply to Pacific Dunes' #3 and #12.
Tim,
That's what I meant to say, sorry it didn't come out quite like that.
-
Rich:
Again, I think trying to come up with a composite from Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes is a waste of time for a lot of reasons. Firstly although right next to each other and the same basic style of architecture the holes and so much about them are just different because they were done by two different architects and two different companies. The only possible interest I could see in such an excerise would be in sort of an ideal routing sense or excercise if both sites could be used ideally for one course. But frankly to even attempt to do that well and do the excercise justice would take a whole lot more work and specific knowledge of all the details of that site which I can't imagine anyone on this site really has. If I wanted to do an excerise like that justice I'd want to go out there and study things for quite some time.
Again, Shinnecock and NGLA are right next to each other too and both are terrific courses and terrific architecture but trying to put together the holes of each into a composite course is basically a waste of time.
I don't think not wanting to answer a question like this is sad at all. And don't forget that Pat asked this question. Pat has already asked about a million questions on this website and the fact that most of them weren't answered isn't sad at all. It would be sad as hell actually if the contributors to the site truly did try to answer all of Pat's mindless questions which basically are all trying to make the foundation for double standards and bias that doesn't exists anyway! ;)
-
mdugger:
Unfortunately, documentation on exactly who is responsible for Ballybunion's routing doesn't exist, at least not to my knowledge. Simpson gets lots of credit for the course based on his consulting assignment in the late 1930's, but it is clear that the routing was not something he worked on.
It's too bad. There are many courses where golf architecture students would love to know what went through the mind of the architect while designing the course. For example, apparently RTJ presented the club with three routing plans for the Cashen. Maybe on my next trip over I'll try to find out if there is any record of the two plans not used.
-
Why do some on this site find it so hard to go through simple "contrast and compare" exercises when talking about golf courses?
About golf courses? No problem. See my description of the two courses to Shivas, above. If that is not detailed or critical enough, add that I thought Bandon's greens were a bit formulaic and repititious. For example, it seems that Mr. Kidd or one of his people had a thing for shaping a kidney shaped shelf somewhere on the large green. Not necessarily a bad feature the first time, but . . . In comparison, Pacific's greens were varied, interesting, free flowing, fantastic.
But that wasnt the question. The question was about golf holes, not courses. Taking golf holes out of the context of their course is missing much of the point of golf architecture.
This should be no surprise to you or Patrick, as we have discussed this before.