[Christian Newton]

I was looking at the land where the Gil Hanse course is expected at Bandon Dunes (the Sheep Ranch) and I noticed that it will be both quite far from the rest of the resort’s infrastructure, yet close to parts of Old Macdonald.

Given that Old Mac doesn’t have a clubhouse of the size or function of that of the other Bandon courses, would management possibly build a new clubhouse (and perhaps a lodging complex) with proximity to both courses: Old Mac and the Hanse? Seems like both courses could be strongly supported from a common site, and some extraordinary ocean views could be had, all without polluting the golf experience. An ideal location might be just north of the transition between the 16 green and 17 tee on Old Mac.

It struck me that this change: making what is today 17 (“Littlestone”) into the first hole, and making today’s 16 (“Alps”) the closing hole, might actually be just as good as it currently plays, or perhaps better. You may or may not agree.

This brings me to the thought experiment: as consulting architect, you must consider changes to Old Mac to accommodate the above reordering. Only the start and stop of the course changes: 17 and 18 become 1 and 2, and the rest follow in order. The theoretical new buildings in no way impact the existing course or immediate surroundings. What, if anything, would you change about the hole designs?

A second question, specifically for the pro architects: do clubhouse locations tend to be a constraint presented to you, or a variable over which you have influence?

Thanks,
Christian

[Pete_Pittock]

I'm none of the above,  Old Mac's clubhouse is next to the driving range. The owner didn't think there was need to put more dining options at the OM clubhouse, it is more like an expanded starters shack. There is a serious ravine between OM and the sheep ranch..

[Tom_Doak]

Christian:


Why would you change the golf holes, just because the clubhouse location was changing? 


Which, hopefully, it won't.  A clubhouse by #17 wouldn't work for The Sheep Ranch; by #16 tee is the only reasonable spot, and even then there would be a lot of elevation change to contend with.  I very much like our Double Plateau as the opening hole of that course, and the beauty of the 3rd hole [and even of the 7th] would be reduced if the course started from the ocean.


That's the best reason not to start a course by the ocean, because a lot of the holes are inevitably going to be letdowns.


To answer your other question, it depends on the project.  Of my 35 projects, there were a couple where we were renovating an existing building, and maybe ten others where only one clubhouse spot made sense due to the access to the property.  For the rest, I had a lot of influence on siting the clubhouse.

[Christian Newton]

Thanks for the replies. Perhaps the location of my theoretical clubhouse is not a winner. What I was trying to get commentary around was the nature of opening and closing holes. What singular considerations go into them? Are any changes necessary to the new opening and closing holes, like in the example I provided?

It seems many opening holes have forgiving fairways, score low in relative difficulty, or otherwise accommodate pace-of-play considerations, or at a minimum don’t amplify first-tee nerves. “Double Plateau” seems to qualify.

I find a lot of closing holes accommodate a gallery (Riviera is the extreme), and offer a visible risk/return proposition that can be engaged differently if holding the lead or chasing it. “Punchbowl” has these qualities. It certainly offers perfect terrain to sit and watch the rest of the groups hit in.

My answer to the experiment:

As the new opener, soften Littlestone: retain its length, but reduce optical challenge off the tee, perhaps moving the tee left. Is prevailing wind an issue here? It seems not to be a coincidence that three of the starting holes at Bandon all face the same heading. In turn, I might make “Plateau” look a little more demanding.

Alps strikes me as a good closer. I imagine it would be fun to watch from above as groups come in, assess their options for the blind second shot. It is rated as the second hardest on the card. Maybe too hard to be a good finisher? Does the blind element make the risk/reward calculus less clear? I can't think of a famous blind finisher.

[Sven Nilsen]

Terry Lavin once pointed out the subtle aspects of having the two starting holes and two finishing holes on the East side of the ridge.


Messing with the routing would remove the wonderful early in the round moment of cresting the hill on 3 revealing the bulk of the playing field, and would eliminate the turning of the corner from 16 to 17, where the treeline reminds one they're no longer on the surface of the moon and have returned to Oregon.  Just like Trails has its transitions from Dunes to Meadows to Woods and back, Old Mac has something similar going on.


There's a flow to Old Mac that few realize.  The course starts fairly easy, building up to the challenge of holes 10, 11 and 12.  From there you have two short par 4's, a short par 5, one last challenge at 16 and during the summer a gentle push home downwind on 17 and 18.  It works pretty well as is, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to change it.


As for making 17 the starter, its the hole players have the most problems with, even downwind.  There is a tee box further to the left already, and it doesn't do anything to make the hole easier.  Pushing it further left would make one of the longest green to tee walks on the course even longer, which would be a shame on a course where for the most part the next tee is mere steps away from where you just putted out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()