Well not really . . . .

But what if we created a composite course at Bandon, like they do at Royal Melbourne?   Which holes would make your composite 18, and why?  

Another way of looking at it . . . what holes at Bandon would you move to Pacific and what holes at Pacific would you replace?  Or visa versa.

Let's assume that we ignore the logistics of impossibly long walks.  [In other words, let's think like most architects.]  And let's leave out phantom courses.

Gerry B,
The last Australian Open WAS NOT held at the The National's Moonah course.  It was held at the nearby Moonah Links, which is an entirely separate facility

Thanks for the correction.  I've changed the title accordingly.

Anyone care to try a composite course at Bandon?

Here is my take on the par 3's

Would take #15 at Bandon (nice bunker front right) and from Pacific #10 and  #11  -(as the prevailing wind makes for interesting club selection - last time I played there the 11th -138 yards was playing 190 yards)and #17 - simply a great one shotter.

I hereby nominate this as the "Worst thread title on GCA".  Any competition?

Nothing I said was meant to disparage or upstage Royal Melbourne (which by the way I would like to see more than any other course in the world.)  I mentioned it because it is (they are) excellent course(s) which are sometimes set up as a composite.  

Also, I thought the headline might draw some attention and indirectly generate some responses about Bandon.  I was apparently mistaken.

[By the way, the original heading inaccurately jested that 'the Australian Open moves to Oregon.'  Perhaps this heading, while incorrectly connecting RM with the Australian Open, conveyed that the heading was in jest.]

Geez, I never imagined that Australians were so quick to take offense.  You guys dont rate for Golfweek Australia, do you?  

While I do think your responses are rather a stretch, I am sorry if I truly offended you.

David

DMoriarty,

I don't know why I'd be offended, and my comment has nothing to do with the courses at Royal Melbourne.  It has everything to do with a thread title which has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the thread!

Also, I thought the headline might draw some attention and indirectly generate some responses about Bandon.  I was apparently mistaken.

You were mistaken - highlighting an Australian course on this Ameri-centric discussion group is hardly going to generate more interest than a thread title like "Bandon-Pacific Composite Course?".  In fact, in my experience, any mention of an Australian course on any thread tends to kill the thread pretty quickly.  

RM works a lot better because the two courses are intertwined, PB&BD only come together with the seam at BD6,7,8 and PD 7-11. The big difference is the the RM confluence is at their clubhouse, and that is not the case in Oregon.

Two routings which work on the ground at Bandon and have some allegiance to infrastructure but little thought to hole strength or par breaks at the 7th holes.  Start playing Bandon at the 1st hole and continue through the 7th, then play Pacific Dunes 8th to the PD pro shop. The other starts on PD #1, goes through #7, switching to BD at the 8th and continuing on BD through 18.

David:

It's been awhile since I played these courses.  There's a par three on the back nine at Bandon that has a damn sinister pot bunker right in front, and plays toward the ocean.  It's not eye candy at all - not to me anyway - because it really doesn't look like much... at least from what I recall, the ocean isn't in view nor is anything else placed on this hole to look at that doesn't come into play.  I thought this was 12, but maybe I am wrong.  In any case, I REALLY liked that hole because we played it nearly all the time in a strong right to left wind, which made of all sorts of creative shot possibilities to get it around or over that pot bunker... the same thing would occur in the reverse wind as well... And the bunker itself is very deep, reminiscent to me of many in Scotland.  If this isn't 12, my bad.  But whatever the hole is, that one is a keeper for sure, to me.  

If I have the hole correct and your criticisms apply to this hole, then well, we shall agree to disagree.  I think the bunker alone makes the golf hole and the green sure seemed tough enough to me.

So OK, you're right - we sure can replace a par 3 from PD with a four from BD... so put me down for removing 5 and 10 on PD and adding 12 and 5 from BD.  

I somehow do want to get 11 and 16 BD into this mix also... and the more I think of it I do like #1 at BD also... I just can't find holes at PD I'm willing to give up for any of these.

And again, bear with me here - it has been quite awhile since I played either of these courses.  But you were getting so little response here, I thought I'd at least try!

TH

ps - are you gonna give an answer, or are you taking the Mucci approach?

We are talking about the same hole.  I recall the tee being elevated and the ocean in view.  

The left bunker does make the hole difficult, but I dont really equate 'tough' with great.  

As for eye candy, there is that ocean thing.  Plus the big dune to the right becomes somewhat cosmetic-- it isnt blended into the greensite but rather seperated from the green by a small collection area.  

But to each his own.  

From the Bandon website


I did answer I think.  I would trade BD 5 for PD 10, reluctantly.  

Didnt your original message contain a reference to the green being tough enough because of the bunker?  

David - fair enough, I now understand where you're coming from.  In the spririt of the "new" GCA, I'm going to drop the issue.  

Chris.

David,

It would take more than that to offend most of us!!  

Back to the topic...........

Tom, I meant the dune on the right.  It is in play, but not really incorporated, IMO.   As for the eye candy thing, I just dont see this hole being a favorite if that ocean thing wasnt set directly behind it.  

I thought I'd come up with more changes as well,  but just couldnt pull the trigger on getting rid of much at PD.  I think PD 5 is terrific.