FWIW, I vastly prefer 16 at PD to 16 at BD.  

They have collection spots all over The Old Course. WQork oikay there. Maybe Tommy can scare up the divot photo I sent him. Without the collection areas you are either at the bottom of the hill or you have a supremely uninteresting fairway.
I like #6, but I love #16, maybe because I am always buying a lottery ticket.

I seem to remember the 16th at Pacific presenting a boring visual..

Both #6 & #16 PD are great holes.

#6 is one of the top 5 short par 4's in golf in my book.
Up there in the #10 Riv air.

I did end up in a divot one of the two times I played #16.
But, it's somewhat fair since I was trying to drive the green.
Caddie did advice to play way out to the left.
I do think most tour pros could hit it over the back of the green w/o much difficulty.  Wait 5 years for the new ball, and I will be able to as well.

#16 at BD isn't in the same category in my mind.
Tee shot is fantastic, but the angle once up top is a letdown.

John;
Respectfully, when (or why) is it required that a 'visual' not be 'boring'?
The designer (ANY designer, not just the guy that did Pacific Dunes) asks us to hit from one spot to another spot, this one with a hole in the ground.  For my money where does it read that a hole must have some visual pizazz?  I would wager there are thousands of good, challenging, satisfying, reasonably constructed and fairly 'correct' golf holes that are bland, plain, tasteless, ordinary looking.  I say....so what?

It's just golf! Honest to goodness, I have great golf satisfaction playing on courses close and akin to cow pastures!  
It's golf...and in the case of #16 at Pac, IMHO it's pretty great golf!!

Thanks for listening to this!

Ryan;
So, regarding #16 at Bandon Dunes, you don't think that a 'awkward little pitch' is a good thing?  You want it on a platter?  That's a damn tough question you are asked to answer from the left side of that hole, be it into or with the wind.

Re your statement about the crevice early in the 16th hole: for the sake of honest argument come up with a routing that utilizes that topographic feature (which I take to be a minor feature...boring if you will) in a way that you perceive as 'better', and then ask yourself if that routing is better than Mr. Kidd's.  I honestly, with all respect, believe that exercise is an honest and responsible one.  I think your question of the use of that feature needs to be within the larger context of the entire routing.  For example, if you use it differently, how does that affect holes 17 and 18 as played, and the need to return somehow to the lodge, or taking advantage of the greensite at 15 and the obvious challenge of playing into it against a summer wind.

Additionally, I appreciate your comments and dissatisfaction with #16 at Pac.  I am on the opposite end of the approval spectrum...I believe it to be a demanding, fascinating, constantly evolving question of how to somehow extract a par from the hole (or at least some satisfaction for having taken on the challenge of it).  
I find it interesting that you, in your examples, played the hole in a collective even par.  That, to me, means you managed the hole pretty well, in spite of your complaints.
The fairway and it's shapes, at least from my numerous conversations with men that helped build it, suggests that what we see and play on that fairway was there before construction, that those shapes were simply smoothed and seeded.  I love that fact about #16.
So, there are divots in various states of repair....that is part of the game! We are asked to have the emotional and physical skills to handle those less than perfect lies.
Possibly you need to play your tee shot elsewhere, like 240 yards off the tee to the left corner of the fairway, where there are few divots and an area of relatively level terrain.  That has been my solution....a good one for the added advantage of being able to play down the length of the green and not across it, as one is asked to do when a tee shot is hit down into the right hand corner short of the green.

I for one find the hole complex, tricky, demanding, rewarding, whether I succeed in the 'test' or fail...low score or high.
I respectfully suggest you put aside your ideas of what is fair and accept the wonderful challenge of simply playing the hole and the game for what it is.

When I play #16 at either Bandon or Pac I am interested in how I feel as I walk off the green and look back at the adventure I had just behind me.

Good golf and an open mind to you all.


Tom

 

It is the worst hole on the course. Yet in a competition like the Curtis Cup it may prove to be the most exiting hole on the course. It is a birdie to triple bogie hole without much room for error.

Tom Jefferson-

I think you misunderstood - I completely agree with you re: the awkward little pitch on 16 at BD - I think that's part of the reason I love the hole!  I actually think it's one of the best holes on BD, and my ONLY complaint about the hole is that there is essentially no real choice other than playing left and biting off what you will.  An expanded lower fairway might allow more options, the challenging of the ocean cliffs, and such a tee shot might be rewarded with a slightly easier path to the green.  I think we are in agreement here.

Re: the crevice - I have gone through this very same exercise in my mind and admittedly, I have not come up with a better routing as of yet.  I think it could have been nicely used to tuck behind it a green site, not dissimilar from going at a right hand side pin on the 17th green.  With the ocean setting, I think it could have been a truly spectacular shot to have a chance at - a green open to a run up that you can play as close as you dare to the crevice, or take an aerial route but risk the difficult task of holding the green.

How about this routing-

12 instead of a par 3 becomes a par 4 of maybe 350 yards, playing along the same line as the current 12th hole, out to the coast, and then playing along the coast to a green tucked behind the crevice that can be either approached directly over the top, or with a running shot around the left edge of it.

13 then becomes a par 3 playing similarly to 15, only with the green somewhere set in the large area between the current 12th green and 13th tee

14 is just the renumbered current 13th hole

15 becomes the renumbered current 14th hole

16 is a par 3 playing from the current 15th tee to the current 16th green location

17 and 18 remain as-is.

What do you think?

Re: 16 at Pacific, I am pleased that I played the hole well, as I therefore can be certain that my critiques are not the result of poor play - the only real strategy I did not try, as David Sneddon pointed out, is the iron layup tee shot to lay back.  

Ultimately, let's put it this way.  I am thankful for the hole, as a short, sometimes driveable par 4 at that point in the round is exciting and frankly, just not done enough...but liking the hole in concept (short par 4 late in the round on a world class course) is simply not enough to me to avoid looking at it as a singular golf hole and feeling that it's just not quite up to snuff, ESPECIALLY when considered in the context of it's nearby neighbor, the 6th.

!6 at Bandon Dunes is also the worst hole on the course as well. They have made the fairway playable in the summer wind now. It still is a funny short par 4 squeezed in that really makes no sense.

Ryan:

I have mixed feelings about that 16th fairway.  The contours are totally natural, and philosophically I was strongly opposed to changing them to give players an artificial flat lie for their second shot.  I didn't even want to flatten a portion of the fairway to play to and put my hands on it.

The divots were predictable, but there are more of them than we thought; we did not really anticipate that Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes would each host 40,000 rounds per year back in 2000.

Which brings up an interesting question:  if the SAME hole were at Sand Hills, where they play 7,000 rounds per year and wouldn't have the same divot issues, would it be a great hole there?

[BTW:  I usually hit an iron off the tee there, but it's not because of the divots, I just like to avoid that hollow in the right of the fairway which gives you a really tough angle for the pitch.]

Is a hole a good hole, though, if the best play off the tee is, in your opinion, made such by the avoidance of divots?

Should fear of divots really be considered a component in strategy?  Were there not divots to contend with, would your play then become whatever club is necessary to put it at the 100 yard sand wedge zone?  Or would you still play iron iron even if the collection areas and confluence of divots was not a problem?

Divots were really not on my mind, it was more the chance of playing from a flat lie for my second shot.

When walking up to the green I did note the amount of divots and was glad I played the hole the way I did.

Were I to play a different strategy I'd probably aim for the green hoping to either land on it, or in the bunkers beyond.

The problem with going for the green on 16 is that a lot of shots are going to wind up in the hollow front right, and that is the one place you have to avoid, whether it's your first shot or your second.
If I'm caddying for you, you play left off the tee, and make damned sure you carry the ball onto the putting surface with your second.  Even if it goes into the back bunker, you're still in the hole from there.
Lots of people ask me about the trees on the inside right of the dogleg and shouldn't they come down, but I was TRYING to block the view of the green so fewer people would be tempted to go for it.  

A lot would depend on me going for the green - I'd have to hitting the ball very well that day.  I'm pretty comfortable with 5iron/PW on that hole, it worked for par the 4 times I played Pacific, and had my putting been a tad better, might have had two birdies.
But if you are available for caddying, I'll let you know when I'll be there next , though somehow I don't think you'll look as good in the jumpsuit as Sasha  

Okay, so we're now freely criticizing and praising Doak . . . and then people fall off the deep end.  

#16 is flawed because there are too many divots in the right collection area?--nonsense.  You're not even supposed to hit it there.  Try hitting it left if you want to avoid divots (and you'll have a better angle anyway).