Opportunity missed...The land of 10 and 11 at Pacific Dunes...

« **Reply #25 on:** March 28, 2006, 01:17:47 PM »

Kavanaugh,

Just what is your beef, dude?

« **Reply #26 on:** March 28, 2006, 01:23:16 PM »

At the risk of sounding like a JK BB, what's the harm in asking thought provoking questions about things like, oh.....architecture?

I know it's risky to question anything Bandon, but hey...it's even healthy once in awhile to question what you get taught at church....God doesn't mind if you use your brain, I'm almost certain.

Joe

« **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2006, 02:05:56 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 28, 2006, 11:12:03 AM

Tim,

I simply can not accept that what may soon be called the finest course built in my lifetime has four par threes on the back nine...It seems like a comprimise. I have a feeling that all the land that sits north of the course was not available at the time of construction...am I wrong..

The bottom line is there are 5 par 3's overall, which is not unusual. If you don’t like playing 4 par 3's in one 9 buy 3 hours worth of tee times and play them in the order that u want. Making the best possible golf holes is more important than just having the conventional par layout because it’s what everyone is used to. Can you agree on that?

« **Reply #28 on:** March 28, 2006, 02:14:02 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on March 28, 2006, 01:23:16 PM

At the risk of sounding like a JK BB, what's the harm in asking thought provoking questions about things like, oh.....architecture?

I know it's risky to question anything Bandon, but hey...it's even healthy once in awhile to question what you get taught at church....God doesn't mind if you use your brain, I'm almost certain.

Joe

The problem is it has been played out. Jakab doesn't really care about PD's 10th and 11th holes, hell, he probably doesn't even remember them.

He's just taking a pot shot.......for the sake of a pot shot.....not because he really thinks 10 and 11 are bad holes or problematic.

If you are the type of architecture afficianado that cares about routing and the story it tells over the course of 18 holes, you understand that Pac. Dunes is a masterpiece.

We don't have a problem with Cypress' two par 3's in a row, do we?

I don't even notice there are four par 3's on the back, just like I don't notice there is only one 5 and one 3 on the front.

This whole thread is an exercise in jakab continuing to try and level the playing field, so to speak. Doak is killing the competition THE OLD FASHIONED WAY. He Eeeeeaarns it, as that old guy with EF Hutton use to say.

But Barney seems to think he gets a free ride and apparently isn't the best. Thus, he tries to promote the notion that there is a double standard, Tom gets a free ride around here.......he's no better than anyone else. The scruffy bunkers have apparently clouded our judgement.

« **Reply #29 on:** March 28, 2006, 02:55:31 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on March 28, 2006, 12:23:15 PM

John: Your willingness to start talking about renumbering the holes weakens your argument, now you're saying the 18 holes are just fine and it's only the order that bothers you. Ballybunion has four par-3's between 8 and 15, so is it out of consideration as great, too?

You get to hit driver eight times on the front nine, and in the summer, you might hit driver on both 10 and 17 [I have done so myself more than once].

We did wonder when we built the course whether there would be more people who "insisted" the course should not have four par-3's in one nine, and we did think about other routings to make it more conventional ... we would more likely have changed it so that 1-2-3-13-thru-18 was one nine, and 8-9-10-11-12-4-thru-7 was the other. But Mr. Keiser preferred the flow of the course as it was originally conceived that first day we walked it, and so far only a few really stubborn people have objected to the sequence of holes as it is. In fact, way more people have expressed love for the fact they can sometimes post a low score on the back, not realizing it's because of all the fives and threes.

Michael,

Don't tell me this is a bad thread when you are treated to a post from the architect like found above. I just tried to come up with 10 courses I have played that I think are more interesting than Pacific Dunes and I couldn't. I really like the course...It just makes me sad to think it is as good as golf can get when I see so many flaws..

« **Reply #30 on:** March 28, 2006, 02:58:28 PM »

I think any strech of land like those two holes occupy could be a great short par 4. However it also could be a great long 3 as well. Tom had to fit the routing in as he saw fit and I do love the course as he layed it out.

« **Reply #31 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:00:23 PM »

After my first round at Pacific Dunes in 2001, I didn't realize there were four par 3s on the back nine until I went over the card a second time. That's how well the routing and the holes worked.

« **Reply #32 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:00:27 PM »

John, aside from the four par 3s on the back, what are the flaws that you see?

« **Reply #33 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:00:31 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 28, 2006, 02:55:31 PM

Michael,

Don't tell me this is a bad thread when you are treated to a post from the architect like found above. I just tried to come up with 10 courses I have played that I think are more interesting than Pacific Dunes and I couldn't. I really like the course...It just makes me sad to think it is as good as golf can get when I see so many flaws..

Having never played the course and hear pretty much rave after rave about it, I would like to know what all of these flaws are??

Besides four par threes on the back nine you havent really mentioned much. Please explain these 'other flaws'...

« **Reply #34 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:06:52 PM »

A small taste on the flaws (can't give it all out at once)..I think the fancy greenside bunker on 18 is an artistic disaster...art for arts sake. I wasn't in it but if I was I might think the same thing Doak thought about the Jaw bunker at Stone Harbor..

« **Reply #35 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:14:03 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 28, 2006, 03:06:52 PM

A small taste on the flaws (can't give it all out at once)..I think the fancy greenside bunker on 18 is an artistic disaster...art for arts sake. I wasn't in it but if I was I might think the same thing Doak thought about the Jaw bunker at Stone Harbor..

So a bad bunker and too many par threes on a nine is serious flaws

That is way less flaws then any course I have ever played. Plus, what makes the bunker an artistic disaster, because everybody I have talked to has loved it and thought it was a great bunker...?

It also seems that people on this site dont seem to have a problem with the four par threes...

I am just saying maybe it is not good to be over critical of a course (as I found out), especially a course like Pacific Dunes that even you admitted to really liking, and other people absolutely love.

« **Reply #36 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:18:40 PM »

Jordan,

Look at the pictures on Ran's write up and tell me if you think the bunker work around 18 green looks as natural as the other bunkers on the course. You have a point about me commenting on a course everybody loves, I have always hated the Pebble bashers because they seem to come off as too cool for the room. I'll have to be more careful in the future.

« **Reply #37 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:49:01 PM »

I would not be too thrilled to find my ball in a place that I could not play towards the green if I found that bunker to the right of #18 green. However, there is nothing gimmicky or unnatural about the hazard to the left, or behind, is there???

Even so.......I have never had a problem with uber severe hazards, if not overdone.

So you play it out sideways or backwards. They do it at Muirfield, they do it all over the place.

I don't hear complaining about that......

« **Reply #38 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:55:11 PM »

John, please feel free to critique Pacific Dunes as much as you want (and, if prompted, I'll continue to say that Pebble Beach is overrated), but you'll have to do better than pointing to the bunkering on #18. It looked pretty natural to me, and certainly the bunker on the right is an imposing hazard.

« **Reply #39 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:21:23 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on March 28, 2006, 12:00:24 PM

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 28, 2006, 11:54:41 AM

Of course I also don't have the temerity to think I can sit here and do Doak's job better than he can. But I know you don't have that problem.

well said Huck!

« **Reply #40 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:37:03 PM »

Michael Dugger,

I don't have any issue with someone not agreeing with JK. I just don't get why someone doesn't see this type of questioning as a healthy way to debate and inspect the work that's out there. That's what this site is about.

TD is doing great work. Alister MacKenzie did great work, too...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't study it and learn if there was room to improve....that's where better thinking comes from. I think JK is just asking us to look at things critically and fairly. But I've never hated him, so I could be wrong.

Joe

« **Reply #41 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:47:09 PM »

John

Based on some thought experiments I have been conducting over the past few days vis a vis a GCA article I am writing, you are onto something here. I'd tell you what it is, but if I did I'd have to kill myself......

« **Reply #42 on:** March 28, 2006, 05:26:42 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 28, 2006, 11:23:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on March 28, 2006, 11:14:25 AM

What's wrong with being unique?

TH

With four par threes the argument can be made that strategic choices are being made for the golfer far too often...

JakaB,

I have to confess that I had my concerns regarding a nine with four par 3's, three par 5's and two par 4's.

In some aspects I still do.

But, I found # 10 and # 11 to be marvelous individual holes, especially when you consider the vast difference in the play of the 10th hole from the top and bottom tee.

I can't see altering either hole as I think they're both spectacular.

I think Tom Doak provided some insight into the chronology or progression of the design and construction of the golf course which helps you understand it better, but, whether it be convention or tradition some prefer the 5,2,2 presentation.

I think you have to factor in the configuration of the front nine and not look at the back nine in total isolation, but, I understand your perspective.

« **Reply #43 on:** March 28, 2006, 05:31:13 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 28, 2006, 02:55:31 PM

when I see so many flaws..

really John, come on now

« **Reply #44 on:** March 28, 2006, 05:58:33 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on March 28, 2006, 04:37:03 PM

Michael Dugger,

I don't have any issue with someone not agreeing with JK. I just don't get why someone doesn't see this type of questioning as a healthy way to debate and inspect the work that's out there. That's what this site is about.

TD is doing great work. Alister MacKenzie did great work, too...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't study it and learn if there was room to improve....that's where better thinking comes from. I think JK is just asking us to look at things critically and fairly. But I've never hated him, so I could be wrong.

Joe

Joe Hancock

We can agree to disagree, that's no problem, although you kinda changed the subject.

I too enjoy healthy architectural debate, however you have had your head in the sand for some time now if you think that jakab is really trying to accomplish such when he raises a topic concerning anything Doak or C & C related.

He's just stirring up drama.....which to me is rather contra to learning and healthy discussion. (I do like the guy, though)

« **Reply #45 on:** March 28, 2006, 09:37:26 PM »

Michael:

I don't mind John K's questions at all -- he's one of the most interesting opinions on this website. Most of his topics are titled like tabloid headlines to draw attention to them, but underneath it his questions are reasonable questions about design and not some Michael Jackson story. This thread has reminded me that there is still a reason for a book about Pacific Dunes, that Steve Goodwin's book didn't explain the design part of the course.

Not that I'm going to finish the book this week, but someday ...

« **Reply #46 on:** March 28, 2006, 09:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on March 28, 2006, 04:47:09 PM

John

Based on some thought experiments I have been conducting over the past few days vis a vis a GCA article I am writing, you are onto something here. I'd tell you what it is, but if I did I'd have to kill myself......

You just keep doing those thought experiments, Buthc. That's what you're good at!

« **Reply #47 on:** March 29, 2006, 12:32:05 AM »

#10 and # 11 were the first holes that were done, and I think by a long time over the next hole, which was the 5th. The original routing drawing had the 14th where it ended ups, but there were absolutely zero contours on the map. You also had to roll under a barbed wire fence to get to 13.

« **Reply #48 on:** March 29, 2006, 07:58:49 AM »

Peter,

I find it hard to believe and kinda sad that 10 and 11 would be the first holes found. It makes me sad to think the rest of the course was built around two holes that have zero to do with the land in that they are both strickly aerial shots. I know the ocean is pretty on 11 but could someone tell me what is special about 10 from the up tee....I have played holes exactly like it hundreds of times...

« **Reply #49 on:** March 29, 2006, 08:05:24 AM »

JakaB,

Why do you feel that # 10 from the lower tee is "strictly" aerial ?

News:

Michael Dugger

Joe Hancock

Ryan Farrow

Michael Dugger

John Kavanaugh

Tiger_Bernhardt

Bill_McBride

Tim Pitner

Jordan Wall

John Kavanaugh

Jordan Wall

John Kavanaugh

Michael Dugger

Tim Pitner

PThomas

Joe Hancock

ForkaB

Patrick_Mucci

PThomas

Michael Dugger

Tom_Doak

Dan Kelly

peter_p

John Kavanaugh

Patrick_Mucci