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

« **Reply #50 on:** March 29, 2006, 08:11:23 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 29, 2006, 08:05:24 AM

JakaB,

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

Patrick,

The day I played the tee was on the upper...I will never take more divots than what I have payed for (anything more is stealing)...hopefully next year when I play the tee will be on the lower and I can see the hole from there. The pace of play the resort desires would have also been comprimised by me walking down to the other tee and taking a look.

On another note...I was thinking this morning how lucky I was to meet up with a bunch of golfers who love the game so much that we played alternate shot on one of the great courses any of us will ever play while on vacation. We even had the first five or so tee times of the day and not one man complained that they didn't get to play their own ball. The guys on GCA think they are purists but just try to get that done on one of our outings..

« **Reply #51 on:** March 29, 2006, 08:55:49 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 29, 2006, 08:11:23 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 29, 2006, 08:05:24 AM
On another note...I was thinking this morning how lucky I was to meet up with a bunch of golfers who love the game so much that we played alternate shot on one of the great courses any of us will ever play while on vacation. We even had the first five or so tee times of the day and not one man complained that they didn't get to play their own ball. The guys on GCA think they are purists but just try to get that done on one of our outings..

John we play foursomes (or "alternate shots" to paid-up members of the Hillbilly Tour......) at the Buda Cup. Have so since Painswick in 2003. If you can wangle a passport and visa, come join us in Liverpool in October! Honestly.

« **Reply #52 on:** March 29, 2006, 09:16:00 AM »

Rich,

Thanks for the generous offer but I have all my eggs in a Bandon basket at this time...I'm really looking forward to getting back and seeing where I was so obviously wrong. Is Liverpool east of Indiana...I really need to get out east and play..

« **Reply #53 on:** March 29, 2006, 11:56:49 AM »

I happen to think #11 is one of, if not the greatest, short hole I've played. So my answer would be absolutely not.

« **Reply #54 on:** March 29, 2006, 12:01:27 PM »

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on March 29, 2006, 11:56:49 AM

I happen to think #11 is one of, if not the greatest, short hole I've played. So my answer would be absolutely not.

I just have to ask what you found so nice about the hole...I like the ocean but the ocean isn't even in play.

« **Reply #55 on:** March 29, 2006, 01:29:36 PM »

Jaka,
You'll have to ask Mssrs. Doak and Keiser why those holes were built first. My guess is that the could be contructed with minimal cost and access problems as they are next to
Bandon Dunes #6 and a maintenance path.
If you are intending to build a great golf course, which this landscape given to you, you need great par 3s. Number 11 was identified early on. Then you need something to lead to the tee, which resulted in the 10th hole being placed where it is unless you want long traverses from green to tee.
I'm going to guess that the ninth hole landform could only hold one hole and there was endless argument whether to have an upper or a lower green until an agreement was reached to build both. That led to 10 having two separate tees.
.

« **Reply #56 on:** March 29, 2006, 06:19:04 PM »

The tenth and eleventh and fifth were the first three holes built, because we could tie into the irrigation lines on Bandon Dunes and irrigate them right away. We also wanted to get the holes closer to Bandon built and grassed first so that the summer wind wouldn't blow too much dirt south onto Bandon Dunes.

The four holes on Pacific Dunes which I had drawn on my original routing for the course (before walking the land) were 6, 10 (as a short par 4 from the middle of 7 fairway on Bandon Dunes which wasn't on the map!), 11 and 16. I thought we should definitely use the piece of ground where #11 tee is and this was the best way to use it.

« **Reply #57 on:** March 29, 2006, 11:44:42 PM »

John K. (Kay? - Born To Be Wild!) Is you him?

I agree that 10 and 11 would be a fun par 4 but I don't agree that it would be great or better than the two existing one-shotters. If they were combined for a two shotter, the drive would be an invariable layup. Invariable layup difines a hole as non-strategic. Execution for proper shots may be rewarded but, beyond the discovery of the ocean view, the second shot would either be acceptable or a nudge up to an acceptable spot.

That said, John, if you want to play it as a par 4. . . do it.

« **Reply #58 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:37:40 AM »

I don't understand why the mix of holes per nine is an issue. The course as a whole has exactly the number of par 5s as a standard routing with only one additional par 3. Golf is a game of 18 holes. When I play nine, it is simply due to time constraints.

We've got some pretty unimaginitive people here if you can't deal with the standard mix of holes being distributed unequally between the two nines.

I could spend a fair amount of time at Bandon playing only the par 3s at the three courses without growing tired of them.

« **Reply #59 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:24:37 AM »

^^^ I completely agree. In this day and age a course is 18 holes. As long as they are the best possible holes who really cares what par is? But then again our culture stamps this image of what is "normal" and we blindly follow the pack. Breaking away from that may be harder for some and I guess we can all try and understand both sides.

« **Reply #60 on:** March 30, 2006, 08:42:13 AM »

Tim & Ryan,

Would you then say that routing has no relevance in your analysis of golf course architecture ?

« **Reply #61 on:** March 30, 2006, 11:54:39 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on March 29, 2006, 12:01:27 PM

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on March 29, 2006, 11:56:49 AM
I happen to think #11 is one of, if not the greatest, short hole I've played. So my answer would be absolutely not.

I just have to ask what you found so nice about the hole...I like the ocean but the ocean isn't even in play.

John: I'm partial to short holes, so with that said I think any hole where you're really thinking about a gap wedge to nine iron is solid. I think the menacing hairy front bunker to a semi blind green is a great element, the green is tricky but not overly severe and I don't recall birding it in my four rounds although I had several good opportunities. I also think the way the 10th green just rollls into the 11th tee is a great transition. The ocean has little to do with the hole's merit, IMO.

The knob to the right of the green makes a back right pin a tough location from what I recall and visually I really like the way the green is set in the dunes.

« **Reply #62 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:23:42 PM »

quote author=Patrick_Mucci link=board=1;threadid=22740;start=50#msg415595 date=1143726133]
Tim & Ryan,

Would you then say that routing has no relevance in your analysis of golf course architecture ?

Quote

Of course routing is very important. I just feel that a priority should be placed on routing the best possible golf holes rather than worrying if you have too many par 3's or 5's. If everything is done right and you create a great golf course people probably won’t notice that the distribution of par might be a bit quirky.

« **Reply #63 on:** March 30, 2006, 11:00:22 PM »

I think that routing is important, but I think that Doak did a superb job routing Pacific Dunes. I don't think that the order of the pars is extremely important if the architect feels that the land dictates a particular combination.

If the course had 8 par 3s, 7 par 3s, and 3 par 4s, then I might feel differently. My point was really that this course has 4 par 5s and 5 par 3s, not all that different from the standard fare. I really enjoy the mostly par 4 nine followed by the mix of everything nine. It is a nice change from the norm, and there are no holes on the back nine that leave me wondering if Doak could have done better if he had chosen a more traditional mix of holes.

« **Reply #64 on:** March 31, 2006, 10:10:54 AM »

Tim & Ryan,

Would you feel that way if both nines returned to the clubhouse ?

Do you feel that there should be a "balance" within the nines, or that each nine takes a back seat, a far back seat to the entire 18 ?

« **Reply #65 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:45:01 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 10:10:54 AM

Tim & Ryan,

Would you feel that way if both nines returned to the clubhouse ?

Do you feel that there should be a "balance" within the nines, or that each nine takes a back seat, a far back seat to the entire 18 ?

Pat,

Not that you directed the question to me, but I can't help chiming in.

Interesting question, do you think there is something to breaking a round down into two loops???

It does allow for a player to recharge and reset, but can't you also break a course down into three loops of six, a la Shivas Irons.

Or six three hole units???

I like how the halfway house (as I'll term it) breaks up the flow of golf after 3 and 12 at PD, to me this is kinda "the turn."

« **Reply #66 on:** March 31, 2006, 02:04:40 PM »

I think the reason that Pacific Dunes can pull this of is almost everyone will play all 18 holes. It’s not a weak public or municipal course where a good amount of rounds will only consist of 9 holes. So, you are not asking a golfer to choose if he wants to play a bunch of par 3's and 5's or just a lot of par 4's.

And would now be a good time to let you know I have never played Pacific Dunes?

« **Reply #67 on:** March 31, 2006, 06:33:39 PM »

Quote from: Ryan Farrow on March 31, 2006, 02:04:40 PM

I think the reason that Pacific Dunes can pull this of is almost everyone will play all 18 holes. It’s not a weak public or municipal course where a good amount of rounds will only consist of 9 holes. So, you are not asking a golfer to choose if he wants to play a bunch of par 3's and 5's or just a lot of par 4's.
[size=x4]
And would now be a good time to let you know I have never played Pacific Dunes?[/size]

I think now would be a good time to disqualify yourself [/color]

« **Reply #68 on:** March 31, 2006, 10:03:03 PM »

I don't mind courses that don't loop back to the starting point for each nine. I usually play 18 at a time. When I visit Bandon, I tend to play golf in 36s and 54s rather than 6s, 9s, or 18s.

I don't think one is necessairly better or worse, though I would think the architect is more constrained when forcing each nine to return.

I think I already hinted at my answer to your question on balance in my previous post. I don't think the only goal should be the balance of the nines if it sacrifices the best routing. I've never felt I was playing an imbalanced course during my time at Pacific Dunes.

« **Reply #69 on:** March 31, 2006, 10:45:11 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 06:33:39 PM

Quote from: Ryan Farrow on March 31, 2006, 02:04:40 PM

I think the reason that Pacific Dunes can pull this of is almost everyone will play all 18 holes. It’s not a weak public or municipal course where a good amount of rounds will only consist of 9 holes. So, you are not asking a golfer to choose if he wants to play a bunch of par 3's and 5's or just a lot of par 4's.
[size=x4]
And would now be a good time to let you know I have never played Pacific Dunes?[/size]

I think now would be a good time to disqualify yourself [/color]

Now would be a good time to say that Ryan never commented once on how good or bad the course was. The only things he talked about were the routing and the order of the holes on the course. In all reality its not a matter of personal opinion, its a design issue. Ryan can comment all he wants on the routing of the course and what he feels about four par threes on a nine. Obviously he feels that [size=x2]routing the best course[/size] is the most important thing.[/color]

« **Reply #70 on:** March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM »

Jordan Wall,

If he's NEVER seen the land, how can he intelligently analyze and comment on the viability of the routing ?

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

« **Reply #71 on:** March 31, 2006, 11:34:25 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM

Jordan Wall,

If he's NEVER seen the land, how can he intelligently analyze and comment on the viability of the routing ?

Pat, do you honestly think that Tom would have wasted that land and routed the course poorly?? Me thinks no. Ryan is smart enough to know Tom would have done the correct thing.[/color]

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

Lets just say that that he is smart enough to trust Doak. There has got to be a reason PD is #8 in the world....Im trusting its not getting 'downgraded' because of the routing. If anything, its getting praised. Its much better to be original then have a copycat routing. Ryan has every right to say what he feels without getting bashed for it. If he decides to trust Doak, then more power to him. Please tell me where he critiqued the course in any way??[/color]

« **Reply #72 on:** March 31, 2006, 11:41:51 PM »

Although I have never stepped foot on the property I have read and heard enough things about it to realize that PD is a spectacular course. I am sure it is in most people’s top 10 here. I would also trust Mr. Doak with this piece of land and I am sure he put a little more extra time into all of the details of Pacific Dunes. After reading his book it seems like this was an ideal piece of property and I don’t think he would let any acre of it go to waste. With that said I found it a bit disturbing for someone to call out a set of holes on the course just because it wasn’t what he was used to. I don’t have a problem with a healthily architectural discussion of the course. I just thought it was not right to say that a hole should be changed to a par 4 because there were too many par’3 on the back nine. I just feel there should be more emphasis placed on routing the best possible golf holes then on how many holes play a par-3-4-5 and how often those holes are placed in a 9 hole set. And I feel that never playing the course doesn’t make my opinion any less relevant.

« **Reply #73 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:02:11 AM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 31, 2006, 11:34:25 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM
Jordan Wall,

If he's NEVER seen the land, how can he intelligently analyze and comment on the viability of the routing ?

Pat, do you honestly think that Tom would have wasted that land and routed the course poorly?? Me thinks no. Ryan is smart enough to know Tom would have done the correct thing.[/color]

I see, so it's not relevant to see the land, the golf course and the individual holes. One only needs to have blind faith in the architect, especially one who enjoys MFN status, in order to analyze, evaluate and comment on a golf course.

And, it's not a question of whether he routed the golf course poorly, it's a matter of whether another routing could be an improvement, especially when the back nine contains 4 par 3's, 3 par 5's and only 2 par 4's.

Are you familiar with Flynn and Ross's routing of York ?
Two talented architects.
Two totallly different routings.
What does that tell you ?

Please, read the next to last paragraph on page 295 of Charles Blair MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift"[/color]

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

Lets just say that that he is smart enough to trust Doak. [/color]

That's a dumb comment.
This isn't a website that caters to blind faith, or people commenting on golf courses that they've never seen, although Ryan has some company on that one.

Is every one of Tom Doak's routings THE perfect routing for the land ?

In what context could you prepare an answer to that question if you've never seen the land that his courses reside on ?[/color]

There has got to be a reason PD is #8 in the world....[/color]

That's an assessment that I don't agree with.[/color]

Im trusting its not getting 'downgraded' because of the routing. If anything, its getting praised. Its much better to be original then have a copycat routing. [/color]

How do you copycat routing on land that's unique ?[/color]

Ryan has every right to say what he feels without getting bashed for it. [/color]

Ah, I see. You feel that anyone can say whatever they want without being held accountable for their words.
That's called being irresponsible.

When you say something, you have to be able to support it with facts and/or intelligent reasoning.

And, for someone to comment on a golf course that they've never seen is assinine, only exceeded in stupidity by someone trying to defend that position.[/color]

If he decides to trust Doak, then more power to him.[/color]

I don't equate power with blind faith.[/color]

Please tell me where he critiqued the course in any way??
[/color]
He defended the routing and the component holes without ever having seen the land, the golf course or the individual holes.

I'd say that qualifies his opinion as decidedly unqualified.[/color]

« **Reply #74 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:11:44 AM »

And Jordan, you should not wear pink shirts.

News:

John Kavanaugh

ForkaB

John Kavanaugh

Jason Blasberg

John Kavanaugh

peter_p

Tom_Doak

Norbert P

Tim Bert

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

Jason Blasberg

Ryan Farrow

Tim Bert

Patrick_Mucci

Michael Dugger

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

Tim Bert

Jordan Wall

Patrick_Mucci

Jordan Wall

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

Ryan Farrow