[Dan King]

It may take me a while to come down from my Pacific Dunes high, so naturally this topic originated from the Oregon coastline.

16th hole on Pacific Dunes is a dogleg right, around an area of native grasses, to a long narrow green. Wind at my back, I hit a good (mollydooker) draw that skirts around the corner and finishes twenty paces from the green. The pin is on the front of the green, so I'm within 25 paces of the pin. I tried about 12 times to get close to that pin, never once getting within 20 feet. I tried numerous shots, 3-wood chips, lob, flop, chip, and putt.  I don't think there is a shot short of a miracle that could leave you with a short putt.

I loved that.

But it does show why courses like Pacific Dunes are no longer built.

I'm playing a medal tournament. I want my good drive, followed by a good second to have a decent chance at a three. Anything that gets in the way of that is unfair. Medal is about the shots, not the physiological game.

I come to the same hole and I'm playing a match. I hit the same shot and now my opponent sees me 25 paces from the hole and thinks he has to perform a great shot for any chance to halve. I know I'm hosed, but my opponent doesn't. Reverse that, my opponent hits that same drive and I'm not worried.  I can play conservatively knowing he has little chance of making a three and a four will probably halve the hole. My memory and awareness of the course have rewarded me more than mere shots. All kinds of options and strategies, not just the constant getting the ball closer and closer to the hole with no concern for the land or the people you are playing golf with.

There were numerous features like the entrance to the 16th hole on Pacific Dunes. I loved it, but I don't think the scorecard types are going to love it nearly as much. I know there are card and pencil types here in this group that have played Pacific Dunes. How did you feel about some of the unfair features of the course? And for those that haven't played Pacific Dunes, doesn't just having the scorecard hurt your appreciation for good golf courses?

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"It was the best golf I've ever seen. And that's the only team who ever beat Harvey and me. We could have challenged the world. Come to think of it, that's about what we did."
--Ken Venturi (on the 1956 match between amateurs Venturi and Ward against legends Hogan and Nelson at Cypress Point)

[George Pazin]

What were your 20 footers like? Makeable? Easy or tough 2 putt?

[Dan King]

Which one?  I had a dozen balls all over the green.  

There aren't a lot of easy 20 footers on any of the greens at Pacific Dunes.

Most of my friends that play card and pencil golf wouldn't like the idea that it should take three great shots to make a three. My guess is most feel two great shots and one decent shot should generally be enough to make three, after all that is all it takes for the pros.

Im match play, I just want as many decent shots as my opponent, with one more great shot. But I also want to do it with 7-8 fewer clubs  

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:We think that we shall never see
A tougher course than Pine Valley
Trees and traps wherever we go
And clumps of earth flying through the air
This course was made for you and me,
But only God can make a THREE.
--Jack McLean and Charlie Yates (members of the British and American Walker Cup teams, after the 1936 matches)

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Whether trying to shoot a number or playing at match, a golfer must appreciate what's available to him/her. Seeing the different routes to the hole and understanding the proper time to use each or any of them is necessary in any format. You have to look for the safe route,that should be there,in stroke play as well as the heroic route, that should also be there, in match play if needed.
Doing this will heighten one's appreciation for the course and increase the awareness for the architecture.

P.S.
Next time you play the 16th, lay back and give yourself a much easier full shot.
The architect/tecture suckered you in.  

[George Pazin]

How 'bout it, Dan? Would laying up have given a clearly better shot?

I hope not - this would make the choice too clear & thus remove options, IMHO.

[Dan King]

Like many holes at Pacific Dunes, there isn't one way to play the 16th. And you really can't tell from the tee which might work best at the time.  Matter of fact, if the hole was further back on the green, where I drove the ball wouldn't have been a bad spot even if I was playing medal play and was trying to make a three.

My point is that architects haven't built courses like Pacific Dunes because of the card and pencil mentality in the U.S. Jim, do you really believe there is no difference in strategy or outlook between medal and match play?

I know I enjoy the game more, get more out of it and see more about architecture when I don't have a card. I believe Pacific Dunes is a much better match play course than medal. I can already hear friends of mine whining about how unfair the course is. There is no such thing as fairnes in match play, it is strictly a medal play term.  I was bringing up No. 16 at PD to emphasis my point that the card and pencil mentality has severely hurt architecture in the U.S.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"A match against Bobby Jones is just as though you got your hand caught in a buzz saw. He coasts along serenely waiting for you to miss a shot, and the moment you do he has you on the hook and you never get off. He can drive straighter than any man living. He is perfectly machine-like in his iron play, and on the greens he is a demon."
 --Francis Ouimet

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Yes, there is a big difference in strategy between match and stroke play. I just don't think that stroke play leads to a lesser appreciation for architecture. The fair/unfair issue will rear its ugly head in either format. It's easier to accept your fate in match play because you will soon be creating a new one on the next hole, whereas that same fate follows you around on the one long hole that is stroke play.

[THuckaby2]

Hmmmm..... Dan, you and I have the same sorts of friends.  In fact the blokes I'm going with in August are indeed card and pencil types for sure.. maybe not the one who lurks here and might read this, he'll understand... but the others are there to achieve a score on a great course.  Oh well, these are my best friends, I'll get em to come around.

But my worry here isn't personal, it's for the health of the course.  If certain holes are as "unfair" as you describe, than damn, how well-received is it gonna be by the unwashed masses, for whom score is everything?  There sure as hell are a lot more of them then there are of us.

We debated this long ago, to no good resolution.  

But while this increases my now frantic desire to get there NOW, I gotta admit it also increases my worry as to the long-term health of the course... ie how it is received...

Oh what the hell, the inevitable RANKINGS will fix that right quick.  The masses are slaves to those.  The unfairness will become part of the "cool" factor - ie it will become cool to brag/whine/tell war stories about one's score.

TH

[John_Conley]

Ditto #5 at Bandon Dunes.

[Gary Albrecht]

I played the 16th hole 9 times, by my calculation.  I think I hit an iron off the tee 3 times and driver 6.  The pin was cut right in the center of the green and wasn't moved while I was there.  I never hit anything close to that pin.  It was very firm and playing directly downwind.  A good long iron to about 115 left me in the fairway on top of a little mound with a very tight lie.  Well hit drivers tended to fall to the right below the green with a tough pitch up to the green.  Even a 20 yard pitch shot from below the green was no bargain as the green runs away and falls left toward the back trap.  I had trouble making 4, much less 3, even with good tee shots.  But I loved it, especially the more I played it and considered the options.  A "card and pencil" guy playing it once or twice might not feel the same way.  To me, that's the unfortunate fact.  The wonderful subtleties of courses like PD are hard to identify and appreciate in a single round of golf.

[THuckaby2]

Gary - given that once the course opens to the public most people just aren't going to have the opportunity for multiple rounds, and given its remote location many people will just come for quick weekends and the like, won't most people only get to play it once or twice?

And if that's the case, won't most people fail to fully appreciate the course?

I want it to succeed so badly, maybe I'm just a worrywort.  But I can already hear what my buddies are gonna say after our 2-3 rounds there in August...

TH

[Gary Albrecht]

That might happen.  Hopefully, its beauty and challenges will overcome unacceptable medal scores.  I will say that I visited BD last Labor Day with my brother and his friend.  Neither are "purists" and tend to judge a course based on how they score.  They really liked BD, probably more for the scenery than the shotmaking.  I have no problem with that--because I took them there and raved about the course, I was glad that they liked it.

[Gary Albrecht]

Tom, one last comment.  To "fully appreciate" a course like PD, I think that you either have to play it a bunch or have a Robert Parker-like palate for golf courses.  To really "enjoy" the experience is a much more achievable goal.  What's not to enjoy in that setting with two beautiful and fun courses and a great resort with wonderful staff?

[THuckaby2]

Gary - thank you very much for the thoughts, they are reassuring indeed.  This trip is most definitely ME taking the others there, convincing them also to sell their souls to make it happen, so I feel some pressure for them to like it most definitely.  Your thoughts here reassure me that they will.

I just know I am gonna here the "u" word though as the triple-digit scores are posted...

But I can't see any of us not "enjoying" the place given the setting.  Well said.  I only hope I personally can come to appreciate it as Dan and you seem to have.  I have 3 rounds reserved for sure and hope to have time beyond that to wander and play a few more holes... we'll see....

TH

[Dan King]

Jim Kennedy writes:
Yes, there is a big difference in strategy between match and stroke play. I just don't think that stroke play leads to a lesser appreciation for architecture. The fair/unfair issue will rear its ugly head in either format.

My feeling is that card and pencil golfers aren't comparing Pacific Dunes to itself, they are comparing it to other championship courses they have played. If they shot 74 at Troon North in Scottsdale, they should be able to take the same game to Pacific Dunes and shoot close to 74. If they play the same game at both courses, and shoot higher at Pacific Dunes then it must be because the course was unfair that it failed to reward their good shots.   It's the tennis model of golf courses. They like to travel and see new sites, but don't force them to change their game by changing too much of the playing field. They are competing against themselves and want the playing field to remain fairly level.

It's unrealistic and delusional, but there are plenty of delusional golfers out there.

Maybe this calls for an In My Opinion piece where I can go after card and pencil, rankings, non-hazardous hazards and flat greens. If I can fit cart-ball in there I could go after all my pet peeves at once.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"It must be remembered that the great majority of golfers are aiming to reduce their previous best performance by five strokes if possible, and if any of them arrive at the home teeing ground with this possibility in reach, he is not caring too much whether he is driving off from a nearby ancient oak of majestic size, or from a dead sassafras. If his round ends happily, this is one beautiful course. Such is human nature."
--A.W. Tillinghast

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
My belief is that it's only the players who think they are better than they really are who get stuck on score. The average player has no such delusions of grandeur.

Our 9th(last) hole sits close to the clubhouse. When players come in they pass right by and I ask them "did you have fun?" The answers vary but rarely is score a big deal for them. They would rather relate how they did on the 9th, a par 5 hole with so many options and so much possibility for disaster, yet an easy par if played conservatively. Or give me the full details of their two putt on the 6th, a hole whose green is so good that George Bahto wanted to spend all day just putting on it.

These are the players that are in the majority at our course. They love to play, are not caught up with score and enjoy the time spent. I reiterate: it is mainly the players who think they have some knowledge (a dangerous thing) of what golf is about and who usually think they are better than they really are that are score-bound.

[Tom_Doak]

Dan,

Your play confirms my suspicion all along -- that a 346-yard par-4, when it's downwind, is the hardest hole on the golf course.

The approach to the fifth green is probably the second hardest?

Glad you enjoyed it.  Not TOO worried about those who don't.

[George Pazin]

Tom Huckaby -

Stop worrying so much. I think the reality of the situation is that the majority of the golfers are going to be so overwhelmed by the beauty of the course that they won't really even notice an "unfair" hole. In fact, under your assumption that they won't have the opportunity to play it many times, they will probably just assume they screwed up the shot.

Besides, I suspect that both Tom Doak & Mike Keiser will gladly listen to 100 complaints about an unfair hole just to listen to the heartfelt praise from a Dan King (or a Ran or a Tom Paul or a Tom Huckaby...).

Have fun in August - I'm damn envious.

[kilfara]

My *real* question to Dan is how he had enough time at PD to hit 12 balls from a single spot. Is there really that little traffic out there? I love an unplayed golf course, but I would have thought 5-hour rounds would be de rigeur at the moment

Cheers,
Darren

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The only way to play Pacific Dunes is without a score card.

This isn't the type of course that warrants judging of the course by what one shoots. I don't think that there is a single hole out there that you don't want to play again. Tom Huckaby, if your best friends won't be able to understand this, maybe it would be best for them to play Bandon Dunes instead while you sneak out past them and play Pacific Dunes.

A bit of advice on a more serious side. Don't let them see the scorecard before or during the round. I say this so they don't make a quick judgment on the fact that there is only two par 4's on the back nine. They sound like the type that would rush to judgment on that fact alone.

Also, take a camera and get some shots of their faces when they see the tee shot on the 9th hole for the first time.

[Gary Albrecht]

Tommy, I played PD three times one day (the full 18) and honestly did not realize until your post that there were only 2 par 4's on the back.  My buddy and I had so much fun playing it that we didn't even notice!  (And We had a card.)

Tom, we didn't have too much trouble with the 5th when downwind.  Throw it out left and it feeds nicely.  The approach to the 6th was much more interesting to me, particularly in a crosswind.  The pin was way back, too, making it even more dicey.  Then there's the driver/driver I had to hit into 8. . . .

[Dan King]

Darren,

Pacific Dunes isn't open yet.  It opens July 1st for regular play. They currently allow the play of 12 holes, and 18 if you ask really nicely. But when I played the 18 holes, the six holes that weren't opened yet did not have holes cut. There are a lot of people who would rather play 18 at Bandon than 12 at Pacific (I'm not one of those people.)

The day I hit 12 balls to the 16th, I only saw one other group out on the course, a twosome who seemed to be having as much fun as I was having on the course.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"Golf is the only-est sport. Your completely alone with every conceivable opportunity to defeat yourself. Golf brings out your assets and liabilities as a person. The longer you play, the more certain you are that a man's performance is the outward manifestation of who, in his heart, he really thinks he is."
--Hale Irwin

[Mike O'Neill]

Dan,

I don't see how "fairness" is altered by the type of game played-medal or match, or whatever one can make up for the fun of it. Play the ball as it lies--either way.

And aren't you keeping score in any event? Why is competing against oneself worse than competing against an opponent? Why is comparing one's scores such a bad thing really? Match play is still a game in which players keep score. Each match is just 18 one hole versions of medal play rounds.

You asked if just having the scorecard will hurt one's appreciation for good golf courses. Maybe for some. But maybe those players don't pay attention to the architecture anyway. For me, the answer is easily no. I'd guess for Hale Irwin, who makes his living keeping score, the answer would be no. But that is just a guess. I couldn't know for sure. Then there's Ben Crenshaw...

But here's maybe a really dumb question: what exactly is a "card and pencil" golfer? Do you have a specific definition in mind? Is it anyone who pays attention to their score? If I watch my partner play a hole really well and exclaim, "Nice birdie" instead of "Nice hole" am I a "card and pencil" golfer? Or do I have to actually write down my score? What if I keep score in my mind as I play the hole?

And what about the hole itself? Why does it get all the attention? For example, why don't we play a golf hole strictly speaking to simply stay in the fairway? Take as many shots as we need, say hit seven irons off the tee so as to keep it in the fairway and call the hole a success regardless of how many shots it takes to get the ball in the hole. Or maybe we decide that not hitting into any bunkers will deem the hole a success.

Don't we set golfers up to keep an eye on their score just by playing a game the object of which is to get the ball in the hole in as few shots as possible? Isn't that the real culprit here--that the object of the game (getting the ball in the hole) is misguided? Maybe the game shouldn't have the desired goal to be that of getting the ball into the hole. Maybe the game should be about defining architectural features in between golf shots to greens in which there may or may not be an actual hole cut. Some holes have cups so that we can occasionally putt for the fun of it. Some do not so that we cannot keep score even if we want to.

You know, in match play one can concede the hole at any point and for any reason. There are all kinds of options that remove even a hint of scorekeeping. Longest drive wins the hole. Best bump and run wins the hole. Closest to the back left bunker wins the hole. Furthest from the pin (avoid the dreaded hole!) wins the hole. None of these are in the rule book, but the rule book is about keeping score anyway.

I don't know. The object of focus changes, but it seems like maybe it's still about keeping score any way you cut it. That's the definition of a "match" is it not? A "match" is not about writing a golf architecture essay.

I will say that golfers who have a lousy time on the golf course because they aren't scoring well or winning their match are probably missing out on some of the other joys of the game. But they have a right to approach the game any way they like. Hopefully they are not totally wasting their time.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

A course has to work for both match and stroke play, and you can't just think of one.

However, I do believe there is a sizable group of golfers nowadays who believe that a course should be "fair," meaning to them that a nearly-good shot should never result in a double bogey.  In match play, a six or seven only costs you the hole, so a severe penalty is fine; but for the "card and pencil" golfers mentioned frequently here a seven will ruin the whole day's enjoyment.

There are places at Pacific Dunes where you can hit a pretty good shot and still wind up screwed.  Of course, if you'd really understood the hole you would not have been flirting with that trouble were you trying to preserve a good medal score.  And also, of course, the same is true of St. Andrews and Pine Valley and Crystal Downs and Sand Hills and a lot of other courses which I revere.

But I do understand Dan's point that some golfers will feel screwed somewhere along the way at Pacific Dunes, because the hazards are so rugged.  Though I also agree that most will be so overwhelmed by the beauty of the setting that they'll forgive me.

The 16th is probably the best example because it comes near the end of the round, when card-and-pencil golfers are already adding up their score after a cheap birdie at 15, and because there is no obvious place to bail out and guarantee a four.  The run-up shot is basically out because of the contour in the approach, and the green is small and angled and tough to hold.  The best approach is toward the narrow "off ramp" at the back right, but get offline and you're flirting with those nasty back bunkers.

Several times when I've hit a bad drive I've tried to put the second shot into the little hollow at the left front of the green.  It's a very small target with gorse to the left, and tough to make four even if you get there, but it's worked OK for me.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,
What is the definition of a "card and pencil" golfer? If the "card and pencil golfer" is by definition the player who takes foolish risks or heroic risks and loses and then feels cheated, then by all means, he/she will feel that there is a "fairness" issue. But like I said, those are not golfers who tend to study architecture anyway, are they? And could those personality types not be equally competitive regarding the number of shots they are taking on each hole during a match? Those are golfers who feel cheated by fairways that haven't been cut low enough or uneven stances in the fairway. You shouldn't need rugged hazards to frustrate those golfers. Any little thing will do. But just as long as keeping score isn't equated with missing out on the architecture.

I still have to question this idea that medal play diminishes one's appreciation for good golf courses. It has not been my experience. Nor has it been Ben Crenshaw's experience, though who am I to speak for Ben. And I don't know if I believe that match play golfers are any less critical of perceived unfairness. A lost hole is going to carry some weight. Why should a double bogey bother the medal player more than the loss of a hole would bother the match player? I find that people tend to echo the same old tried and false song about how match play contains the essence of how golf is meant to be played. There is the implication if not the outright claim that match play golfers have somehow tapped into the spirit of the game and that medal players just don't get it. (I'm not saying either you or Dan is making this claim.) Maybe the "card and pencil" golfers don't get it, but I'm still waiting for an exact definition of what a "card and pencil" golfer is. If the idea is that anyone who keeps tabs on his/her score is a "card and pencil" golfer, then that is true of every match play golfer out there. Without the score, how do you determine the winner of the hole?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()