[THuckaby2]

Tiger:

It's been awhile since you've been there, no?

Boy, I find a lot to disagree with in your assessment of Bandon Dunes course.  Kinda strange, you and I are usually quite simpatico.  But here goes...

#1 - no target to aim at?  Please.  If anything there is MUCH more of a line to follow than #1 PD on the tee shot.  Then let's talk about the greens... BD is a table-top, yes, but it's HUGE and one can run it up from the right in any wind, and the ball will stay up on the right no matter what.  #1 PD is in a hollow but more importantly is pretty darn tiny... Heck, to me both are pretty darn fine golf holes, the bottom line being there's no way #1 PD, with it's moonscape fairway with death on both sides, is a better golf hole due to playability.  I like the hole.  Just don't tell me it's better than #1 BD - it's not.  And #1 BD is "poorly thought out"?  Please.  It gives you a choice to make off the tee (right is better line in, but is risky).. then a darn fun green to shoot at.  Just how is this poorly thought out?

#7 BD - I don't see the problem - there is a LOT of room on the left to take the ball in, missing the falloff on the right.

Yes, there are table-top greens besides this, but that's what makes them fun....  None of them are undoable, or to put it better, any less doable than the greens at many holes on PD... think about PD 6, 11, 13, 14 in this contect... kinda tough to put all the bad thoughts on BD!  

Collection areas are a problem?  Go look at the divots on #16 at PD - good lord, the low points are so covered now, it's damn near impossible NOT to hit out of a divot unless you drive the green.  So hmmmm... did Doak also make this rookie mistake in design and drainage?  As for #13 BD, yes the balls do collect into certain places, but they are HUGE so it's not nearly the problem it is on 16 PD.  And if one is looking at 17 flag while playing 13, well one ought not to be fooled more than once.

15 and 6 are the same holes?  Please.  #6 goes over a cliff area, same as #11 PD.  If anything those two are similar golf holes.  #15 is night and day different... death bunker right, requiring a ballsy shot into the wind that I find thrilling.  Played it into a 4club wind the other day, and it was doable.

16 is a horrible hole down-wind?  Huh.  Tell that to my guys, all of whom loved it, all of whom played it in a two-club downwind.  Now of course in a gale it becomes problematic, but one could say that for about 30 of the 54 holes on the property so I find that to be not a very valid critique...

17 is unplayable in a south wind?  Yes it becomes tough, and yes perhaps more fairway should be allowed to the left, but just hit an iron off the tee and it's doable... In any case the approach is so damn fun there, and the green so cool, I find it hard to criticize that hole too harshly.

Oh well, we could go on and on, and maybe we will.  Just assume I have a counter to every point you make.

The bottom line is this:  the course are as different as night and day, yes.  Different look, different feel, different play.  I find that to be a GOOD thing.  The difference just is not that one is great and the other is not.

Pacific Dunes is a great golf course.

But so is Bandon Dunes.

And Bandon Trails just may be better than both of them.

TH

[THuckaby2]

PS - I've been canvassing my college buds re their assessments of the courses, and I got this one from one of them... this is from a strong but not great golfer - 8 handicap, big hitter, quite well-travelled, serves as HS golf coach at a school in AZ where he is a teacher/admissions director....


"I liked them all - I rank them based on playability and I thought Bandon
was the fairest - a good mixture of difficulty and fairness.  There are
some non descript holes - particularly #s 17 and 18.  This course
reminded me of Scotland Muirfield and Carnoustie - Pacific Dunes
reminded me of Turnberry and Troon - especially with the holes into the
wind and all of the dunes

Pacific is just a beast - has some great holes along the water but very
quirky and you pay for hitting poor shots. Aesthetically it is awesome.

Trails was good - I liked it better the second time through - good solid
golf that lets you take out the driver and rip it.

My order - Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, Pacific Dunes"


See how I call people outside of here the real world and this a purist minority?  As much as you might disagree with his conclusions, you have to admit the guy's reasoning is pretty sound.

It is a big beautiful world of golf.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby's buddy writes:
a good mixture of difficulty and fairness.

In the words of Bill the Cat: "ACK ACK Phftt!"

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is not a fair game, so why build a course fair?
 --Pete Dye

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom please read again.I do not disagree with you liking BD.  i was saying PD 1 was less of a problem than BD 1. both are good holes. Neither is a great opening hole on a resort course. 16 at PD has problems but one or two collection areas getting all the shots is not one of them. 6 and 15 being the same is not totally right and i am sorry. they both are into the same direction and similiar holes to me. ie how you get in trouble. The trouble is slightly different. I will always stand by 16 as a bad hole down wind. You can hit a 3 wood over the green and hit people out of sight from the tee and they are blind to incoming shots.The tee there is slightly off line of a straight shot at the green or the better line for a somewhat bold approach. That is poor or at least rookie design, plain and simple. The same is the case on 14 tee. the site line sof the hole take you towward 17 green unless you have a caddie or know better.There is plenty of land to make 17 a great hole rather than a very average one with serious limitations. There are great holes there. i just think from an architectural point of view it is a much weaker course than PD.

[THuckaby2]

Dan King - I figured that comment would miff SOMEONE here.  But you do understand that type of thinking is held by WAY WAY WAY more people than the more "purist" form espoused in here, don't you?

Tiger - good stuff, fair enough.  I could continue to nitpick but I won't (though I do think you need to see 16 BD now - you're way off as to how it's playing these days - I guess it has changed).  More importantly anyway, I guess where we differ is re your summation, in which you say:

"i just think from an architectural point of view it is a much weaker course than PD."

That may be, may not be - I don't think it's for us to say - neither of us is in the architecture business. (You're not, are you?)  I'm assessing these as a GOLFER and as such, Bandon Dunes is gorgeous and damn fun to play, the equal of Pacific or at the very least VERY close thereto by each of those criteria.  Who gives a rat's ass about architecture?

 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom lol I can see you are playing and I am doing way to much reading these days. I will get back on the course next week and get this architecture stuff back on the book shelf where it belongs lol

[THuckaby2]

Tom lol I can see you are playing and I am doing way to much reading these days. I will get back on the course next week and get this architecture stuff back on the book shelf where it belongs lol

 
You got it, brother!

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Dan King - I figured that comment would miff SOMEONE here.  But you do understand that type of thinking is held by WAY WAY WAY more people than the more "purist" form espoused in here, don't you?

And how many years was Three's Company on the air?

Most people who vote end up voting for republicans and democrats. Does that somehow legitimize those two parties? We should try not to confuse popularity with quality.

Cheers,
Dan King

"Most people don't know that I am an accomplished dramatic actor... But I've performed in several Shakespeare productions including Hamlet, except in this version, Hamlet lives in an apartment with two women, and has to pretend he's gay so that the landlord won't evict him.
 --John Ritter

[THuckaby2]

Dan - I could have bet you'd reply along those lines also.

Oh well, no worries.  My sole and only point remains that the views in here are a tiny minority and that shouldn't be forgotten.  Given that this is all opinion also, I have a hard time calling one side right and the other wrong, or even attirbuting quality to one and not to another.  Who's to say my friend's way of looking at golf courses has any less quality than yours?  Though I do personally tend to think more like you do (as it pertains to golf courses), I sure as hell don't have the arrogance to say my friend's way is of any less quality than mine... perhaps you do... if so more power to you.

 

[THuckaby2]

BTW, I should add one more thing about the whole Bandon experience, having nothing much to do with golf, but still important because so many here will make the trek... and that is this... it has definitely changed there since I went in 2002.  They TRY to keep the low-key, unaffected ambience... but they fail more these days.  By that I mean, the word is most definitely out about the place - how could it not be - and given the quite high-end prices, well... the clientele is a lot more high-end and demanding than it ever was, I think.  We saw a LOT of cigar-smoking, caddie-berating, self-important noveau riche types this time than 3 years ago, that's for sure.  And given that is the majority of the clientele - or seems to be - well you can't fault the resort for catering to them.  So the service is a little more butt-kissing and a little less jocular... the menus are a little more modern and a little less comfort food... It's hard to explain as surely most people are wondering what my problem is with this....

I guess it comes down to this:  Bandon claims to be "golf as it was meant to be" and it still is that in terms of the playing of the game.  That thought just used to carry over to the resort as a whole - it was relatively low on frills, high on comfort, geared toward golf golf golf - now, there are definite frills.

It's now more like Pebble Beach in terms of all of this.  I guess it had to happen.  Again, most people will love this.  I yearn for the old days.

TH

[Pete Buczkowski]

Tom:

It sounds like you might prefer the laid back atmosphere of the North Woods in Minnesota...where Memorial Day is "low season"...

[THuckaby2]

Pete:

Well... I don't know, I just think Bandon was cooler when it really was all about the golf and lodging/food/drink considerations were secondary.  Oh believe me I do love to eat, and drink, and be comfortable so I don't want those things to be BAD... I just don't want a golf trip to be more about those than about the golf, you know?  And Bandon used to be a perfect place for me in that respect.  The rooms are comfortable, the food was good and reasonably priced without pretense, the beer was local and good and cold and that's all one needed.

It's not that way much any more, that's all I'm trying to say.  As I say most visitors will love it and will expect it given the prices.  

I believe I would like Minnesota.

I know already I love Nebraska.

 

[Larry_Keltto]

Tom:

I'm guessing you would enjoy Bandon more during the off-season -- lower rates, a less-demanding collection of people, not quite as crowded.

[THuckaby2]

Larry:

I'm sure I would.  I have a strange plan in mind to go back up there and find out for sure... primarily to play Sheep Ranch before it dies forever... we'll see how that pans out.

BUT....the resort itself seems to have changed... pretense now exists in its vocabulary.  That has me a little whimsical.

TH

[ForkaB]

Keep up the good fight, Huck!

I thought Bandon was overly pretentious when I went there 5 or so years ago, and said so.  I was expecting "golf as it used to be" and found a "classic" country club for a day......

You really can't beat the golf at Bandon, but the ambience is, well.......as Gertrude used to say, there's no there, there.  Of course, my standards are different.  I was kinda expecting what I experienced at Turnberry in 1978 when the pro shop was in a cow shed and there were a bunch of X-files wannabies slouching around in the darkness waiting to be selected for a loop......

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

Yes you have made this point before.

I guess our differences are that even back then I never expected the Turnberry cow-shed... I knew it was a resort and it continues to surprise me the odd expectations you had for the place... It was clear even back then that there was a lodge, a grill and a restaurant, separate condo-like rooms, etc....  So your complaints about the place remain strange to me.  Where did you ever get the idea it would be any different than this?  They never said golf as it "used to be", they said golf as it was "meant to be".  Of course we each have different definitions about that, but all it took was a look at a brochure, or their website, or to ask anyone who had been there previously for a description and you ought to have known it wasn't gonna be a cow-shed springing out of a town, as you somehow figured it was supposed to be....

I liked it a lot how it was in 2001-02.  Of course I believe I had the proper expectations.  I thought the ambience was great... low-key, comfort, geared toward golf... kinda like a CCFAD but held back from such - not at all straining to be such, like one sees at oh, Cinnabar Hills...

But that was then and it doesn't matter anyway.

Now?  It's Pebble all over.  And that IS a change.

So you'd dislike it even more now, obviously.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

We saw a LOT of cigar-smoking, caddie-berating, self-important noveau riche types this time than 3 years ago, that's for sure.  

Did you see someone actually berate a caddie, or is that just a generality?  

[ForkaB]

Tom

I didn't "dislike" Bandon.  I just had VERY high expectations and was underwhelmed.  I very much enjoyed the golf and the company.  If I get there again, I'm sure I'll enjoy it again.  I'll just know what to expect this time.

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

Unfortunately I saw several instances of that.  Kinda sours one on the clientele.  No, it wasn't anyone in my group, thank god.

Rich:

I know you did not dislike Bandon in general.  You disliked the ambience and the resort atmosphere, correct?  As for your being underwhelmed and knowing what to expect next time, my point is you SHOULD have known the first time!  What the heck ever told you to expect a course springing out of a town, a shed for a starters' shack, etc?  Like I said above already, all it took was a look at a brochure, a peek at the website, or listening to the words of previous visitors....

This was strange to me when you said it four years ago, and remains strange now.

But again, no matter.... it's all Pebble now.  So this time, it seems you will indeed have the proper expectations, and your underwhelmed feeling will cease.

So life is good.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

No pretense yet exists at the Sheep Ranch...thank God!

[THuckaby2]

No pretense yet exists at the Sheep Ranch...thank God!

Hmmm... not exactly true.  Of course it doesn't once one is there, from all I hear.  But getting there at all, well... there is definitely pretense involved in that, ie knowing the right people, getting the "in", etc.

In fact it just might be the MOST pretentious part of the resort... a place reserved only for the in crowd....

Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that - it's Mr. Keiser's kingdom and we're lucky to be allowed to partake in it.  Let's just get our terms clear here.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I can't speak to that, obviously, but it sounds to me as if the relatively recent admission that the place even exists has now required some type of process to be created to monitor access.  

That can be tricky I guess, given the intent to still be largely a hidden non-entitiy at this time.  

[THuckaby2]

Kinda hard to hide a place that has a spread on it in Sports Illustrated.

 

In any case, I guess it's still the less said the better.  But the fact I even have to say THAT kinda puts the "p" in "pretense", wouldn't you say?

 

[Mike Erdmann]

No pretense yet exists at the Sheep Ranch...thank God!

Hmmm... not exactly true.  Of course it doesn't once one is there, from all I hear.  But getting there at all, well... there is definitely pretense involved in that, ie knowing the right people, getting the "in", etc.

In fact it just might be the MOST pretentious part of the resort... a place reserved only for the in crowd....

Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that - it's Mr. Keiser's kingdom and we're lucky to be allowed to partake in it.  Let's just get our terms clear here.

 

Au contraire.  Actually, while the Sheep Ranch gets very little play, all you have to do is call Bandon Golf Supply.  In talking to one of the maintenance crew at the Sheep Ranch last week, he said they even put up some fliers at some of the area courses inviting the locals to make a tee time.  Also, Mike Keiser isn't the owner of the Sheep Ranch, it's Phil Friedman.

[THuckaby2]

Mike E.:

When I said Mr. Keiser's kingdom, I meant the resort.  But I did assume he also owned Sheep Ranch.  Shows what I know...  

But re playing Sheep Ranch, well... "all one has to do is call Bandon Golf Supply" is techically correct, I guess.  But man there sure is still a veil of secrecy at the resort about the place... And getting that number was still akin to receiving some state secret.

Again, nothing wrong with it.  I just have a hard time using this as an example of lack of pretense, that's all.

They sure as heck aren't advertising this for resort guests, nor including this in anything there.  If they do so for the locals, that's VERY cool.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()