Bandon Trails - One guy's comments (he's not a fan)

[THuckaby2]

I find this VERY interesting, because I took a group of golfers up there last June, handicaps ranging from 3-36, and to a man they all seemed to find Trails the MOST doable, forgiving, easiest.

I can't help what wonder what this reviewer might say if he had hit a wedge on the green on 5, or stayed left on 14.  Each of these things are not that difficult to achieve.  

In any case, hell to each his own - god love him, this guy does have a unique take and it's fun to read.

Oh, btw, a 1.6 index can VERY easily shoot an 84 at any of the three Bandon courses.  All it takes is plugging balls in bunkers and missing a bunch of putts.

TH

[George Pazin]

Huck, this guy is the poster child for what's bad about "Looks hard, plays easy."

 

[THuckaby2]

George:  hmmmmm.  Pondering.  

Is it really a BAD thing that all of my friends, handicaps waivering all over the map, found a course doable and fun, but it infuriated a 1.6 index?

I'd call that good, my friend.  Infuriating the low cappers whilst making golf doable and fun for the rest of us mortals seems to me to be what it's all about.

But I'm interested in how you are applying your issues to the case at hand here.  Lucy, you have some more 'splainin' to do.

 

 

[George Pazin]

Huck, I completely agree about it being good for a course to be fun for lesser golfers, but tough for a 1.6. I was simply pointing out that his handicap was likely built on a course that looks hard and plays easy, and not being able to cope with something different.

[THuckaby2]

George:  that's decent splainin'.  But yet I still don't get why you care what a 1.6 index thinks, or how he builds his handicap.  I'm also very curious how you can extrapolate what his home course looks like and how it is perceived from any of this.  For all you know he's a Shinnecock Hills member.

Jeez man, the guy plugs one in a bunker and takes a triple (very easy to do on the hole in question - one can be 20 feet from the pin and have that happen), misses a lot of putts on greens where that too can easily happen, if one is on the wrong side, and you're ready to give him this damning assessment?  Remember too he praised the other two Bandon golf courses, each of which is as different from parkland golf as Pittsburgh is from San Francisco.  

You must know the guy really well.  All I'm seeing is a guy who hit a few bad shots and thus perhaps allowed that to cloud his assessment of a golf course.  Nothing wrong with that, hell 99% of the world's golfers act exactly the same.

 

[George Pazin]

It is very easy to tell from reading this site that he is not a member of Shinnecock! No 1.6 from Shinney would shoot 3 rounds in the 80s anywhere unless there was serious wind to contend with, and if there were, he'd understand the difference.

In all seriousness, I don't care what this guy thinks, other than its influence on other people. I think this sort of thinking is what causes the types of courses I prefer to be passed over in favor of the latest dumb blond. As long as my favorites keep building courses that I prefer, I'll be happy. In fact, the dumb blonds might keep things less crowded, so maybe I should try to spread reviews like this....  

P.S. I get annoyed when very good golfers tell me that a course like this is unplayable for 85% of all golfers. Maybe that's just me, though.

Pittsburgh and San Fran are incredibly similar, btw, if you ignore the fact that they are nothing at all alike. They're both hilly.

[THuckaby2]

George:

OK, I get it.  You think this guy doesn't "get" courses like BT.  But how then do you reconcile his very favorable reviews of PD and BT?

I think you're taking this a bit too far.  Yes, his review of BT, in a vacuum, might have the effect you say.

But the world is not a vaccum, thank god.

 

And now I see your additions and PS.  So OK, the guy annoyed you.  Hell his take on BT annoyed me as well.  But that's still no reason to discount all else he says!  He just had a bad day at BT, and is just plain wrong about its playability.  People are allowed to be wrong.  If not, we'd never hear from Rich Goodale.  Or me.

 

[JohnV]

I've heard enough from good to very-good golfers who seem to feel that if you hit the green, you have to be able to two putt without too much difficulty and therefore think that Biarittz style greens or greens with humps in them or whatever are "unfair".  

I haven't seen the Trails yet, but I've certainly heard very similar comments from good players about the 13th and 17th greens at Bandon Dunes.  13 at BD gets similar comments to his about 10 and 17 gets the same kind of comments as his on 5.  Sorry, but those don't wash with me.  I'm surprised he like them, but he must have hit it to the right spot on the green so that he didn't have too much trouble putting them.

[rjsimper]

OK, I get it.  You think this guy doesn't "get" courses like BT.  But how then do you reconcile his very favorable reviews of PD and BT?

I think this was meant to say PD and BD, but this speaks to my first request, which is can we PLEASE, Kevin Reilly, see his reviews on BD and PD?  With such a small sampling (i.e. one review of one course from one stranger) it is difficult to put his comments in ANY sort of context.

Or at least link us to the forum that this was originally posted on...

[THuckaby2]

Ryan - thanks - yes I meant the other two courses.

 

But yes it would be interesting to see his exact take on those two - only because he's so wildly off on BT from not only my own take, but damn near everyone else I've ever read...

Except re #14 at BT, that is.  Lots of people hate that golf hole, as you see on this thread.  But re the overall course, man this is the first I've heard that it's too severe.

TH

[John Nixon]

But yes it would be interesting to see his exact take on those two -

His original post did not get into much detail on the other two courses, other than a general "I really enjoyed the other two courses" kind of one-sentence summation. He also made favorable comments on the lodging, food, service, caddies, etc, etc. He had a (relatively, in terms of his whole experience) minor bone to pick about one of three courses, and found pretty much everything else about the trip excellent. How's about we all lighten up on judging him and his playing ability? None of us know him. If you're so insecure in your own opinion of the course that you can't tolerate an opposing view, then that relfects more poorly on you than him, IMHO.

[THuckaby2]

John:

Well said.  I agree with you.  If you read my back and forth with George, you'll see I am trying very hard to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

And his take INTERESTS me, that's all.  I don't want to read what he said about the other two courses with any intent to rip the guy; far from it.  He just sees BT so wildly different from anyone else, it would just help to put it all into a better context.

I love opposing views -I learn from them.  That's why I want to hear more from this guy!

TH

[John Nixon]

Tom,
Yeah, the sense I got from  reading his original post on the other forum was that he spent a bit of time critiquing the course because he was surprised to end up not liking it. I think he assumed going in that he would like them all pretty much the same. He shot poor scores on the other courses too but that didn't color his opinion of those.

[THuckaby2]

John - well said.  Yes the guy did do relatively poorly at all three... so my guess that his take on BT is clouded by poor play likely doesn't hold water... which has me even more intrigued!

[Dan King]

I thought the funny part was his complaint about the 14th. He missed his tee shot, he missed his approach and he missed his putt. But still with three missed shots, he still felt he should have at least made a four? Expectations a little out of whack?

Perhaps this should be its own thread, but what is meant by unplayable? Is he saying 85 out of a 100 golfers start their rounds but are still out there somewhere in the forest trying to find their way home? Are there 85 out of a 100 who quit their round before they finish? Or could it just mean that 85 out of a 100 fail to shoot their handicap -- probably a reasonable number for many golf courses since handicap is suppose to reflect your potential not your peak.

IMHO, Bandon Trails is a great course but then I don't have a handicap.

I would never dream of making three mediocre shots on a hole and then blaming the hole for my score not being what I wanted on the tee.

Dan King

Golf is the only game where the worst player gets the best of it. He obtains more out of it as regards both exercise and enjoyment, for the good player gets worried over the slightest mistake, whereas the poor player makes too many mistakes to worry about them.
  --David Lloyd George

[George Pazin]

But yes it would be interesting to see his exact take on those two -

His original post did not get into much detail on the other two courses, other than a general "I really enjoyed the other two courses" kind of one-sentence summation. He also made favorable comments on the lodging, food, service, caddies, etc, etc. He had a (relatively, in terms of his whole experience) minor bone to pick about one of three courses, and found pretty much everything else about the trip excellent. How's about we all lighten up on judging him and his playing ability? None of us know him. If you're so insecure in your own opinion of the course that you can't tolerate an opposing view, then that relfects more poorly on you than him, IMHO.

So we should just shrug our shoulders and say, well, that's one guy's opinion?

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses

Who's the insecure one? Who can't tolerate someone else's opinion? Disagreeing with someone's opinion, and even specualting as to why he has said opinion, is not being intolerant of that opinion. It's discussion, pure and simple. No one is suggesting he be tarred and feathered, or banned from playing at Bandon, or anything like that. People simply disagree with his view of the course, and several have speculated as to why he didn't seem to enjoy BT. If anything, his statement that 85% of golfers would find BT unplayable is the intolerant statement.

We're just shooting the bull over a golf course. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

I do have a handicap.  In a convoluted way I help others get them.  I too love Bandon Trails.  

But anyway, the man's comments regarding 14, combined with what he says about 5, are what make me strain to vouch for his crediblity.  Each are very quirky holes, but neither is "unplayable" - hell the approach is a wedge or something close to that in each case.

But 14 has been argued about a lot in here already.  Some think that since one has wedge in hand, par should be the most he can take.  Me?  I kinda like 50 yard shots that are tougher than 200.  They're unique and different.  Which of course is what #14 BT is all about.

In any case in our 1.6's defense, he did say he made three GOOD shots, not mediocre.  And I'm willing to assume that as a great golfer like that, he knows the difference between a good and a bad shot.  So saying he made three mediocre shots doesn't really fly... Rather I think he just can't handle just HOW good a shot is required from the right side of 14. It is damn tough.  But it is doable...I witnessed one of my friends knock it to 8 feet from there.  He just hit a perfect lob.  I think our friend just needs to understand that such is required from down there... and also try to gain the perspective that lacking the ability to pull off such a shot, combined with the willingness to get creative, means that one understands that from 50 yards there one can be so dead that going left, to the front of the green, is the proper play.

On his second time playing said golf hole, a certain San Josean understood exactly that, tried to bounce it around the bunker using the edge as a right-kick, got too cute and left it in said bunker... yet never blamed the golf hole for his predicament.   He just stepped up and holed the bunker shot.

Methinks our friend needs to play the hole more than once.

 

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
but neither is "unplayable" - hell the approach is a wedge or something close to that in each case.

I still have no clue what unplayable means in this context. If I were to describe something as unplayable in would be more along the lines of John Updike:

"Dream golf is simply golf played on another course. We chip from glass tables onto moving stairways; we swing in a straightjacket, through masses of cobweb, and awaken not with any sense of unjust hazard but only with a regret that the round can never be completed, and that one of our phantasmal companions has kept the scorecard."
 --John Updike

And even Mr. Updike finds something appealing in his dream golf.

So what does unplayable mean?

he did say he made three GOOD shots, not mediocre.

Here is what our phantom poster said:
If you are right as I was on this hole you are dead.

Perhaps for some reason he was aiming for the right from the tee. Standing on the tee it seems reasonably obvious that if you want to score well on this hole you better keep it to the left, but then perhaps this shot was just poor judgment rather than poor execution.

I had to flip a lob wedge over the bunker and stop the ball on about eight feet of green. I didn’t and it goes over into a swale.

Seems here he knew the target and missed it. I assume he is saying is eight feet of green is too small a target for a 1.6 handicapper with a lob wedge, but hard not to argue that he missed his target. Shouldn't lob wedges face some degree of difficulty?

My guess is here he was trying to hit too small a target for his ability and he is upset when he failed. I'm betting if you told him he had to make no worse than par on that hole he could have hit the green, two putted and went on. Heck, I could and I'm betting if I had a handicap I wouldn't be called a 1.6. You think any 1.6 in the world couldn't put it somewhere on that green with a lob wedge in his hand? 14 is a small green, but it a heck of a lot bigger than eight feet.

He hit a poor drive (or maybe poor judgement) tried to hit a small target, failed, and then is upset he couldn't still make par.

He wants his aggression on 14 to only be rewarded, never punished. I applaud Coore and Crenshaw even more for not conceding to this guys desires.

And remember this is guy who says that their is 30 feet from top to bottom at 5 is saying he only had an eight foot target on 14. Excuse me if I doubt his ability to judge measurements.

and then missed the next one for a five.

We don't know how long or how much break on the putt. But hard to call his missed putt a good shot from what he said. Far as I can tell the only GOOD shot he might have hit was his chip and his (guessing) tap-in. If his chip was good, wouldn't that have made the missed putt poor?

 
Dan King

My favourite shots are the practice swing and the conceded putt. The rest can never be mastered.
  --Lord Robertson

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

You're preaching to the choir here.  Down, boy.  

Did you read my entire post or just pick out the parts you don't like and take them out of context?  I know you're better than that.

Look, I agree with you.  I too applaud Coore and Crenshaw for making the low capper really sweat on this hole.  The man's take on 14 seems odd to me as well.  Or didn't you read this:

Rather I think he just can't handle just HOW good a shot is required from the right side of 14. It is damn tough.  But it is doable...I witnessed one of my friends knock it to 8 feet from there.  He just hit a perfect lob.  I think our friend just needs to understand that such is required from down there... and also try to gain the perspective that lacking the ability to pull off such a shot, combined with the willingness to get creative, means that one understands that from 50 yards there one can be so dead that going left, to the front of the green, is the proper play.


 I'm just trying to give the guy a little benefit of the doubt, primarily because he did seem to like the other two courses, and he played poorly at each of those also.  Thus rather than crucify the guy I am trying to make some sense of his take.

Others find 14 far too severe also, btw.

Not me, I loved it.  But just as a test to see if you read this far, just who was the author of Brave New World?

 

[Mickey Boland]

Aldous Huxley

[THuckaby2]

Thanks, Mickey.  But darn it, that was a test to see if my friend Dan actually reads my posts.

 

BTW, I use that one on my kids all the time.  Any time we need a trivia question good ole Aldous' name arises.  They find me to be exceedingly weird.  They are correct.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
You're preaching to the choir here.  Down, boy.

Hey, I read what you wrote. The only thing I took exception to was you saying that he thought he hit three good shots. He didn't. He got on the tee, expected to make birdie or par no matter how he hit the ball. He got overly aggressive with his flop shot despite hitting a poor tee shot and he whinned that he couldn't make par after his poorly executed or poorly judged flop shot.  

I like that in a hole. Ain't no guarantees in life and no matter how good you are No. 14 isn't a guaranteed birdie or par if you play it poorly or stupidly.

Otherwise I could have quoted the rest of your stuff and replied "I agree." If I don't, just imagine it is there.

Dan King

I can sympathize with people's pain, but not with their pleasures. There is something curiously boring about somebody else's happiness.
 --Aldous Huxley

[THuckaby2]

NOW we're talking - not only the author but a topical and meaningful quote.  Well done!

So OK, I overplayed things by saying he hit three good shots.  But that all comes down to standards of what's "good", which is what I was trying - and failing - to get at.  He hit three shots that on any other hole would have meant a par, or maybe even a birdie.  Just not on THIS hole.  And both of us would agree that such is a wonderful thing.

I love #14.  I could play it all day.  I doubt I'd make all that many scores less than 5, but I also think I'd win it in match play a lot of the time just due to knowing one's limitations.  Gotta love that.

 

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
I love #14.

I agree.

I think I can become a YaBB God in no time with these sorts of posts.

Dan King

If two men on the same job agree all the time, then one is useless. If they disagree all the time, then both are useless.
 --Darryl F. Zanuck

[THuckaby2]

Dan, it is a very worthwhile goal.  I know YaBB Godhood changed my life.

So to that end.... what did you think of #11?  That's another one some loved, some didn't love.  You can likely guess where I fell, given there are few golf holes I don't like.  But anyway, the major criticism there seemed to be the lake; that it was unnatural, etc.  Whaddya think?

Me, I thought the lake didn't matter at all one way or the other.  I was very pleased with how the tee shot allowed for a turbo-boost if you did it just right, and how the approach flowed down the hill into that green.

TH