[Jim_H]

I just got back from a three-day trip to Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes--played both twice.  And it got me to thinking about how we evaluate new courses we have not played before.
I was frankly a bit disappointed in Bandon Dunes, but I wonder how much of that mild disappointment was because of my very high expectations going in.  It certainly had a Scottish feel to it, but seemed to carry some of those elements--hidden pot bunkers, etc.--to an extreme.  Would I have been higher on the course if I had stumbled on it without expectations?
On a related point, I thought that Pacific Dunes was one of the greatest courses I have ever played.  Obviously Irish in feel--and I have always liked the Irish courses better than the Scotish ones.  The bunkering was fantastic--totally natural.  It is a real work of art by an obvious genius in Doak.  But did my love for PD influence my thinking about BD?  Do good courses like BD suffer by their location nearby great courses like PD?  I've always thought that Spyglass Hills suffered from its comparison to its neighbors in Pebble Beach and Cypress Point.  For that matter, wouldn't Monterey Peninsula CC Dunes Course would be more highly regarded if it were locatd elsewhere?  And what about courses like Spanish Bay and Poppy Hills that are frequently criticized?  If they were in Fresno, wouldn't they be loved?
Of course, while I'm at it, how much of our valuation of a course is driven by totally extraneous things like the weather on the day we played, the food and lodging, how well we played, whom we played with, etc.?
We are human and our valuations of golf courses are probably influenced by things beyond the individual course itself.

[allysmith]

Cant agree with you there Jim. Assessment of a course should never include how nice the hors d'oeuvres were.

I think if I were to be honest a Civil Engineer the first thing that grabs me about a brand new course is the ability of the earth moving faoreman and the Architect to harmonise and create the subtle features that are seen on a 'good' course.

I think it is the latter ability of having a combination of Golfing Vision and imagination that sets the 'Architects' appart for others.

In summary i think the items you mention may affect your enjoyment of the day but if it goes on to influence your considered opinion of the course then you may wish to re-assess your golfing ideals.

[THuckaby2]

This is all VERY well said and words of wisdom, Jim.  Oh yes, courses do suffer by proximity... look at it this way - if you played Bandon Dunes two years ago before Pacific Dunes existed, would you have the same criticisms of Bandon?  It's actually kind of comical to me how VERY highly rated Bandon was when it first came out, and how MANY criticisms we here now.  Nothing against you, I felt kinda the same way when I went up and played both last year... It's human nature most definitely.  These courses will "settle" to their appropriate level over time and I'm betting they get looked at as equals before too long... but we'll see.

Very good points in any case.  And yes, it takes a very strong person to avoid all the extraneous when "rating" a course.  Many say they achieve this... but do they really?  

Doubting Thomas Huckaby

[TEPaul]

There's just no question that Bandon Dunes suffered by comparison when Pacific Dunes was built. For most who were at the Archipaloosa there the little things were where it was most apparent!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:  this is asking you to gaze into the future, but hey, you're THE Doyen so it's part of your job description.

Do you think that in terms of "rating" and/or "perception", over time Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes will "settle in" as closer to equals?

Part of the great fun playing there is the inevitable post-round course arguments in the bar.  It's generally acknowledged right now that PD is the superior course and BD supporters have a tough argument to make.  Personally, I really think that PD is great, but so is BD, though I'd like to drop a bomb on the 16th hole... In any case the two courses are indeed quite different and yes, you wise fellows at Archipalooza seemed to be right on in noticing the superiority of PD re the "little things".  But over time, I tend to think these will become seen less as "superior" and more as "different", as people get used to PD and more and more people see both courses...

It's just idle conjecture... I'm interested in what your crystal ball says.

TH

[RJL]

Jim -- I just returned from my 4th trip to Bandon in the past 12 months.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a native Oregonian and return to Portland from DC to visit family a few times a year.  Now I just see them less while I'm there.) After my first trip last year, I was blown away by Pacific while slightly less so by Bandon (i.e. consistent with the majority opinion).  

Last May I played both courses again and initially felt more let down by Bandon in comparison to PacDunes than my first visit.  However, with a few days reflection, I realized that when not comparing it to Pacific, I had no complaints with any holes except #16 (for obvious reasons) and #2 (not based on the hole but b/c it tends to slow down play to have a long uphill par 3 so early in the round).  

Last week, I went with a buddy who had only heard me rave about both courses and is not at all interested in GCA.  I was curious to learn his opinion.  He came away preferring Bandon over Pacific.  He said BD seemed more "pure" to him and all he thought about while playing it was his next shot.  In contrast, he felt Pacific was so stunningly beautiful and "different" that it was almost sensory overload.  I was surprised by his assessment given my assumption that non-GCA casual golfers usually prefer prettier courses.  I asked him again this week if he still felt the same and he said he did, but admitted that he was probably influenced by playing better on Bandon.

My point is that I agree with you on how expectations influcence our assessment of a course.  However, as my friend illustrates, that's not always the case. Clearly, he was more influenced by his level of play than by his expectations based on my telling him PD was the better and more highly rated of the two.  So in sum, I think playing well may be an even greater factor than expectations/rankings.  (Of course, this begs the question, would Sandpines have been his favorite of the three if he'd played it and broken 80 there?)

RJL

P.S. first time poster, addicted lurker for the past 4 months.

[TEPaul]

RJL;

Good post on Bandon--less lurking and more posting for you!

TomH:

That's a good question and a hard one for me to answer. To be honest I'm not as up on the details of Bandon as I spent most all my time that weekend on Pacific Dunes.

I do think that PD will always stand above BD and probably always make BD seem a little less exciting than if PD was not there--but I guess the real question is to whom?

I would think though that there would be no question that serious students of architecture would always see PB as superior--maybe much superior. But I can see other types and levels of golfers and golfers of different golfing interests maybe even liking to play BD better than PD.

So who knows but in my mind, and I think in the minds of others most of us respect, see PD as not just superior but certainly one of the very unique and superior courses built in the modern age! I just recall Coore saying it's so different and I agree!

But I'll tell you that I think when Keiser is all done up there at Bandon Dunes there may be a group of courses that will all be impressive but in their very own way. And if he's able to pull that off in the eyes of architectural students and the general golfing public I think he will have accomplished the mission he set out to accomplish!

[Michael_Choate]

Interesting point.  I sort of had the same feeling last month at Kohler.  The River course used to be the must see/play course.  Now, however, Whistling Straits gets top billing in most people's minds, probably me included.  The River remains, however, a fine test even though it does not seem as interesting in comparsion to WS.

[ian]

Does it work in reverse?
I played Pebble, Cypress and then Spyglass quite a few years ago. Pebble was a bit of a let down, Cypess is incredible, and I really enjoted Spyglass (didn't expect much). I think Pebble may not have standed a chance, its the course that got me into golf as a kid. The course I watched all my life. The round I anticipated for years. Don't get me wrong, it is a great course, but may be my expectations were ridiculous. Although Cypress and recently Pine Valley exceeded them....... ?

[Slag_Bandoon]

There is an article by Ron whitten that touches on "Comparisons and Expectations" Re: Bayview and Wild Horse at...

    http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/bayside.html

    Bandon Dunes' 16th rocks!  I will not be swayed in my reverence for this righteously variable layout.

    You are entitled to your own wrong opinion.  

  

    

  
 

[Tom Doak]

I'm totally with you on this ... expectations are a sin in the world of critical review.

You may remember how hard I tried to keep photos of Pacific Dunes out of circulation until people had had a chance to see it in person.  I didn't want their opinions formed on the basis of a photo.  

For the same reason, I tend to avoid discussions here about courses I haven't seen yet, or John and Ran's reviews, which seem to be getting longer and more graphic (in terms of photographic volume) with each passing year.  If I see too much about a course, I'll have too many preconceptions about what it's going to be like, and then I'll be disappointed if it doesn't match up with what I expected.

No one has said it yet, but the architect's name is one of the biggest sources of expectations and bias there is!

[Slag_Bandoon]

 It's human nature to have expectations from who did a layout.  In movies, I'll get all excited when a new Terry Gilliam movie comes out but could care less if Robert Zemeckis has one out.  They're both fine directors but my sensibilities gravitate to what I have appreciated from Mr. Gilliam to where I am intrigued to see his works again... and again.  There is that draw and reward for spending mind energy to contemplate and critique on a deeper level. Same with music, paintings, golf architecture, Scotch, etc.  I'll explore, and will try to keep an optimistic and open mind, but when there's that feeling of personal connection with what an artist has pursued and presented, it's strong medicine.      

[Tom Doak]

Slag,

Don't you think that both Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes really benefited from the fact that neither David Kidd nor I were household names as designers?  No one really knew what to expect of them as a result, so they could arrive in Bandon and really be blown away.

Likewise, I benefited from the fact that Bandon Dunes was designed by David Kidd and not by Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus ... not because David Kidd is any less of an architect, but because Pacific Dunes didn't have to compete against a well-known name.  If Jack Nicklaus had done the exact same course at Bandon Dunes, it might not be ranked any higher or lower, but my own course would have had less chance of being anyone's favorite.

[Slag_Bandoon]

"Don't you think that both Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes really benefited from the fact that neither David Kidd nor I were household names as designers?  No one really knew what to expect of them as a result, so they could arrive in Bandon and really be blown away."   Tom Doak

 Yes.  The first time I played Bandon was the month it opened and also made a trip to that "award winner" Sandpines.  Playing Sandpines first, and knowing that it was "in print" as great, well, I enjoyed myself very much having played a "nationally famous" layout.  Next day, I played Bandon because I'd read a local newspaper about it being new and very Scottish but I didn't know what to expect except that the writer really liked it.    That day is the most epiphenal day of my GCA fanaticism and stirred a wanderlust for Ireland, Scotland, Globe!?, Nebraski, etc.  When I played Pacific, I did have high expectations but they were partly because of my devotion to loving Bandon so much and partly from the excited buzz on this forum. The expectations were met if not exceeded but still, not knowing your stuff except from pictures out East from your previous work, I was still pleasantly surprised.  They really don't compare much, anyway.      
  

"Likewise, I benefited from the fact that Bandon Dunes was designed by David Kidd and not by Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus ... not because David Kidd is any less of an architect, but because Pacific Dunes didn't have to compete against a well-known name.  If Jack Nicklaus had done the exact same course at Bandon Dunes, it might not be ranked any higher or lower, but my own course would have had less chance of being anyone's favorite."  TD
  Interesting cult of personality slant.  The judgement of a golf course through blind loyalty.  I suppose we're all a bit guilty of that but I feel the better educated a person is, the less apt one is going to be duped.  

[Dr. Reynolds]

Tom Doak,

I totally disagree with that idea! It really doesn't matter who designed the first course! Quite honestly, I could have done the second( actually not many could have)  and if it was better than a household names' it would have been well recieved! Everyone loves an underdog...especially the raters!

[TEPaul]

In the way of expectation, I almost completely disagree with who designs the course too. Regarding Pacific Dunes, I'd played Stonewall a number of times and I like the course very much but it had no influence on me seeing Pacific Dunes and neither did the name Tom Doak.  

I think the same can be said for my expectation of Hidden Creek although I certainly admire Coore and Crenshaw. It took me a while to understand and appreciate that course from the beginning and I had no expectations because of them. The opposite could be said from seeing Friar's Head from the beginning and through construction though.

The rating game probably has a lot to do with heightened expectation and eventual letdown and I certainly am no fan at all of the rating world.

I've seen some good (not great) courses, new courses, here and there in the last few years that were really fun and interesting to play (some of the holes) and I'd never heard of the architect! I wrote their names down but they still mean nothing to me--but their courses did.

[Mark_Fine]

The more courses you see, the less this problem exists!  I've been surprised and disappointed so many times that after a while, you learn to not prejudge anything anymore.  I may put more trust in certain opinions but the final analysis is my own (after I've seen it for myself).  

[Tom Doak]

Dr. Reynolds:  Okay, can you think of one example where a less famous designer of a second 18 has stolen the spotlight away from a big name?

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom Doak - I don't know if this qualifies, but when the Barefoot Resort courses in SC first opened the buzz was on the "name" designers... Dye & Fazio & Norman. The DL3 course(although a "name" in his own right) was generally expected to be the weak sister. That has now turned around to where the Love Course gets most of the play and is considered the primary draw.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()