Composite 18 holes at Bandon/Pacific Dunes

[Darren_Kilfara]

Patrick, I thought it "confrontational" (for lack of a better word) for you to say:

"Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions??"

And Rich, for you to say:

"This is a very good question, and the fact that nobody seems to want to or be able to answer the question is telling.  Is it the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason?"

Some of us don't think that Pat's question was very good - full stop. My point is that I didn't see why Pat had to throw his toys from the pram just because people didn't chime in on a thread he started. (And a thread he started, as Tim suggests, by throwing out an open-ended question with no opinions of his own to kick-start the discussion.) The impression I got from the two of you is that you thought the only possible reason why people weren't responding to the question is that everyone has been repressing their very real criticisms about PD for whatever reason - whereas the simpler explanations, i.e. that the question wasn't very good, or that not everyone has to always rise to the level of debate that you wish it to, make more sense.

(Rich, I agree that the HOTD threads failed for a number of reasons. All I was trying to say is that not every thread started up on these boards generates interest, a fact which I though should be self-evident...)

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

There're some excellent posts on this thread, particularly about the efficacy (or lack of it) of trying to imagine a composite course out to the two Bandon Dunes courses. Darren Kilfarra's post #20 sums it all up by far the best, in my opinion.

I suppose it could be done theoretically somehow but like many of the others on here I can't see the usefulness of such an excerise or even such a theoretical discussion. One can probably imagine some individual holes from each course strung together into a composite but the lack of reality of doing something like that in the all important routing sense alone makes it an effort that isn't worthwhile, even for discussion, in my opinion.

For instance, I think both Shinnecock and NGLA which are immediately contiguous to each other are both two of the top courses in the world architecturally but the holes on each course are very different from the other course in so many ways and therefore I can't imagine the interest in even thinking about a composite course out of their holes.

This kind of thing is also why I've never been that interested in the comparative match play game some do between the similarly numbered holes on two different courses.

And I do agree with Rich, I think it was, who mentioned why the very interesting AOTD or HOTD didn't get more general responses on here. I think it's a very interesting excercise in architectural analysis in one way but the fact that so many are not really that able to understand the nuances of certain holes they've never actually seen is a drawback.

And Rich:

You asked me about Applebrook and why didn't I put that up there with the likes of Friar's, Pacific Dunes or Rustic Canyon? I sort of hate to have to say it but I suppose for me I don't think either Applebrook or certainly Inniscrone is in that league simply because I really don't think either site is up to the others.  

I realize I've said a number of times on here that I believe the architecture of a golf course should be looked at and analyzed only in the context of what the architect had control over and not what surrounded it. In other words, an architect probably shouldn't be criticized for what he can't control---ie what's off the course or even the restraints and drawbacks inherent in some sites (that he has no ability to influence).

I guess I might say I do believe that in the context of criticzing an architect on a single course but not in a comparative course context.

In my opinion, the holes of Applebrook are good ones, mostly, in an architectural and playability sense, and a bit less so in a total quantitative way at Inniscrone, but it'd be hard to deny that Gil Hanse just did not have the canvas to work with in an overall sense at Inniscrone and even Applebrook compared to Rustic Canyon, for instance, and certainly not compared to Friar's Head and Pacific Dunes or the Kingsley Club.

No refection on Gil's ability, just that some sites don't have the potential that others do, both on site and off site and good architects understand that and accept it. Gil Hanse, has been a standup guy though and has never even bothered to mention some of the drawbacks inherent in a few of the courses he's done or to use those problems and inherent drawbacks as excuses.

The same is true of Coore and Crenshaw at a course like Easthampton. What they did there, the actual architecture, is excellent given what they had to work with which was plenty of drawbacks! And they're very honest about that. I once told Coore I thought Easthampton was a terrific course and he said he wasn't exactly of that opinion only that they felt they did as well as they could have with a fairly problematic situation.

And that explains the answer perfectly to me when a Pat Mucci asks why courses like Easthampton or Notre Dame don't make the top 100, or other such nonsense, and doesn't that show that Coore and Crenshaw can't hit a homerun every time out?--I suppose proving in his mind that C&C may not be as good as someone like me tries to make them out to be.

What Pat isn't considering is they didn't intend to hit a comparative homerun every time out--just to do the best they could with what they had. If one could really look honestly and accurately at why a Coore and Crenshaw or a Gil Hanse took on projects like those one would surely see they weren't trying to hit top 100 comparative homeruns and they knew and understood that.

I hope you understand what I mean here and the distinctions I'm trying to make. I admire architects who sometimes take on tough situations when they know they don't have to. But although I can say I think they did the best they could have under certain circumstances and situations I don't see it as inconsistent to say that despite that some of the courses they've done will never measure up to others in a comparative sense for all kinds of reasons beyond their contol.

And frankly, all this brings up an interesting question--who has best made a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Certainly an interesting question for another thread which I'll make momentarily.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I share your feeling about Shinnecock and NGLA. Both are wonderful courses, obviously, but mixing the two for a composite course would be more of a turn off than something interesting, at least to me.

Pat Mucci:

I'm curious. If you think Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes would make for a good composite, why didn't you lay out the composite course you feel would be interesting and appealing?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Many thanks for your thoughts about Applebrook.  I hear what you are saying, but does not the fact that you know the site very well, both pre- and post-course, influence your thinking?  To me Applebrook seemed very much like Merion (OK site, great course)--without the trees and 80-90 years of "tradition."  Of course, I've only played each course once, so this is a very underinformed opinion.

Darren

What's wrong with Pat's initial question?

[Mike_Cirba]

To me Applebrook seemed very much like Merion (OK site, great course)--without the trees and 80-90 years of "tradition."  Of course, I've only played each course once, so this is a very underinformed opinion.

Rich;

Were the new bunkers at Merion THAT upsetting to you?    

I think Applebrook is a very fine course, as well, but I think Tom's description of it is apt.  I'm pretty sure that Gil would blush and chuckle a bit at your comparison.  

Are you suggesting that if Merion were a brand-new course, it would likely fall under the radar screen as you believe Applebrook has?  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I too have no desire to make a composite of two courses that have little in common except being next to each other and the weather that goes with it. Tom made the comment he had the better piece of land to begin with. I feel he is a much much better architect too. Bandon Dunes has a few great golf holes that will live in my mind forever. 5 and 14 are amoung them. It is also a very good course that deserves our discussion if for no other reason there are very few courses being built on land like this or of this style anymore. Pacific Dunes is to me one of the great courses in America. I mean when all I can say in the negative is I am not sure a blind 2nd shot on the first hole is a great idea at a resort course. And I do not like the risk reward component of 16 in the summer wind. Otherwise it is a dream to play. I could play there everyday for life and feel blessed. The 2nd shot at 8 is as much fun for me as the 2nd shot on 4 at Spyglass if not more so. I would love to play a match play event there. Oh that right I did play a match there. David M, I am parched.

[ForkaB]

Mike

Possibly, particularly if Applebrook were 90 years old and had already held several Opens.  PS--as I've said many times, I likede the bunkers, in a strategic sense.....

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Personally, I can't see much at all in similarity between Merion's preconstruction site and Applebrook's. Merion is a tight little mother but the natural golf ground is pretty awesome both in contour and natural features and Wilson & Co used what they had to the max, in my opinion.

Of course on the other side of the architectural ledger Wilson used something that most architects didn't like to use if possible and that was flanking OB. Wilson balanced his architectural features (and thereby his risk/reward strategies) on the super OB holes about as well as imaginable though!

That kind of thing (OB to create strategy), again, may not be ideal in golf architecture generally but it's certainly very reminiscent of golf of an era and golf of a sort of suburban variety (in both Europe and America) that Merion East has always been and was intended to be. Golf and railroad tracks and the necessity of that transportation mode near (as well as auto roads) and very contiguous to golf courses and holes was just a standard of that era in many parts of the country and should be looked at with interest and as a standard of a certain era and architectural variety.

Applebrook was once a nice Pa farm with land that would've been quite interesting for golf holes but for the 25 or so years previous to Applebrook a good deal of that original farm site had been graded into enormous flat terraces for office buildings. That was obviously a challenge for Hanse and I think he made quite clever use of that problematic situation. But the residential contiguousness in two sections of that course just take something out of Applebrook that tree planting or another other potential fix will never be able to overcome, in my book.

Given all that, though, I think Hanse & Co did the best anyone  could have. He knew as well as did everyone that the housing component was going in there. What could one expect considering the original principals are some of the biggest residential and commercial developers in this area?

But despite those sometimes offensive earsores I think it's super, super, super important that Applebrook NEVER plant that golf course up with trees to try to block out those earsores to open golf.

[ForkaB]

Thanks for your thoughts, Tom.  You know the lay of the land(s) much better than I do and I respect your judgement on this.

Nevertheless, I do wonder, how much preconception has to do with how we look at the architecture of a golf course.  If people have told us it is great, who are we to say it is not?  If we are not told by others it is great, who are we to say that it is?  When we look at the 18th of Merion, say, how much are our perceptions biased by the fact that we have seen the picture of Hogan hitting his famous 1-iron so many times.  Does that make it, in our minds, a better hole than the 18th at Applebrook?

I also wonder about visual distractions.  The Pebble Beach effect (or in the case of Applebrook, the anti-Pebbble Beach effect).  Who of us out there is strong enough to block out the condos at Applebrook or the ocean at Pebble Beach?  Should we even aspire to do so, or does GCA include the context as well as the content?

Still wondering.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're wrong with respect to my comments about Notre Dame and Easthampton.

They are not directed at C&C, rather, the idolaters on this site.

C&C are extremely selective in their site/project selections, and as such, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard ?

If one "cherry picks" sites, one would expect the product to be superior.  I understand, at Easthampton, that the routing was inherited.

Darren Kilfara,

I've started an abundant number of threads by posing a question, without offering my opinion, and those threads became very active.

I don't see the need for me to state my views when posing a question in order to form an interesting topic, or the basis for discussion.

Sometimes you learn more by asking and listening to the responses, without offering your views.

[Dan King]

I like Pacific Dunes better as a 12-hole course, so the composite course doesn't have a lot of appeal to me.

But I'd love to just have unlimited access to both courses, just walking around playing which ever hole suites my fancy. I don't think I'd have a set pattern, just jumping around, from hole to hole, where ever my mood struck on that day.

After playing Pacific Dunes for the first time I had this vision of being the Archie Baird of Bandon Dunes, walking around with my dog, playing the holes that are open, with no regard to which course or which order. I tried to convince the powers that be at the resort that they needed a better golf library, but they never bought into the idea. Fitivver

Dan King

Laissez faire, laissez passer. Liberty of action, liberty of movement.
 --Jean Claude de Gournay

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I noticed you expressed to Darren Kilfara that you often start a thread by posing a question without expressing your own point of view. Okay.

But, I'm wondering whether you also feel some obligation to express your own point of view when directly asked to express it.

I'm wondering because when asked whether you felt the two courses at Bandon would make for a good composite, you chose to ignore the question.

What's more puzzling is that you suggested people here felt that these two courses were somehow off limits for criticism and that this might explain why the response to your original question was less than enthusiastic.

That struck me as odd. If you were looking criticism, why not simply ask people what they don't like about either course? If you really just wanted to know whether people felt these courses would make a good composite, why not accept the prevailing view that they wouldn't? Or layout your own case for a composite course?

[DMoriarty]

on 05/24/03 at 6:17pm, Patrick_Mucci wrote

It's amazing how everyone is afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise.

Are these two courses now taboo, off limits to critical discussions ??

Rich Goodale said:

This is a very good question, and the fact that nobody seems to want to or be able to answer the question is telling.  Is it the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason?

 I find it odd that the two of you-- both of whom have played both these courses-- would find it so baffling that many have no interest in creating a composite.  While both are next to each other, are part of the same golf complex, and have views of the ocean, they feel absolutely nothing like each other, by design I suppose.   They are each complete works, not puzzle pieces-- Neither has a single piece which feels like it could be picked up and transferred elsewhere (with the exception perhaps of No. 1 and No. 18 on Bandon.)

Shivas,

You are sure to have a great time.  This isnt critical, but one thing that amazed me about both courses is how well established they feel.  Both exude a sense of timeless beauty that overwhelmed me with the false impression that they have been classics for a very long time.  That being said, they they are quite dissimilar classics.   This should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never played overseas, but Bandon felt like I expect Murfield would feel-- somewhat polished, with sharp shadows and the quite confidence in its ability to hold its own with anyone.  Quite like Mr. Hunley, if he were a golf course.  
 I can't even place Pacific, but I hope there are courses like it somewhere in the isolated back-edges of Ireland, where I image everything to be somewhat wild, arbitrary, and undefined.  Like a surprisingly erudite stranger one might meet in a small town pub, scruffy and unkempt in appearance but much sophisticated and substantial than he first appears.  

Mixing them would be like pouring Laphroaig into fine wine.  Bandon is Cole Porter.  Pacific is Mississippi John Hurt or maybe even Son House.  Both are brilliant, but not in ways that makes sense to combine.  

 To take it further, perhaps because I don't find much of value in creating composite courses, but I find it somewhat insulting to the architecture of each course to hypothetically shuffle and redeal. (Note I said architecture and not architect.)

Patrick Mucci said:

I'm puzzled, how have I been confrontational ?

I posed a question relative to the two courses, and the structure of a composite course, sequentially and randomly.

I didn't pit one course against the other.

Perhaps you weren't trying to be confrontational, but it certainly seemed you were.

After a passage of time with only a few responses to your original post, you immediately jump to the conclusion that

. . . everyone is afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise.

It may be my shortcoming, but when people start a conversation by calling me afraid to speak openly and honestly, I have trouble refraining from questioning their motives.  

[Tim_Weiman]

David Moriarty:

You have no shortcoming. I, too, wondered why Pat would suggest people were "afraid to embark on nothing more than a subjective exercise".

What would we possibly be afraid of?

Your assessment is correct. Bandon and Pacific are separate, dissimiliar courses. Treating them as puzzle pieces just doesn't make sense.

[ForkaB]

Dave and Tim et. al.

Good puzzles are always confusing, but also always fun--if you like puzzles.  If you don't like puzzles, just don't play them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Creating a composite 18 hole golf course from a 36 hole complex inherently dictates that you make choices, that you include certain holes to the exclusion of others.

Here are two of the best courses built in some time, courses that many have played, yet, responses were absent.
To me, it would seem to indicate that one or both courses had been deemed sacred cows, and as such, exempt from any discussion that might be deemed critical.  And, of course, including 18 holes, to the exclusion of 18 holes could be deemed as critical, hence the lack of response.

Certainly, the intellect of the site is up to the exercise.

With respect to my composite courses, sequential and random, I was only asked that question earlier today, by you.
I'm still formulating my answer.

Dave Moriarty,

NGLA and Shinnecock are far more different than Bandon/Pacific Dunes, yet composites weren't taboo for these neighboring courses, nor was a match play contest.

I recalled an earlier thread that asked about the frequency of play on each course at Bandon/Pacific Dunes, given a set number of total plays.
It seemed that the response was weighted toward Pacific Dunes.

With all the talk and praise these courses have received in the past four years, one would have thought that this topic would have created some good discussions, but I guess, having to make critical choices that nominate some holes and eliminate others is too sensitive a task at the present time.

Sensing the reluctance to make choices, I created two other threads asking participants to name their favorite Par 3's.
Par 4's and Par 5's on each course.

This allowed respondents to only choose from one course and to only eliminate from one course, without having the traumatic task of having holes from each course vye against one another.

I think that both courses have their own, unique character, despite their proximity, but that doesn't preclude an exercise that requires analysis and decisions.

I view it no differently then a topic discussing the 17th at TPC and the 16th at CPC.

I sure hope that TEPaul doesn't start a thread asking GCA'ers to choose holes between Sand Hills and Friar's Head.
I suspect his fan club Presidency would be revoked.  

One could conclude that critical comments on either course are unofficially, off-limits.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[DMoriarty]

If you don't like puzzles, just don't play them.

Fair enough.  And perhaps you could refrain from questioning our motives when we choose not to play.

[ForkaB]

Dave

I wasn't "questioning motives", just posing a hypothetical.  I thought you lawyers (and even some non-lawyers!) liked those sort of puzzles, but I might be wrong......

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

If you feel there is a composite course at Bandon that would be appealing, by all means present it to the group. The fact that other people are turned off by this notion doesn't mean either course is "too sensitive" to discuss.

The fact that you continue to use such language suggests that you really want to hear what people don't like about either Bandon or Pacific. If so, why not start a thread on "What's wrong with Bandon Dunes?" or "What's wrong with Pacific Dunes?"?

Pat, I'll even start it for you:

"I just got back from Bandon, Oregon where I played both Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes. I know these courses have been rated highly and many people here really enjoy them, but I felt each course had its flaws.

The problems I saw at Bandon Dunes were........

The problems I saw at Pacific Dunes were........

Does anyone see things the same way? Does anyone think we may have rated these courses too high?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

You've taken my comments to the extreme, but that's okay.

Please go ahead and initiate your post.

I promise that I'll contribute and that I'll be critical in my assessments.

[DMoriarty]

I wasn't "questioning motives", just posing a hypothetical.  I thought you lawyers (and even some non-lawyers!) liked those sort of puzzles, but I might be wrong......

Lawyers love hypotheticals and love posing them.  Lawyers also love to get their point across without ever technically committing to a position.  I hear some poets love to do this too.  
 One easy method is to let someone else do the speaking for you, by using a phrase like "I hear that . . . ."  or "One could say . . . ."

  Another is to turn assertions/accusations into a questions/hypotheticals, simply by flipping a couple of words.  For example, instead of saying:    

It is the fact that we are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site and many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason.

. . . one could avoid definitively taking a position by simply flipping the first two words.

[ForkaB]

Dave

I know you were just trying to make a lawyerly point, but you shouldn't have used the word "quote" when you in fact misquoted what I said.  Over here in Old Blightly that sort of folderol might lead to some serious libel action.  Not to mention the fact that by "flipping" my first two words you ended up with a much inferior sentence fragment than the one which I originally wrote.....

Do you care to answer Pat's question or are you content to wallow in semantics today?

[Tom_Doak]

Puzzle solving is at the heart of routing a golf course; that's why I am successful at it.

I will not be offended if anyone answers this question.  In fact, I'm sort of curious to hear which holes at Pacific Dunes people would pass over for a hole at Bandon Dunes ... just as my question of which top-50 courses you'd throw out to make room for another.

Whatever you say, I'm pretty happy with where the golf course stands.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The first hole at Pacific Dunes reminds me in concept, not topography, in its relationship to the rest of the golf course, of the first hole at NGLA, Westhampton, and GCGC.  I'm curious if some find the hole disarming or difficult to deal with, versus the first hole at Bandon Dunes, which isn't as subtle.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Doak,

I'll chime in here.  I love what you said about puzzle solving.  It is this reason that I have little to offer when it comes to this notion of a composite course.  

I don't like to break each golf hole down individually.  A truly GREAT course should play like a great composition, IMHO.  A three act play, if you will.  Ebb and flow.  

How much have we all read about the routing of Pacific Dunes?  A lot, that's how much.  There has been a lot said about the routing, about it not coming back to the clubhouse, about two back to back par threes, about the alternate greens on #9.

An 18 hole golf course is the way it is (in theory) because it is meant to be played as an 18 hole golf course starting with #1 and ending with #18.  Mr. Doak routed the best possible 18 holes that he saw for that piece of land.  As Mr. Doak pointed out in the Confid. Guide, often times golf course architects have to sacrifice in order to preserve.  As Mr. Doak also pointed out in his assessment of Ballybunion, Tom Simpson was genius for using two par fives to take up the "poor" portion of the property.  I think #12 at Pacific Dunes is a great example of this philosophy.  If asked to choose the BEST 18 holes at the 36 hole complex, #12 at Pac Dunes might not make it.....but so what!

#12 at Pac is a great hole for what it is.  It takes up a lot of dull property, so does #3 a little for that matter.  It is a nice respite after the demanding 'sink or swim' carries presented by #10 and #11.  A hole that offers a guy a little breather after two toughies is a good thing, every GREAT course should afford a player such a thing.

Thus, I can see talking about the "best" 18 holes at Bandon Dunes Resort, but even then I find it somewhat insignificant to consider any holes the "best" in light of my point about the flow of the course being greater than the sum of its' parts.