[Bill Brightly]

Michael,

You wrote:
"I understand the Macdonald mantra..but in all honesty most of the people going to play there wont know who the hell he was anyway!
They will just be playing another good course, named after some "old guy"
they probably wont even know what period he was building courses."


I really think you are wrong, I think the new course will go a long way in "introducing" Macdonald to many golfers who do not know his courses. At least I hope so. I think most golfing fans know Tilly and other ODG's but not Macdonald beacuse his courses are almost all exclusive private clubs and not in the US Open rotation. In my experience, players who go to Bandon come back raving about the place, so I think it will help "put Macdonald on the map" for serious golfers beyond GCA, where he is already well known.


So in answer to Jim's question, I certainly will call it a Macdonald course. Obviously it's not a "pure Macdonald"  but it is a Macdonald-inspired design, and I don't know of any resorts that offer a blend of old and new "names."

I think one of the coolest thing about the 4th course is that it adds and ODG to the mix of architects at Bandon.

I say Macdonald was on the committee. The question I'd add to Mike's list is how much influnce did Macdonald have on the committee? Did Doak have any arguments with Macdonald or just Bahto? 

[Norbert P]

  Other ironies . . .

  National is from hole designs horked from Britain.  

  OLD Macdonald   ? ? ? . . . I thought he was dead.






"This just in . . . Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"  
 Saturday Night Live

  

[Anthony Gray]

  I just do not see how you can call it a Macdonald course unless there are duplicate holes. Black Creek is not considerd a Seth Raynor course. It seems to me it is more of a tribute than a replica.

  But the question remains without the name OM would Tom Doak have been asked to build it? Yes. Many would come to play it even if it was named No. 4.

 Anthony

[Adam Clayman]

I understand the Macdonald mantra..but in all honesty most of the people going to play there wont know who the hell he was anyway!
They will just be playing another good course, named after some "old guy"
they probably wont even know what period he was building courses.
I understand Mr Keisers idea...but it will go down as a Doak course in everybody's eyes.

Somewhat of a homage course which I imagine puts even more pressure on Mr Doak...who to a lot of non students may look upon the work..in the same manner as those who play the "tour 18" courses.

opinions?

Or, it could open up the retail golfer's appreciation for those that came before. Ol' Mac not only came before, he was responsible for building the first 18 hole course in the U.S. in Chicago, which arguably introduced the rest of the country's masses to the sport.

Anthony, You should research the team's marching orders.

[Joel Zuckerman]

 There is no question that all the courses at Casa de Campo were going to be built by Pete Dye.  And yet, that resort is not as successful as it should be, considering they've got one (and maybe two) of the best courses in the world.  I think that's because a lot of people shy away from the name Pete Dye ... so maybe that's a point FOR conventional wisdom.

Tom--sorry to veer O/T, but curious as to why you consider the resort not as successful as it should be.  To my mind, it has to do with the lack of a dazzling beach, and the general tiredness of some of the accommodations, but I never would have attributed whatever lack-of-success you are referring to as caused by Pete Dye.  Can you elaborate?  Thanks--

[Anthony Gray]

  Adam,

  Please refresh me on the marching orders.

  Thanks........Anthony

[Adam Clayman]

Anthony, As I recall from the initial announcement on this website, the goal was to create what CBM would today. Technically, not a CBM course.

I thought the irony would be that Mike Keiser would hire Mackenzie out of all the ODG's. See feature interview.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Casa de Campo were going to be built by Pete Dye.  And yet, that resort is not as successful as it should be, considering they've got one (and maybe two) of the best courses in the world.

Is there another course there that I don't know about?
Seriously - what is the 2nd?

It is surprising that Mike still follows conventional wisdom.... I always thought there was still a chance for me... 


Where does conventional wisdom come from?
Conferences, Owners, magazines, word of mouth, blowhards... seriously.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Anthony, As I recall from the initial announcement on this website, the goal was to create what CBM would today. Technically, not a CBM course.

For Kirk Gill:  Do you really think we're going to go back there and build a stinker?  Why the hell would we take the job, and ruin our reputation at the place where we made it?  I am under more pressure to perform at Old Macdonald than at Sebonack ... and I'm fine with that.

I think it's difficult enough to try and discern what CBM would have done with this land in his heyday, much less trying to project how his ideas would evolve to the present day. I see that alone as an element which could apply immense pressure, but somehow I have a good feeling that the chosen committee is up to the task.

WH

[Tom_Doak]

Mike N:  Dye Fore looked pretty spectacular to me from a helicopter tour this summer.  Sadly, I haven't been able to play it yet.

Kalen:  I took Mike Benham's first two options to be a little hostile, but I answered his question as best I could in my last post here.  It's the same process as before, with a slightly different cast of characters.  Last time our inspiration was Cypress Point; this time it's National, and the links courses which inspired it.  Neither course is all my doing, but neither are they all Jim Urbina's work, or George Bahto's, or anybody else's.  It's a collaborative process.  The main difference is just how they're being marketed and how they are being perceived by all of you.

[Joe Perches]

I think successful businesspeople have this in common: not that they always make the best decision, but that they make sure that whatever decision they make proves to be the best one in the end.

I think one of the problems with our society is that we frequently conflate best with successful.

[Anthony Gray]

  Assumptions

  1- Others could have built a CBM replica course.

  2- The owner wanted CBM with a touch of TD.

   Anthony

 

[Rich Goodale]

You are so right, Dave.  Herb does know his shit.

[Brad Klein]

From the beginning at Old Macdonald we were all well aware -- and it was the explicit object of several discussions -- that the average golfer couldn't care less who C.B. Macdonald was and didn't or wouldn't need to for the course to work. The goal was to make the holes interesting and engaging on their own, without need of literary/historical exegesis, and if they worked and were fun and interesting, then the best we could hope for was that after a round the player might ask himself or someone else, "gee I wonder who that Macdonald guy was?'

But we all knew the course had to work on its own. Which is where other, copycat courses go wrong, because they mistakenly assume that some esoteric golfer feels that the criterion of success is whether the whole looks and feels like the original. That's a formula for disaster.

[Jim Nugent]

Tom, can you tell us who came up with the Macdonald theme?  I'm guessing Keiser did. 

 

[Rob Rigg]

None of the guys from the East Coast that I end up playing with at Pumpkin during their Bandon warm up rounds know anything about the architects who designed the courses at Bandon. Not sure if these guys would be considered "average" or "below average" but, regardless, they go to Bandon because they know the golf will kick ass and it will be an incredible experience.

If this is the norm, then it does not matter who builds the courses at Bandon or who, if anyone, they are named after, because (like Brad says) Average Joe don't give a damn,

Thus, to my earlier point, Mr Keiser will choose whatever design team he thinks will build another course that upholds or improves the reputation of BD.

I do not think there is any irony to Old Macdonald at all, and I do not think it is strange that the same design team is being used more than once at the same resort.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For argument's sake, let's say that Old Macdonald turns out to be just as good as the other three courses at Bandon Dunes.  [I like it pretty well so far, anyway.]  And for now, never mind that it may be starting to undermine the ratings of the first three courses, if Mr. Keiser can keep building course after course and they are all perceived to be just as good as their predecessors.

If Old Macdonald succeeds, then I think we've disproven the modern, conventional wisdom that you have to keep hiring different architects to build each new course at a resort.

But the irony is that I don't think Mike would have hired us, if he couldn't have called the new course a Macdonald course, with Jim Urbina and a committee helping on the design, instead of just calling it my second design there.

It's a crazy business, isn't it?

In one of my earlier debates on this site, I argued with TEPaul that a visionary, like Mike Keiser, was A, if not THE critical element in determining the outcome of the product.

I cited Tom Fazio's work at Pine Valley as proof that an architect, even one who was reviled on this site, could produce outstanding, harmonious work, provided that the guiding force/developer/visionary was immersed in the project.

At the time, this site was highly critical of Tom Fazio's work.
Yet, his work at PV represented a departure from the great majority of his designs and redesigns.

Why ?

Because a visionary/developer/guiding force was intimately involved in the project.

The coupling of a talented architect with a visionary/guiding force, will almost always result in superior product.

In addition, a talented architect known for a particular style can achieve variety in design at the DIRECTION of the visionary/guiding force/developer.

You may recall the phrase I used years ago.
"If you accept the King's Schilling, you do the King's bidding"

When the "King" is a "visionary", I believe that the combined effort represents a collaboration in and of "HARMONY", and that that produces an exceptional product.

Hence, I agree with your initial statement.

However, from a purely MARKETING perspective, I think multiple architects is the way to go when you're trying to craft a destination golf resort with two, three, four or five courses in the complex.

You also benefited from having previously worked with/for Mike Keiser.

I have no doubt that the quality of your previous working relationship with Mike Keiser influenced his decision to rehire you for Old Macdonald.

I don't think anyone doubts that you possessed the talent necessary to design a tribute to Macdonald, but, it was Mike Keiser's comfort level, derived from with working with you, that probably led to his decision to retain you, rather than a brand new architect.

I could be wrong, but, If Mike Keiser told you he wanted you to take a similarly constructed team to replicate Donald Ross's work, or William Flynn's work at a site in Florida, that you'd do it.

If Mike Pascucci asked you to embark on a collaborative design and construction effort with Jack Nicklaus at a site in Florida, I'm not so sure that you'd be as excited to accept the offer, unless of course, he made you an offer you couldn't refuse.

Having Macdonald represented on both coasts is appealing to those who enjoy and even favor work by "The Evangelist of Golf".

I'm hoping that Old Macdonald exceeds expectations.   

Michael Wharton Palmer,

After 2013, when the Walker Cup is held at NGLA, the golfing Universe will know who Macdonald was and what he represented in GCA.

The timing for Old Macdonald is almost perfect

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

All I can tell you is that it's exceeding my expectations.

And you're right, we would probably work for Mike again, wherever he wanted, although I would hope he would let me go back to doing something entirely my own next time.


Jim Nugent:

I have already been told by three different people that THEY came up with the Macdonald theme, or a variation of it, anyway.  It wasn't me, anyway.  But Mr. Keiser did ask me what I thought of the idea, and I shared my opinions on the strengths and weaknesses.

[rchesnut]

I can understand Mr. Keiser's thinking...we all want choices.  It's why you go to the grocery store and find 50 different kinds of tomato sauce.  It's natural to assume that if you hire the same architect to build a second golf course on a piece of land that's right next to his first course, you'll get a similar product.  A lot of architects would certainly give you two similar golf courses. 

Ideally, as a resort owner, I'd like multiple courses that are roughly the same in popularity, each with a distinct style, and hopefully courses that create some debate and tension about which one is the "best."  Each new course would add new "buzz" and excitement.  And while I'd want the courses to be different, I'd want them to all fit within a cohesive "whole" consistent with the brand I'm trying to build.  Too often, resorts are built around one great course (Pinehurst comes to mind). 

I admire Mike Keiser for creating a resort that has delivered in this regard (and on a number of other levels as well).   After playing 10 holes at Old Mac last week, it's clear to me that he's going to have a 4th course that will challenge the other courses for the title of "best," but will also stand alone with its own dramatic and distinct style...it's not "Pacific Dunes II".  (Not to mention the Sheep Ranch, which was an entirely different experience from anything else in golf). 

[Ian_L]

I don't think Mike Keiser would have been as eager to build another Doak course right next to the first one if he didn't know for sure that it would be quite different.  I'm at Bandon right now, and when people I meet start comparing courses, they almost always come to the conclusion that "they're all different."  You can tell that that's what they love about the place.  I think for these people there's something less appealing about having too similar courses on the same land.  I'm not saying these courses would actually be similar if both were built by Doak (I have absolutely no idea), but I think Mike Keiser probably likes the assurance that there will be four very different courses at his resort.

BTW, when I say "similar," I mostly mean visually, as that's what most golfers seem to notice.  If the fourth course were on similar terrain as Bandon Trails, he likely wouldn't mind as much, since the different setting would assure a different-looking course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Michael,

I say Macdonald was on the committee. The question I'd add to Mike's list is how much influnce did Macdonald have on the committee? Did Doak have any arguments with Macdonald or just Bahto? 

Bill Brightly,

As I understand it, Macdonald might have been on the committee, but it was strictly an "advisory" role.   

[Adam Clayman]

You are so right, Dave.  Herb does know his shit.

Another moment could not go by without recognizing the wit of this.

The aspect that struck me the most, having only walked a few yards of the course, was the freedom.

If OM is as successful, it will be this freedom that makes it so. Hopefully it  will open the eyes of all the narrow every fairway, dictate every shot, aficionados.   

[Norbert P]

 I just got an email from a non-member lurker and he says that Old Mac looks more like the works of Old Tom.     Should  Melvyn Morrow be added to the committee?         

[Ulrich Mayring]

There's got to be some new marketing angle, just saying "we built another one" will not bring anyone to the resort, who wasn't going there anyway. Even those, who previously were there and liked it, might the next time out choose a different resort just to see something new. I highly doubt that a course called "Pacific Dunes #2" or "Bandon Dunes New" would bring additional business.

I don't know why Tom Doak was chosen, but one thing the resort definitely doesn't need at this point is a 4th course by some unproven guy, who would have to be way better than Doak, Kidd and CC to get any recognition at all. For the first course it was exciting to say here's a hidden masterpiece by an unknown designer. Right now the news is out and the standard is set.

This "dead architect with a little help from my friends" idea is actually brilliant. Charles Blair Macdonald is beyond comparison, no one will argue how he compares with Kidd, Coore or Crenshaw. And no one will write that Tom Doak didn't quite live up to the standard of his previous work. He was doing CBM, so the course should be compared with other CBM courses rather than Pacific Dunes. And just in case that Old Macdonald turns out to be better than Pacific Dunes - well, there's a marketing dream come true.

Ulrich

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps this is just pointing out the obvious...

But does Bandon really need a whole lot of additional marketing at this point?  Not trying to say to abandon the traditional cheap methods like emails and the occasional "article" in a golf rag, but hasn't the place established itself pretty well for the demographic its looking to target? I'd venture to say word of mouth is about all they really "need" at this point. 

An last I heard one still needs to book far in advance if one hopes to get more than a twosome booked up, unlike a few places that shall go unmentioned on the Monterey Penisula. Isn't all that marketing hoo-haa only really needed when the tee sheets are empty?  With all the return visits and no doubt the email notifications that one gets, isn't this enough?

As has been suggested before, I doubt most who go there will give any thought to who designed or built what.  If its a quality product and world class experience, I would think this will keep them coming back.

For myself, I honestly couldn't care who designs the latest Bandon course if it matches the quality of the 1st 3.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()