[Jed Rammell]

Good Morning All -

In what is more likely a confession of my inability to effectively evaluate a golf design, I have a couple of thoughts regarding Old Macdonald - I'm sure this topic has been highlighted many times, and I apologize for any potential redundancy.

I played the 10 hole preview last spring, and in short, I didn't get it. If my caddy hadn't allowed me to borrow his hole sheet with descriptions and history, the golf course would have felt like a really big driving range with 18 holes. I recognize that the golf course is designed to reward angles and strategic decisions, but I was essentially wandering toward each green with no concept of the proper shot.

Many will correctly make the argument that the course needs to be played many times to gain a full appreciation of its greatness, but Bandon, Oregon is so far out of the way that most golfers will play Old MacDonald once, and then maybe return in a few years. If you gave me four rounds of golf at Bandon this weekend, I would probably play Pacific Dunes twice and Bandon Trails twice, and skip Old Mac and Bandon Dunes.

I understand the intent of Old Mac, but I'm not sure that I would get enough enjoyment from the place until I had 5-6 rounds under my belt, which is doubtul given the locale. I would probably be at Pacific instead. Do understated designs rewarding angles and strategy fit better with a daily members course, or does it even matter?

[PCCraig]

I played the 10 hole preview last spring, and in short, I didn't get it. If my caddy hadn't allowed me to borrow his hole sheet with descriptions and history, the golf course would have felt like a really big driving range with 18 holes. I recognize that the golf course is designed to reward angles and strategic decisions, but I was essentially wandering toward each green with no concept of the proper shot.

Can't the same be said for many of the world's best true links courses?

[Jed Rammell]

I played the 10 hole preview last spring, and in short, I didn't get it. If my caddy hadn't allowed me to borrow his hole sheet with descriptions and history, the golf course would have felt like a really big driving range with 18 holes. I recognize that the golf course is designed to reward angles and strategic decisions, but I was essentially wandering toward each green with no concept of the proper shot.

Can't the same be said for many of the world's best true links courses?

Absolutely, but if you only get to play a course once, do you miss out on the aspects that make it one of the best?

[Joel Zuckerman]

Blasphemy!

Drink the Kool-Aid along with the rest of the DG and be done with it!

(DoaKool-Aid?)

I dunno myself...haven't seen Old Mac, but look forward to it, someday...

[Jim Colton]

Jed,

  Prepared to be drawn and quartered!

  Seriously, I think Old Mac is going to be the most polarizing course at the resort and perhaps in the country.  There will be folks who think it's the best course there and others who will say once is enough.

  I happen to get a thrill out of not having the proper shot clearly defined, allowing for more creativity and making it up as I go along.  I love pulling off some shot that I may have never tried or encountered before.

[PThomas]

kudos for your honesty Jed

[JC Jones]

Jed,

  Prepared to be drawn and quartered!

  Seriously, I think Old Mac is going to be the most polarizing course at the resort and perhaps in the country.  There will be folks who think it's the best course there and others who will say once is enough.

  I happen to get a thrill out of not having the proper shot clearly defined, allowing for more creativity and making it up as I go along.  I love pulling off some shot that I may have never tried or encountered before.

Translation:  I love being able to spray my driver all over the map and not being penalized for it

[Tim Bert]

Honesty?  Or the subtlety of an April Fool's gag....

[Michael Dugger]

I suspect the fairways and playable areas will grow in and become more clearly defined as the course matures.

In this infantile state I have to agree that the course is somewhat lacking in definition...

Just wait until the hay grows tall...she'll be a beaut

[jonathan_becker]

I recognize that the golf course is designed to reward angles and strategic decisions, but I was essentially wandering toward each green with no concept of the proper shot

Jed,

I'll second Jim Colton. Plus, that's the best part of testing your own game!

....if this is an April's fools joke, you had me convinced    Either way, it's an interesting thread.

[Jed Rammell]

I recognize that the golf course is designed to reward angles and strategic decisions, but I was essentially wandering toward each green with no concept of the proper shot

Jed,

I'll second Jim Colton. Plus, that's the best part of testing your own game!

....if this is an April's fools joke, you had me convinced    Either way, it's an interesting thread.

No joke, which means I must be the fool.

The "proper shot" term was poorly worded. A better description might be that it seemed that good results were an accident. Again, probably just a reflection of my biases and weaknesses.

[Jim Nugent]

Don't many golfers say the same thing about TOC, after playing it for the first time? 

[JNC Lyon]

Jed,

Thanks for posting this.  Honestly, I get a little tired of everybody on this site raving about the latest C&C or Doak course.  That is no slight on either of those architects.  It's just that all of these courses with overwhelmingly positive comments get to be a blur in my mind.  How do I distinguish Old Mac from Clear Creek Club?  Rock Creek from the Dormie Club?  Stone Eagle from Bandon Trails?  As more of these courses appear with endless praise from GCA, the less I want to see them individually.  We need critics to make these courses more controversial and make them worth seeing for people like me.

A few thoughts:

You mention "wandering toward each green with no concept of the proper shot."  If a hole has no one set way to play or requires no one proper shot, then that hole possesses infinite variety!  The golfer cannot simply map out a gameplan for the hole after two rounds and play it that way for the rest of his life.  He has to improvise!  The golfer will play the differently each time based on the conditions and how he feels on that day.  This atmosphere was what made the 12th at the Addington so appealing for me.  Check it out in Ran's profile if you have not played it.  The hole is completely outrageous.  Yet there is enough width and variety in the landscape so that the golfer can play the hole differently every time.

I think a course that gets better with time is the best type of golf course.  Will it inspire me every time I play it?  More importantly, will I learn something new every time I play it?  If so, then that course is pretty great in my eyes.

However, I do think you bring up a valid point about resort golfers.  I think you are correct to say that most who play Old Mac will only play it once or twice.  This problem takes us back to the Pinehurst thread from a few weeks ago.  High-priced resort courses make it impossible for golfers to get to know a golf course.  A golfer will make his once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Bandon or Pinehurst or St. Andrews, play the courses two or three times, and then leave with but a memory.  Subtle courses just do not function well in this atmosphere.  A course like Old Mac might be great, but it also might not be the ideal course for resort golf that is high-priced (dare I say overpriced?) and remote.

[Phil Benedict]

Don't many golfers say the same thing about TOC, after playing it for the first time? 

I was thinking the same thing. 

[Jed Rammell]

However, I do think you bring up a valid point about resort golfers.  I think you are correct to say that most who play Old Mac will only play it once or twice.  This problem takes us back to the Pinehurst thread from a few weeks ago.  High-priced resort courses make it impossible for golfers to get to know a golf course.  A golfer will make his once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Bandon or Pinehurst or St. Andrews, play the courses two or three times, and then leave with but a memory.  Subtle courses just do not function well in this atmosphere.  A course like Old Mac might be great, but it also might not be the ideal course for resort golf that is high-priced (dare I say overpriced?) and remote.
[/quote]

you said it better than i did

[Jed Peters]

I played the course in a five-ball, doing a preview round with the Resort's Director of instruction and a couple of other golf pros.

We played match play, 3 on 2, and the twosome (myself and DG member Brad Kane) got to tee off first with no idea of where the holes went or the layout. We had to figure it out.

Needless to say, we figured it out.

And it was the best golf course (albeit only 10 holes) at the resort, and the one I look forward to playing the most when i go back this year.

[Jed Rammell]

I played the course in a five-ball, doing a preview round with the Resort's Director of instruction and a couple of other golf pros.

We played match play, 3 on 2, and the twosome (myself and DG member Brad Kane) got to tee off first with no idea of where the holes went or the layout. We had to figure it out.

Needless to say, we figured it out.

And it was the best golf course (albeit only 10 holes) at the resort, and the one I look forward to playing the most when i go back this year.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm surprised at the word, subtle.  Is the National Golf Links subtle?

I thought the course was pretty bold, to be honest.  But, to each his own.

I would never expect the course to be more popular than the others at the resort, but based on feedback to date, I would be very surprised to find it abandoned in five years' time, either.

[Jed Rammell]

Tom -

Is nuanced a better word? I just wonder if the very thing that Old Mac has going for it also hurts it a little. It is a throwback design on a remote piece of the country. Jed Peters loved it the first time, but how many people won't "get it" until a few plays (which won't happen).

[Jim Colton]

Jed,

Thanks for posting this.  Honestly, I get a little tired of everybody on this site raving about the latest C&C or Doak course.  That is no slight on either of those architects.  It's just that all of these courses with overwhelmingly positive comments get to be a blur in my mind.  How do I distinguish Old Mac from Clear Creek Club?  Rock Creek from the Dormie Club?  Stone Eagle from Bandon Trails?  As more of these courses appear with endless praise from GCA, the less I want to see them individually.  We need critics to make these courses more controversial and make them worth seeing for people like me.


I think a course that gets better with time is the best type of golf course.  Will it inspire me every time I play it?  More importantly, will I learn something new every time I play it?  If so, then that course is pretty great in my eyes.

John,

  Have you played any of the courses above?  What if they happen to meet the definition of great  that you spelled out just a couple paragraphs later?  It seems like you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not wanting to see them because they are universally or seemingly universally praised here.  Maybe it's because they are, in fact, really good and worth checking out.

[BCrosby]

Old Mac and TOC (and others) have in common the fact that they rely heavily on contour and undulations. And relatively less so on  bold, obvious features like bunkers or water or trees. There are fewer "lighthouses" (Simpson's word) to steer the golfer.  

And though the contouring might not be very "subtle", it is less obvious than usual sorts of hazards.  

Which is why you usually need multiple plays to "get" TOC  rather than, say, TPC Sawgrass or Pebble. Courses that rely on contouring or ground shaping and less on traditional hazards are almost always going to be harder to appreciate out the gate.

Fascinating thread.

Bob

[George Pazin]

Old Mac and TOC (and others) have in common the fact that they rely heavily on contour and undulations. And relatively less so on  bold, obvious features like bunkers or water or trees. There are fewer "lighthouses" (Simpson's word) to steer the golfer.  

And though the contouring might not be very "subtle", it is less obvious than usual sorts of hazards.  

Which is why you usually need multiple plays to "get" TOC  rather than, say, TPC Sawgrass or Pebble. Courses that rely on contouring or ground shaping and less on traditional hazards are almost always going to be harder to appreciate out the gate.

Fascinating thread.

Bob

Excellent succinct post. I have been trying to make this point about certain golf courses for awhile, but have never managed to be this clear. Thanks, Bob!

[Ted Cahill]

I fretted a few weeks ago about a recent visit to Bandon, where I was told by caddies that Bandon Trails was far less popular than the other two courses.  I love BT.  It's possible OM will not be as popular as the BD and PD (I haven't played OM- simply drooled at it from the 14th tee box at PD.)  I have NO doubt I will enjoy the course immensly.   

If the resort golfer crowd comes to Bandon and plays the first two courses over and over to subsidize the existence of Bandon Trails and Old MacDonald for the rest of us (and the open tee sheets to boot!) I say wonderful.  I am confident that Bandon Dunes Golf Resort will continue to draw plenty of golfers to keep the resort viable.  And I will happily keep making the arduous trek (actually, I love the journey to get there) as often as I can.  One of my greatest days spent on this planet was playing as a single at BT- I felt like I had the whole resort to myself. 

[Michael Rossi]

I had the opportunity to play all 18 a couple weeks ago and felt it was great. I did get a tour of the property the day before which may have helped.

I wonder if the order of the holes you played threw you off a bit, I know that Banff did that to me, going from 13 (original 18) to 14 (original 1). The tee deck mowing pattern is much different than a normal set up but for me it is inspiring, but I can understand how a player might not understand what line to set up on due to the shape of the tees (we had no tee blocks).

After a tee shot and walking in the fairway I found myself thinking about what angle I would prefer for the next shot and what I should have done on the tee for next time I get to play (which may not be for sometime to come).

The one that comes to mind immediately is my tee shot on 3, I pulled it left of the dead snag (light house to steer you on the blind tee shot) even though I was told to hit it right.  I was left with a down hill lie with a much more difficult angle than that of of my playing partners on the right side who had much better stances.

Another was on the Alps, my second shot was a mid iron, without much direction from the caddie, I played it left center of the alp from the left side of the fairway and the ball ran down to center of green. Had I have know there was a bunker hiding behind the alp I would have played farther left on my line or if left with a longer shot out right of the bunker.

The course for me was not difficult to find several options to play the hole even after one look. After playing it several times a player could find many more. Jed now that you have seen most of the property give it another try when you can play it in order the course may leave you with a different feeling.

<iframe title ="Preview" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" style="width:122px;height:137px;padding:0;background-color:#fcfcfc;" src="http://cid-da01d61a9811e224.skydrive.live.com/embedalbum.aspx/Old%20MacDonald"></iframe>

[Dub_ONeill]

So, is the upshot of all of this that caddies are going to be much more important for subsequent rounds at Old Mac than on the other Bandon courses where you feel like you have "figured them out" after a few rounds?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()