[Tim_Weiman]

Paul,

You are talking about #11.

Can you tell me why you mention that hole and not the Par 3 #16?

[mps]

Tim,
I've only played the Cashen in its current state - weren't significant changes made to the original design which softened the course considerably?  Weren't the biggest problems resolved?

I wonder if the current layout is simply suffering from the bad reviews of the original "over the top" design.

I love your description of the Cashen, "It is just my biggest joy in golf."   Forget the rules of architecture for a moment & think big picture - what should an architect strive for?  I would think Jones would be pretty satisfied with golfers saying that the Cashen provides them with their biggest joy in golf!  How can that not be viewed as an architectural success? For you at least, it IS a great course - it's your biggest joy in golf!  I love it too - I'm not ashamed to admit it - it's fun to play, it's challenging, it's wild & it's beautiful - I'd rather play it than take a nap or pound pints of Guiness (Paul - can you really "pound" pints of Guiness?  I like the thick black stuff but I don't think I could really slam back pints of it).

By the way, I was in the Dooks pro shop in June & they actually turned away a walkup.  He was told that all golfers must make reservations prior to the day of play.   Then they pulled out the book & he scheduled a tee time for the next day.  Bad precedent - I kind of felt like I was at Muirfield for a second - this was DOOKS for goodness sake!  Then I bought a Cutter & Buck shirt (complete with the Dooks frog logo) for $30 & realized that I was indeed at the right place .

[Tim_Weiman]

MPS,  

You could say that some of the biggest problems were "fixed" and that the course was softened.

On #5, the second green way, way, way up the hill was abandoned.  I'm tempted to say this was at the advice of an international group of cardiologists, but, in truth, this green complex never had any virtue except as a substitute for an aerobics class (and you didn't usually find any pretty girls there!).

Then, #12 was abandoned altogether, a decision that was probably also good for avoiding heart attacks, but I still wish hadn't been done.  RTJ wanted a nice view back into town and that is the best place to find it.  What replaced it isn't very good.  And the old hole, while kind of goofy, was also kind of fun.

That said, I do like playing tricks with people who never saw the original design.  I stand on the current #12 tee and ask people to imagine where Jones put the original hole.  Very few people figure it out and they are usually astonished that anyone would think of such a thing.

There was also a change made to the green complex on #10.  It doesn't really effect the aerobics exercise factor and probably make sense, but the old green complex was far more natural looking......even if it was a bit crazy.

One more change I should probably mention concerns #7.  This hole was the victim of erosion rather than deliberate man made change.  I'm hoping Jones' original design will be restored taking the hole back to a short par 5.  I just hate the landing area on the hole as it now stands.

Regarding the generally negative feelings about the course, the sheer physical demands of walking it play a big part.  But, also, there are some landing areas which need to be wider given the usually fierce winds you find in Ballybunion.  

Anyway, everyone should have at least one course that they love regradless of its flaws.  For me, it's the Cashen.

Sorry to hear about Dooks.  Slowly people have learned about the place and they have probably had to make some adjustments.

[Paul Richards]

Tim:

I mentioned the 11th because it's the only hole I wish to
remember.

I have pounded so many Guinness', that I've lost all other
(bad) memories of the Cashen experience!

[Paul Richards]

Note to self:

(This was written just after my initial visit to Ballybunion
on July 1, 1994.  As a confessed architecture novice at the
time, this was my first impression of the Cashen course)

>I hated this course; horrible conditioning; some really goofy
>holes; blind shots; just simply not a good golf course

[Tim_Weiman]

Paul,

Well, you might have been a novice, but you quickly zeroed in on the mainstream view.  If you didn't like the conditioning in 1994, imagine going back 5 or 10 years.  It was a lot worse.

By the way, I believe the maintenance effort was reorganized not too long ago and there are now some people with responsibilities focused on just the Cashen.  That's the kind of thing money can do.

[Paul Turner]

The Cashen course is a high-octane ride which has plenty of exciting shots which anyone should enjoy hitting; but perhaps the dunes were just too severe for a good golf.  Trent often perched tiny greens with loads of trouble surrounding, so most greens have to be approached through the air and this gets too difficult in the typical wind.  There's very little short game interest on the course; it's usually a case of hacking back up to the lofted green.

It's a while since I been there, but I saw the original 10th green which was way too skinny, even for a short 4.  But the new 10th has awkward and ultra severe contours.  Like Tim, I liked the original 12th with the monstrous chasm down the right hand side (worse than Calamity?).  The 5th hole had already lost its tee (in '89) because it was engulfed with sand, and so a very tough, long par 4 along the Atlantic was spoilt (Trent didn't listen to the locals advice about the tee placement).

Tim

As I remember, the 7th was a shortish uphill par 4 with a shelf green cut into the hill side, probably the worst hole on the course.  Did you mean the 8th a par 5 where you try to drive over and down the crest of a huge hill?

I remember seeing an additional hole (temporary par 3 ?) near the landing area for the tee shot on the 8th (if you didn't carry the crest).  

[Tim_Weiman]

Paul,

FYI, the routing on the front side of the Cashen has changed with #5 and #7 being swapped.  The short uphill hole you mention now plays as #5.  The par 4 along the ocean that lost its original tee now plays as #7.  Mother nature, by the way, has actually pretty much restored where this tee once stood.

I agree with your assessment of the changes to #10 green complex.  Both the original and the revised models have their shortcomings.  Ironically, while the new version provides more room around the green I find it brings the wind more into play and the approach shot probably plays even harder.

You've also mentioned some of the common complaints about the Cashen, specifically, small greens placed up on hill sides that are difficult to hit, prevent run up shots and minimize the importance of the short game.

The greens, in fact, are everything that you say and generally speaking do prevent run up shots.  All very true.  But, whether this means the course does not test one's short game is, I think, another matter.

Last January, I devoted an entire day to studying this question and came to the opposite conclusion.  I spent time at each green thinking about all the places I've missed approach shots and had a go at various recovery shots.  If you ever have a similiar experience, I think you will also conclude that the course will test your short game plenty.

January was an intersting time to study this question because the grass both around greens and in fairway landing areas seemed far less instrusive than during summer months.  It got me to think that some narrow landing areas are really far more of a problem than small greens.  In particular, I would cite #7, #15 and #17, all of which I hope Watson and the club will eventually address.  Too many ball are lost coming off the tee and that is really no fun.

Finally, one can certainly argue that the terrain on which the Cashen was built is not ideal for golf, but I will always remain an a fan of the course whatever its obvious flaws.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()