News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Matthew Schulte

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« on: October 20, 2003, 09:45:29 PM »
I just read an interesting interview in the October/November issue of "The Golf Insider" newsletter with Mike Keiser and Jeff Wallach.  It hints that Bandon #3 may be "patterned after Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath.  Below is the article.

"Keiser just announced the selection of Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw to design the eagerly awaited third course at Bandon.  Unlike the others it will be inland, in the style of Melbourne.  He explains what makes the sandbelt courses, especially those by Dr. Alister MacKenzie so Special."

"Keiser on the Sandbelt:  
Most great golf courses are located on exquisite natural sites, usually consisting of sandy soil, on which the golf architect laid out an ingenious routing.  National Golf Links, Cypress Point, Sand Hills, and Royal Dornoch are four superior examples of great, natural golf courses.  Maybe one day the same will be said for Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes.

Then there are the man-made or maufactured golf splendors, those whose greatness is owed primarily to the genius of the golf architect.  These are typically inland on mundane sites where it's virtually impossible to "find" natural holes.  Instead, the architect must impose his will on the land to come up with a playing field that's exciting enough to energize all who play the game.

There are five exemplars of great manufactured golf courses: Augusta, St. Andrews, Pinehurst #2, Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath.  The latter two are just two miles apart in Melbourne, Australia.  They are two of the finest and most exciting golf experiences you'll ever enjoy.  Royal Melbourne has just a little bit of interesting topography.  Kingston Heath is almost totally flat.  In other words there is almost nothing wondrous about the sites themselves.  The best you can say is that they're sandy.

So why are they so good?  I argue that the greens complexes are the most exciting you'll ever see or play on.  I could walk through all 36-holes to make my case but I'll mention only one: the unbelievable par 3, 154 yard 15th at Kingston Heath.  It plays uphill, usually a decided no-no for a short par 3.  But its green is surrounded by the most innovative -- and most threatening -- bunkers I've ever seen.  They're there to do one job: scare the living bejesus out of the player.  They're as beautiful and foreboding as, say, the Grand Canyon.  And they're completely manmade, designed by the inimitable Dr. Alistair MacKenzie.  His Cypress Point 15th and 16th are two fabulous golf holes, but primarily because they're so naturally heart-stopping.  Kingston Heath's 15th is Dr. MacKenzie's greatest hole, simply because he made it out of nothing.

One other distinctive aspect of both courses: fairways are mown right to the very edge of the bunkers.  There is no bumper collar on the inside edges.  Since the grass is cut low right to the edge, there's nothing to stop your ball.  It will roll right in.  The look is both more sculpted and more dangerous.  Had I visited Melbourne before I built the courses at Bandon Dunes, I might have a course patterned after these already."
« Last Edit: October 20, 2003, 09:48:43 PM by M_Schulte »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2003, 10:11:46 PM »
This sounds like a terrific complement to the existing courses. From what I know of the terrain, it ought to work well too. Thanks for the info.

Best,
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2003, 11:50:26 PM »
 It sure is terrific that we've got a savvy and golf passionate dreamer like Keiser.  I sure wish we had a few more like him.
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2003, 11:50:53 PM »
I'm going to keep pulling this up until some of our Aussie contingent weigh in. :)

Would anyone else who's played & studied the Sandbelt courses refer to them as manufactured or totally constructed?
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2003, 12:00:53 AM »
George,
I'd agree entirely with Mike Keiser: although the sandbelt courses (bunkering in particular) appear "natural", they are in fact totally manufactured.  There's nothing natural about the 15th at KH, but that doesn't stop it looking fantastic.

Matthew Schulte

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2003, 12:25:48 AM »
From what I know of the site, it will be far from mundane.  This will also be a nice opportunity for Coore and Crenshaw to do something different from all of their other work.  

How costly will it be to maintain the edges of these bunkers with amount of play that the course would presumably have?  How often will the edges of the bunkers need to be rebuilt?

I can hardly wait!

Mr. Keiser continues to introduce the American golfing public to great golfing variety.  He is truly helping the masses "get it."  What a gift!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2003, 12:30:47 AM by M_Schulte »

Mark_F

Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2003, 02:54:45 AM »
Chris,

Come on, what about the "Royal Melbourne has just a little bit of interesting topography" quote?

That's the equivalent of saying that Elle's all right on the eye if you only have one, and it's glass.

Or Woodlands is only five minutes away from RM.

By the way, when are you taking me for a spin in your Lamborghini? ;)

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2003, 03:27:13 AM »
Mark F

I was just about to choke on the Royal Melbourne 'just a little bit of interesting topography' quote.
Mike and I actually played Royal Melbourne together a few times and I am sure the significant and great undulation that makes the 3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th- another great short uphill par three -8th,9th,10th,11th,12th,17th and 18th holes so great was not lost on him.
It is an odd comment and not particurally accurate.
I cannot imagine a single architect - past or present - who wouldn't kill for such a great site.
It will be interesting for someone in America to build bunkers and not to put a strip of rough between them and the fairways and greens.Crenshaw,of course ,incorporated this feature brilliantly at Sand Hills but it is something we take forgranted here.
I am biased but the bunkers of the sandbelt are the most natural looking man made bunkers in the world and I wonder why so few try them to build them in America.

Kingston Heath is much flatter but there are small but significant undulations on the 1st,6th,8th,14th,15th,16th and 17th holes.
The genius of Kingston Heath is in part Mackenzie who sited all the bunkers and built the 15th which replaced the short blind par four,Dan Soutar who routed the course and Mick Morcom who built all of Mackenzie's bunkers.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2003, 10:04:41 AM »
I've never been to Pac-Bandon, but if the 3rd course land has any suttle contour under the vegitation, and C&C bring on the Bunkerhill boys, Dan Proctor'll find every little bump and hollow and will not grade them down or compact them with too much traffic on the hole corridor, whilst Dave and the other boys will make some fine bunkers, just like they always do.  If MacK were around today, he'd use "the boys" or Mick and Soutar would join 'em.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2003, 11:06:01 AM »
I'm in agreement with the Mike Clayton. I find the comments a little surprising but I know what Mike Keiser is trying to say. Most sandbelt courses are not hilly but they're not dead flat either. They're gently undulating - subtle rather than ostensible. The greens are the same and that's part of what makes them great (and they have great architects who made the most out of the sites). Royal Melbourne though doesn't fit the description. I'm in awe when I go back there and see the 6th(West) green. It's one of the best sited greens in Australian golf.

Kingston Heath is definitely flatter land but but not totally flat. I think people get the impression it's flat because of a four/five hole stretch (9 - 13) but mostly because of the 12th. Flat par fives give that impression. One more decent undulation at KH would solved all it's problems.  For the most part, the sandbelt courses are designed in a way which hide their flat spots by utilising short par 4s and par 3s in those areas. (eg, 3, 9-10 at KH, 14-15 at Commonwealth).

On the bunkering:
Every summer when the Australian Tour comes to Melbourne you'll hear commentators say how natural the bunkers are, "you only have to dig down a few inches and you've got all that sand". That's not entirely true but it isn't called the sandbelt for nothing. Many courses had sandy patches spread across them - much of that now gets covered over as course watering has assisted not just fairway growth but non-fairway grasses. I think the bunker shapes are almost as natural as you get. I was down at Cape Schanck in the winter and was walking with some friends from Bushranger's Bay to the cape (about 3km from the National). In a paddock overlooking the ocean there was some erosion in one of the dunes which had exposed the sand below - it looked almost like a sandbelt bunker. I remarked to my friends on what a fabulous golf hole could be created - no earthmoving required. The sandbelt bunkers often look as if the suface has eroded and the winds have done the rest.

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2005, 07:30:28 AM »
Sorry, thought I would do that thing where some random poster pulls up a thread from two years ago because it is sort of relevant today.

So, does anyone think that Bandon Trails resembles the sandbelt?  

Merry Christmas.
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon Trails - a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2005, 02:04:32 PM »
  Great idea David.  I'll throw this thread another "Mae West".  (The old guys will know what that means).

  I'm aching to answer this question myself.
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2005, 03:02:02 PM »
David,

I like the thread you pulled up.  I live in Oregon, and have played the Trails twice.  Compared to the other two courses, I found it to be tight and tricky.  I don't think it's very hilly; easily walkable.  It might be the hardest of the three.

As far as being in "the sandbelt", I don't know.  It has madrone trees, which are nice.  I don't remember if the bunkers use the native sand.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2005, 06:16:55 PM »
Bump one last time.  I can't believe no one is biting on this one.

Troy Alderson

Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2005, 09:37:43 PM »
John Kirk,

easily walkable?  Are you talking about the same Bandon Trails I played the day before it opened?  Did you skip holes 13 and 14 with that mountain you have to climb over?  I still enjoyed the course even though I did not break 100.  My fav is still Pacific Dunes, but Trails is a great example of a heathland golf course.

All the sand on the course comes from the property.  Trails had to be sand capped for the most part.  The hills around the resort are not sand.  Bandon Resort does have an endless supply of sand on property.

Troy

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2005, 09:59:19 PM »
I'd say easily walkable is fair.  Only the stretch from 13 to 14 could be deemed difficult, but it really wasn't as bad as I was expecting based on the reports I heard before I went out there.

I don't envy the caddies that are double-bagging it up the hill, but it's a bit over-rated as being strenuous.

Matthew Schulte

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bandon #3 a la "The Sandbelt?"
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2005, 09:17:41 AM »
As to whether it bares any resemblance to the "Sandbelt" I would say the only spot that evoked that for me was the 15th green site.  It loosely resembles the 5th at RM West as it is somewhat similarly framed being surrounded by a hillside covered in brush with bunkers (on BT 15) that are cut right out of the green.

 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back