Tom - you've mentioned the "26% of play" measuring stick in earlier OM threads, and to be honest even the first time I read it my thought was "Why so modest a goal?" I understand that the situation at Bandon is unique, and that with 4 courses the breaking down into 'quarters' works neatly, and thus so too does that particular yardstick for success. But still, it strikes me that this may be the first time you have ever used such a yardstick, and the first time the goal for a course of yours was to be only a fraction more popular/liked than its neighbours. Why so modest a goal? Did you sense that the 'concept' might put certain limitations on the appeal?
Peter
Peter:
I had that goal in mind from the start of the project, because I knew it was important to Mr. Keiser. I think he always had his doubts that it was something we could achieve, and if we didn't achieve it, then the project would bring down the overall quality of the resort and not be worth the trouble and expense. And I have great respect for all three of the neighboring courses in Bandon, so I figured if we could achieve that modest goal, the rest would take care of itself.
I would also prefer to have a different goal every time out, instead of focusing on the same things repeatedly. At Pacific Dunes, we only concerned ourselves with building a contrast to Bandon Dunes that people would like just as much -- well, that and not screwing up the best site anybody might see in our lifetimes. At Ballyneal, we just kept talking about building something fun to play, and making sure we had 18 different holes than Sand Hills. At Cape Kidnappers, we had to build a course people would want to fly halfway around the world to play; at Barnbougle, we knew the key was to build a course that golfers from Melbourne and Sydney would fall in love with and want to come back every year. All of them clearly had the potential to be great courses, but those goals I just mentioned helped give each its own charm.
We've got two clients right now [only one of whom you've heard about on GCA] who talk openly about wanting to build a "World Top 50" course (!). I cringe a bit at that, because I've got a healthy respect for all the courses in that group -- and also for a lot of courses which have fallen short of that mark. I know it's achievable, if everything from start to finish goes perfectly, if I have nothing but good days on site, if there's an ocean close by
, and if the politics work out right ... but as a goal, it's pretty crazy.
To his credit, Mike Keiser never talked about rankings [in front of me, anyway] on any of the four courses at Bandon. He talked about building courses which would please the retail golfer, and trusted that if he succeeded, the rankings would take care of themselves.