Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Joe Bentham on August 17, 2011, 03:59:06 PM
-
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/6044242277_ee46e022a0_b.jpg)
The first top 100 lists that Old Macdonald is eligible are finally out, and as we expected it faired pretty well. 3rd on the Modern list for Golfweek and 43rd in the U.S. according to Golf Magazine.
I think we all knew that the raters where going to like it. I said for a couple of years after Bandon Trails opened and before Old Macdonald did that the resort could build a course backwards and upside down and get it ranked highly in all the top 100 lists. Some of the caddie yard and a lot of the guests this year would argue that Old Macdonald proves that theory.
The caddie yard has a impossible time not letting how a course is to loop influence their opinion on the golf course, and rightfully so. I've been fighting that issue for years now. It is my windmill, and I think it is a losing battle.
As for the guests, I think most of the negative opinions could be chalked up to the 'scorecard and pencil' mentality and not understanding the course or its intentions.
My question for the clubhouse is this: Why is there such a varying degree of opinions on Old Macdonald?
-
I said for a couple of years after Bandon Trails opened and before Old Macdonald did that the resort could build a course backwards and upside down and get it ranked highly in all the top 100 lists. Some of the caddie yard and a lot of the guests this year would argue that Old Macdonald proves that theory.
Gee, Joe, thanks for the ringing endorsement. Feeling like it's time to move on from Bandon?
I am not surprised that the course is controversial, and I am a bit surprised that it's been so highly ranked. Still, I've said from the beginning, if it winds up with 26% of the play at the resort, that would mean it's successful -- so we built a course that not everyone would love, but that hopefully at least 26% would love the most. How is that target holding up?
-
Who is "we?"
I haven't played OM, but it sure looks fun and most of the people I know who have played it really like it. I wouldn't expect everyone to love the course though, as I'm assuming not everyone who visits Bandon even knows what he/she likes or what they're talking about when they bash a course.
From what I've heard and read the greens are pretty severe at OM, perhaps most golfers just aren't good enough or have the patience for severe greens (regardless of if they are fair or not?)
-
Here's another ringing endorsement for Tom. ;D
People figured it was just about time for Tom to have a high rated course so they did it for him with Pacific Dunes. They were mistaken, they should have waited until he helped Jim Urbina bring the truly great course there. ;D
Clearly sticks are going to like Pacific Dunes. Clearly sticks are more apt to travel to places like Bandon. Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.
-
Joe,
Some people like the course, some people don't.
Some caddies like the course, some people don't.
What is the "dilemma" that you titled the thread with?
-
I've spoken to multiple people that have played Old MacDonald this year who have very little to zero interest in playing it again.
-
I suspect, based on his concluding question, Joe meant something more like "paradox" - or another even better word that one of our resident wordsmiths can come up with.
People have different preferences in most things, why would golf be that much different that we would expect uniformity?
Remind me not to ask Kyle's friends for recommendations... :)
-
I said for a couple of years after Bandon Trails opened and before Old Macdonald did that the resort could build a course backwards and upside down and get it ranked highly in all the top 100 lists. Some of the caddie yard and a lot of the guests this year would argue that Old Macdonald proves that theory.
Gee, Joe, thanks for the ringing endorsement. Feeling like it's time to move on from Bandon?
No, Tom. I was only pointing out how powerful the 'Bandon Dunes' name brand had become in the world of golf. IF you read closely you'll see that I said "some of the caddie yard and a lot of the guest". I never said I'd make that argument. Here are some of my thoughts on Old Macdonald.
http://pacduneslooper.com/2009/11/02/4-of-the-luckiest-guys-in-the-world/ (http://pacduneslooper.com/2009/11/02/4-of-the-luckiest-guys-in-the-world/)
http://pacduneslooper.com/2010/05/18/old-macdonald-vs-pacific-dunes-match-play/ (http://pacduneslooper.com/2010/05/18/old-macdonald-vs-pacific-dunes-match-play/)
http://pacduneslooper.com/2011/07/04/old-macdonald-on-steroids/ (http://pacduneslooper.com/2011/07/04/old-macdonald-on-steroids/)
Ringing enough for you?
I think Old Macdonald is awesome. Very unique (from my perspective), and just a ton of fun to play. I think most on this board would agree with that assessment. The dilemma or paradox is why and how so many others wouldn't and don't. It is a big question, and I guess this board really isn't interested in answering those types of questions.
I'm consistently disappointed with how little thought people will put into what they'll type on the internet.....
-
Old Macdonald is extremely playable for higher handicaps. As always you just have to know your limitations and do some thinking. There are many fun shots to be played out there, and great width and angles. Familiarity with the Macdonald-Raynor motifs just enhances the fun.
Sometimes I think Joe likes being controversial for the sake of being controversial.
Kyle, what reason did your friends give for disliking OM?
-
Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.
Garland,I've taken this quote out of context and I apologize for the implication that I'm getting ready to make.
Tom Doak,assuming that the statement is accurate,is this a back-handed compliment?
-
Kyle--
I suspect the prevailing GCA response upon reading your statement was "Yahoo! More open slots for me at Old Macdonald!", but actually I have heard much the same response from very knowledgeable, skillful and respectful players up here, and I think that it is entirely possible that, like most things in life when the choice is "which one out of four", the overall response is much, much closer to the "26%" Tom D playfully threw out...
It is practically a capital offense here on GCA to suggest otherwise, but my own response to Old Macdonald was somewhat tempered as well. I very much hope to get the same exposure to OM that I have had at Pacific Dunes (over 30 rounds now), but after 3 rounds I am a qualified "Hmm". Of course Bandon Trails is slowly but surely growing on me after 5 years and almost 12 rounds, but I wasn't in love with it after the first 5-6 rounds..
I don't consider it a dilemma though..more like choosing between butter pecan ice cream, which I love, and chocolate fudge ice cream, which I don't happen to love but can completely understand why others do...
I think the dilemma Joe refers to is that the caddies don't have the immediate love that GCA, raters, etc do for OM--maybe I'm reading him wrong though..
-
I don't consider it a dilemma though..more like choosing between butter pecan ice cream, which I love, and chocolate fudge ice cream, which I don't happen to love but can completely understand why others do...
That's it! If and when we ever meet, we are definitely droppin' the gloves!
Wish I could comment on OM...
-
Clearly sticks are going to like Pacific Dunes. Clearly sticks are more apt to travel to places like Bandon. Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.
At least 80% of our guests are taking caddies in season. Sticks, high handicappers, beginners. Everybody. High handicappers struggle with old mac the most. They can't lag putt, and they can't chip so just because they can't lose a golf ball doesn't mean Old Mac is easiest for them. It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort. Thanks for you uniformed input though....
-
Sometimes I think Joe likes being controversial for the sake of being controversial.
I don't mind a good argument but I don't see what I said that was controversial in the least bit. And I'm offended that my passion and love for Bandon Dunes was called into question....anybody who actually knows me would laugh at that thought
-
Joe (or Tom),
Do you suspect that Old Mac will eventually start to move down from its initial rank (especially Golfweek), considering it's likely that those playing and ranking it in 2010 were more likely to seek it out and more likely to enjoy it than Raters playing it in subsequent years? I haven't paid enough attention to how other courses have debuted and migrated after opening.
Jim
-
Clearly sticks are going to like Pacific Dunes. Clearly sticks are more apt to travel to places like Bandon. Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.
At least 80% of our guests are taking caddies in season. Sticks, high handicappers, beginners. Everybody. High handicappers struggle with old mac the most. They can't lag putt, and they can't chip so just because they can't lose a golf ball doesn't mean Old Mac is easiest for them. It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort. Thanks for you uniformed input though....
I must have been there out of "season" when I saw nobody taking a caddy.
Also, Joe, there was a bit of TIC (tongue in cheek) in my post.
Removing tongue from cheek, I was a single and in my foursome the best player was clearly frustrated with balls not stopping where he wanted them to, balls bouncing in unplanned directions, fearsome bunkers springing up where he hit his ball, etc. I simply assumed he would have similar experience at the other courses. His less talented buddies were taking delight in the things that peeved him. There you have my statistical survey of one round. I'll check out now.
-
It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort.
Surely you jest.
All that ball eating Gorse and ball "going off the abyss" shoreline is just imaginary? ::) ::) ::)
-
It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort.
Surely you jest.
All that ball eating Gorse and ball "going off the abyss" shoreline is just imaginary? ::) ::) ::)
Kalen, I think Joe means it's hard to lose a ball IF you don't hit it in the gorse or off the cliff!
-
It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort.
Surely you jest.
All that ball eating Gorse and ball "going off the abyss" shoreline is just imaginary? ::) ::) ::)
Kalen, I think Joe means it's hard to lose a ball IF you don't hit it in the gorse or off the cliff!
Ahhh
So if I'm Scott Verplank or Fred Funk, then its hard to lose a ball. So silly of me to think otherwise!! ;)
-
It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort.
Surely you jest.
All that ball eating Gorse and ball "going off the abyss" shoreline is just imaginary? ::) ::) ::)
Kalen, I think Joe means it's hard to lose a ball IF you don't hit it in the gorse or off the cliff!
Ahhh
So if I'm Scott Verplank or Fred Funk, then its hard to lose a ball. So silly of me to think otherwise!! ;)
That's the thing with us high handicappers. We try harder. I lost 5 at PD alone. And that's not counting the two I was able to gingerly retrieve from the gorse.
-
The caddie yard has a impossible time not letting how a course is to loop influence their opinion on the golf course, and rightfully so.
Joe - I'm a little confused with the sentence above, can you clarify?
-
It is a big question, and I guess this board really isn't interested in answering those types of questions.
I'm consistently disappointed with how little thought people will put into what they'll type on the internet.....
4 posts and 1 hour. Are you this impatient with your players? ;D
Have you read this?:
There is no greatest golf course: there are only greatest golf courses
http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf
Cheers
-
Joe (or Tom),
Do you suspect that Old Mac will eventually start to move down from its initial rank (especially Golfweek), considering it's likely that those playing and ranking it in 2010 were more likely to seek it out and more likely to enjoy it than Raters playing it in subsequent years? I haven't paid enough attention to how other courses have debuted and migrated after opening.
Jim
Jim:
That phenomenon is generally true for all new courses that debut highly in the rankings. The people who tend to seek them out first are the people who like that particular architect's work. Once more of the general population goes to see if they were right about the new course, it tends to slip down the list. But, I don't know if it's as true for Bandon as for other places ... a lot of people were going there to play golf irrespective of the opening of Old Macdonald, so they weren't necessarily as self-selected of a group.
Plus, I am still out there trying to build new courses that are even better! :)
-
The caddie yard has a impossible time not letting how a course is to loop influence their opinion on the golf course, and rightfully so.
Joe - I'm a little confused with the sentence above, can you clarify?
Mike
Caddies want players to make putts and score well. They think it is the determining factor in weather or not they did a good job. I guess it is human nature. So when a discussion about the golf courses come up it is hard for caddies to talk as golfers about the golf courses instead of caddies.
-
Full disclosure- I take Joe as a looper whenever possible at Bandon Dunes. His enthusiasm for the resort, golf and GCA is infectious. Needless to say, I am a big fan of Joe's. Folks- go back and read his original post- he raised an interesting question from a very informed/exprienced viewpoint. These are the kind of posts/perspective that this board needs more of (as opposed to neurotic obsessive study of a handful of classics). We can do without the prickly slights (Tom) or knee jerk rush to judments (many of the rest of you).
I love Old MacDonald. The first time I arrived to the 3rd tee and stared at that imposing dune and said "I'm expected to hit over that with this 3 club wind in my face??!!" And then preceded to do just that- wow was that exciting- plus the hike up the dune and the landscape and horizon that smacks you in the face- I could go on and on with how exciting and unique I find this course/design is. From what I understand- Trails is the caddies favorite course, but last in rounds played? Joe- a piece from you on your observations about how caddies and players recieve these courses differently would be great- you are probably the best resource for the question you ask.
-
Ted,
Please point out/explain how I was off-base by asking Joe to explain this?
It is hard to lose a golf ball on all 4 courses at the resort.
I'm sure he's an excellent caddy and all, but honestly, what else am I to think when he says something looney tunes like that?
-
Maybe the better metric is where do the caddies play?
-
I think liking Old Mac mainly comes down to whether you are willing to accept a course where a pretty large percentage of the challenge and interest lies in the green complexes and surrounds. For the better player its not hard to get on/around most of the greens in regulation, but its still tough to make pars or better once you get there. Some people (including some of you) love that aspect of the course. Others don't. I think the greens are great, but my personal preference is a course that has a great balance between the long game and the short game, and I think OM falls a bit short there compared to the other courses at the resort (especially Trails and Pac) that have both great greens and great interest tee-to-green. On future trips, I would spend more time on those two courses and less at OM. BD is somewhere in the middle. Its a polar opposite from a place like Atlanta Athletic Club, where too much of the emphasis is tee-to-green for my liking. I haven't played AAC and I'm not saying AAC is in the league of Old Mac, just pointing out the total contrast of styles.
I'm not saying there isn't interest tee-to-green by the way, just that the BALANCE of the features leans toward the greens, perhaps moreso than any other course I've seen.
Kalen,
I lost one ball in four rounds at the resort, and you know I hit the ball all over the yard. The only lost ball was the first shot of the day at BT and I admittedly didn't really look hard since the group allowed me a 2nd try. Might depend on the time of the year, but generally I would agree its tough to lose balls at least in a comparative sense. I'm sure it can be done.
-
Joe, Could you answer me this? How many, what percentage, of Old Ma's detractors use the word "unfair" when describing why they don't like it?
-
Andy,
I had heard they have done some Gorse removal on Pacific since I played it in 2008. Perhaps they removed a lot of it, if not all of it, because balls were very easily lost on the gorse holes out there, especially playing into the wind when the slightest slice or draw turned into big curvy balls.
-
Maybe the better metric is where do the caddies play?
Ryan:
That's not the metric Mr. Keiser would use, since the caddies don't pay. In fact, it might be the opposite of the correct answer -- the course where the caddies play is likely the one that isn't as busy with paying customers!
-
The dilemma or paradox is why and how so many others wouldn't and don't. It is a big question, and I guess this board really isn't interested in answering those types of questions.
I'm consistently disappointed with how little thought people will put into what they'll type on the internet.....
As for me, and probably quite a few others: I'm consistently disappointed by how few of the Bandon courses I have played -- and, consequently, how unable I am to give meaningful thought to your question.
Sheesh emoticon omitted.
-
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?
Andy - thanks, good post.
Peter
-
I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.
The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.
1. Old Macdonald lacks the definition of hole corridors seen on most other golf courses and ends up seeming to be a course built without boundaries, which is both cool and disturbring.
2 OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole, which is both cool and disturbing.
3. At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts. I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.
4. The course utilizes concepts on most of its holes that I have seen repeated many times (admittedly in interesting and creative ways... but nonetheless, my favorite hole is the unique 7th) which is both cool and disturbing.
5. The course offer tremendous numbers of options and plays remarkably different depending on hole location and wind...so many options that one can never really get to know and understand the course, which is both cool and disturbing.
I am certain someone will come on and claim that I posted without much thought. However, any lack of clarity comes strictly from the limits of the quality of my thought and not the effort ;).
Bart
-
You won't hear a peep from me, Bart. That was an excellent and for me enlightening post. Thanks
Peter
-
Bart,
Good post. I think points #1, 2, and 3 especially were things I haven't quite gotten my mind around in terms of OM.
-
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.
-
Thanks, Tom, I really appreciate the answer, as it never occurred to me that you'd be setting such goals in addition/in parallel to the main goal of routing the best course you could. It's given me something to think about in terms of my own goal setting (or lack thereof!)
Peter
-
Great post by Bart. I love the combination of "cool and disturbing." I think almost all golfers would agree that OM is replete with cool features, but being cool to look at does not automatically mean it will be great to play golf on. For me, the "coolness" of the features make it a blast to play but I can see how others might get frustrated or simply prefer simpler features and more predictable results.
I put a positive spin on Bart's use of the word "disturbing" and take it to me that it creates a sense of uneasiness for the golfer. The huge greens, the great variety of shot options, the wind, etc. all add to the mental challenge of playing golf. I love that about OM but I can see where others are overwhelmed by it.
Nice writing Bart. Cool and disturbing.
-
Bart,
Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"
I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.
-
I say Old Macdonald yields shots of great interest. Pacific Dunes is prettier and more coherent, but Old Macdonald is a shotmaker's dream. So many fun shots to look forward to.
-
I say Old Macdonald yields shots of great interest. Pacific Dunes is prettier and more coherent, but Old Macdonald is a shotmaker's dream. So many fun shots to look forward to.
That's interesting John. I always thought that Pacific Dunes was a "shotmaker's dream". There are so many opportunities to play interesting/unique--and high quality too--shots at Pacific.
Those who dislike the features of Old MacDonald must REALLY dislike playing in Scotland.
-
Bart--
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Adam--
Much of the criticism players have of Old Macdonald centers around its 'unfairness' or randomness.
Kalen--
Almost 8 years of full time looping at the resort equips me with a certain perspective on things Bandon Dunes related that your one round at Pacific just doesn't.
Are balls lost? Of course they are. Sometimes at an amazing rate. There are a couple of observations though that prove my point.
Players are consistently amazed at how few balls they lose. They come expecting to dump pro-v after pro-v into the gorse or over the cliff. It doesn't happen. Andy's experience isn't the exception to the rule, it IS the rule.
Higher handicappers usually play better then their handicaps here. Why? Because tee balls that would be lost at home are in play here. I wish I had a dollar for every big group over the years that gave their highest handicapped friend a hard time all trip for winning all the money and being a 'sand bagger'.
Every effort has been made at Bandon Dunes to design, build and maintain courses that are playable. It is an essential part of the experience. I'd argue it is one of the many unique aspects of our golf that makes it so appealing to the return customer. Keeping lost balls to a minimum is essential part of that equation and the width that is presented at the resort proves the intent.
-
I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.
The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.
1. Old Macdonald lacks the definition of hole corridors seen on most other golf courses and ends up seeming to be a course built without boundaries, which is both cool and disturbring.
2 OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole, which is both cool and disturbing.
3. At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts. I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.
4. The course utilizes concepts on most of its holes that I have seen repeated many times (admittedly in interesting and creative ways... but nonetheless, my favorite hole is the unique 7th) which is both cool and disturbing.
5. The course offer tremendous numbers of options and plays remarkably different depending on hole location and wind...so many options that one can never really get to know and understand the course, which is both cool and disturbing.
I am certain someone will come on and claim that I posted without much thought. However, any lack of clarity comes strictly from the limits of the quality of my thought and not the effort ;).
Bart
Bart or whoever
Could you go into more detail about #1? That concept strikes me as perhaps the most under-utilized in architecture and one I have really enjoyed the few times I saw it pulled off well. If I am understanding you correctly the disturbing aspect is the wide open choice with seemingly little trouble no matter which route (if they can be called that) is taken. This may the sort of the feature which takes time to understand and may be more appreciated once one learns pin positions, wind and a general idea of what score one hopes to acheive.
Ciao
-
I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.
The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.
2 OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole, which is both cool and disturbing.
3. At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts. I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.
With such large greens, golfers get away with wayward approach shots that are 20-30 yds off line. Perhaps the issue here is that they don't acknowledge that on any another course they would probably have ended up in a pond, thick rough or OOB. They end up with a 100 ft putt, and not surprisingly they three putt it. What's the first emotion they feel? Frustration. they may have hit the green in regulation but they end up with bogey. Golfers hate to three putt and during a post mortem of a round, will highlight the number of GIRs and the three putts they had.
-
Here's another ringing endorsement for Tom. ;D
People figured it was just about time for Tom to have a high rated course so they did it for him with Pacific Dunes. They were mistaken, they should have waited until he helped Jim Urbina bring the truly great course there. ;D
Clearly sticks are going to like Pacific Dunes. Clearly sticks are more apt to travel to places like Bandon. Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.
Are you saying that OM is easier for the higher handicapper than PD?
Anthony
-
If I am understanding you correctly the disturbing aspect is the wide open choice with seemingly little trouble no matter which route (if they can be called that) is taken. This may the sort of the feature which takes time to understand and may be more appreciated once one learns pin positions, wind and a general idea of what score one hopes to acheive.
Sean:
That's the sort of feature that many people are NEVER going to appreciate; many will give up on it before they understand it.
But, that's the course. So far, the criticisms are that's it's too wide open, you hit a putter for your recovery shot, it's too random, it's unfair. I don't hear many people telling me it's too easy -- because it's not. It's just difficult in unconventional ways that frustrate some types of players.
-
I don't consider it a dilemma though..more like choosing between butter pecan ice cream, which I love, and chocolate fudge ice cream, which I don't happen to love but can completely understand why others do...
That's it! If and when we ever meet, we are definitely droppin' the gloves!
Wish I could comment on OM...
Isn't this Joe's reason for the thread? Also the 26% thing makes no since because many travelers are coming to play the new course. Of course its going to get more than 26% of the play. I still have the hmmmm also fealing about OM. I wish it was not a replica course and Tom could have just done his thing with the land. THe best hole is this 8th which ironically is not a template.
Anthony
-
Anthony:
The 26% is the long term goal. We can't really measure that until next year or the year after and see how it's holding up. But I expect it to hold up fine.
Mr. Keiser hates the term "replica course," so be careful or they won't take your reservation to return. ;) As for another Doak original, if Mike had been comfortable with an original, he would have hired a new designer instead. I'm glad he didn't.
-
Bart,
Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"
I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.
For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.
Anthony
-
2 OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole, which is both cool and disturbing.
How do they compare in size to those on TOC re. surface area ?
-
I say Old Macdonald yields shots of great interest. Pacific Dunes is prettier and more coherent, but Old Macdonald is a shotmaker's dream. So many fun shots to look forward to.
This sums it up for me.
And to comment on the "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?" I don't buy this comment. There's enough room out on OM to where many recoveries would be better executed by using a pitch or even a lofted shot. This is especially true when the shot is into the wind. Obviously, this is aimed more towards the better player but I came across a few recoveries out there where the putter was last club that I would have used.
-
With such large greens, golfers get away with wayward approach shots that are 20-30 yds off line. Perhaps the issue here is that they don't acknowledge that on any another course they would probably have ended up in a pond, thick rough or OOB. They end up with a 100 ft putt, and not surprisingly they three putt it. What's the first emotion they feel? Frustration. they may have hit the green in regulation but they end up with bogey. Golfers hate to three putt and during a post mortem of a round, will highlight the number of GIRs and the three putts they had.
I'm sure for some golfers that this is true, but I think my issue is more that the variety of recoveries isn't as good as it could be because you're "recovery putting" from such a large percentage of the course. Given that you have to putt once on the green, I'd like to see a little more variety of shot required when you're not. Its still a huge improvement over thick rough that requires a sand-wedge flop shot all the time.
Jonathan,
That's only true about better players that can pitch or loft shots off tight lies. Its a risky shot for the regular golfer.
-
I've found, on a freedom filled canvas, that recovery putting is often the last resource, for a creatively challenged shot maker. Since the era of shot makers is at least a generation past, most have no idea of the infinite possibilities. Don't blame yourselves. Blame the equipment for being so one dimensional in their design.
Joe, I hope that when the unfair word gets spoken, your ears shut down.
-
Adam,
That is a fair point. You can bump an 8-iron or use a hybrid and achieve similar results (with perhaps a bit less grab until the ball gets on the green), but you've got to be pretty good with your sand wedge to consider that a real option off tight lies. I'm not proficient enough, but of course that can be blamed on my lack of practice as much as the course itself. I still think most golfers are going to want to keep the ball on the ground though for the vast majority of recovery shots.
-
Sand or Lob wedges off tight lies is only for the most skilled, agreed. But, even with the amount of desired roll, some carry is needed before the roll begins. That's the creative part.
The fact that the course takes golfer's out of their comfort zone, is a good thing in my opinion. It illustrates just how much short grass, is a strategy inducing, worthy, hazard.
Everything is right in front of you. You just have to figure it out, which most modern golfers are unaccustomed to. Isn't hat the crux of the C Guide? That the American landscape of courses were not worthy of calling themselves complete tests.
-
Isn't the point of the design to emphasize the short game. This is not a design flaw but one of the objectives. Does it make OM a little unbalanced? Of course it does but it was ment to be unbalanced. Does that keep it lower on the top 100 because it is unbalanced? Of course,but its not designed to meet the perfect criteria of highly ranked more balanced courses. In the long run I'll take unbalanced over balanced.
Anthony
-
Given that you have to putt once on the green, I'd like to see a little more variety of shot required when you're not. Its still a huge improvement over thick rough that requires a sand-wedge flop shot all the time.
Jonathan,
That's only true about better players that can pitch or loft shots off tight lies. Its a risky shot for the regular golfer.
Okay, Andy, I think I'd like to summarize your views.
What is crystallizing for me in this discussion is that good players don't like a course if they feel it doesn't reward their greater skill appropriately. They want the course to be relatively tight off the tee, so their driving is rewarded. They want a variety of recovery shots around the greens, so their ability to recover is rewarded -- especially bunker shots, which are easy for them. So, they are uncomfortable with a course which seems to allow people to "get away" with bad shots and to make easy bogeys and the occasional par with nothing more than a putter.
But, that's not enough! You've got to also criticize the design because "only better players can pitch or loft shots off tight lies," which is too risky for the regular golfer. [I did not see the Public Links event on TV, but noted that in later matches the competitors often tried something besides a putter for recovery shots ... sometimes successfully, but other times to their detriment.]
Here's the rub. Golf is really only about one thing -- it's about getting the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible. It's not an obstacle course where you have to succeed at ten different shots in order to finish. If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault? Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often?
Part of the point of Old Macdonald is to let the C player just make his bogeys and doubles all day and enjoy the course and get out of the way. Good players usually don't have a problem with that, but it seems to bother them much more when they sometimes can't do better than bogeys and doubles themsleves.
-
Isn't the point of the design to emphasize the short game. This is not a design flaw but one of the objectives. Does it make OM a little unbalanced? Of course it does but it was ment to be unbalanced. Does that keep it lower on the top 100 because it is unbalanced? Of course,but its not designed to meet the perfect criteria of highly ranked more balanced courses. In the long run I'll take unbalanced over balanced.
Anthony
Anthony:
I do not think Old Macdonald emphasizes the short game. There are a lot of long shots out there which are very exciting for a real shotmaker to try.
As for unbalanced -- the course is not deliberately unbalanced -- it is just that I do not believe the objective of golf architecture is to produce a "balanced test of golf". That's what I was just trying to get across to Andy -- he's assuming that that is the ultimate goal. Why would it be? If I had to always build a balanced test of golf, then 99% of players would walk off every course feeling inadequate.
-
Sand or Lob wedges off tight lies is only for the most skilled, agreed. But, even with the amount of desired roll, some carry is needed before the roll begins. That's the creative part.
This is true. The problem with the putter in some situations around OM and even all of the courses at Bandon is that some of the humps and bumps are severe in spots and you realistically can't use the putter and expect to get the ball close. Once the putter gets the ball rolling....it's gone.
If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault? Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often?
Tom,
I don't think the course is at fault. The good players in the wide spectrum of things aren't really that good. Touring professionals are good and that's about it!
-
Tom,
I don't have time to address this properly until this evening, but I'm not a particularly good player these days, although perhaps I've retained the mindset. I'm an especially poor chipper, so these types of surrounds if anything work to my advantage as it encourages others to try the shots I'm more competent to pull off.
However, I've never cared for the idea that courses try to level the playing field. I'm ok with there being an advantage to proper execution, even if I can't benefit from it. I understand why higher handicaps love courses that level the playing field, but I wouldn't expect better players to universally like the idea!
-
Andy:
I am not trying to "level the playing field" any more than I'm trying to "produce a balanced test of golf". That's your interpretation, subtly influenced by your own biases.
I am trying to give each different description of golfer something they'll enjoy. For the C players, it's getting them around in one piece. For the A players, it's giving them a challenge. I think Old Macdonald does both -- maybe too well for some people's tastes and preconceptions!
P.S. I do not mean to be picking on you, in particular. I am trying to discuss this in terms of "the better player" and their biases, which you have tried to articulate.
-
Andy:
I am not trying to "level the playing field" any more than I'm trying to "produce a balanced test of golf". That's your interpretation, subtly influenced by your own biases.
I am trying to give each different description of golfer something they'll enjoy. For the C players, it's getting them around in one piece. For the A players, it's giving them a challenge. I think Old Macdonald does both -- maybe too well for some people's tastes and preconceptions!
Do you see the A player being more critical than the C player because of the grren sizes?
Anthony
-
Andy, Tom - fine discussion. It strikes me that there is an element of reality vs perception here. I'm of the mind that a course can't actually 'level the playing field', i.e. a better player will alway has the advantage....IF he is indeed the better player (in truth as opposed to in his own mind). And it is the golf course, ANY golf course, that will tell him this. Sometimes the better player doesn't like what the course tells him.
Peter
-
My next t shirt:
(http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc396/geopazin/oldmac.jpg)
Terrific post, Bart, seriously. Probably the best one for someone who hasn't seen the course in person.
-----
Okay, Andy, I think I'd like to summarize your views.
What is crystallizing for me in this discussion is that good players don't like a course if they feel it doesn't reward their greater skill appropriately. They want the course to be relatively tight off the tee, so their driving is rewarded. They want a variety of recovery shots around the greens, so their ability to recover is rewarded -- especially bunker shots, which are easy for them. So, they are uncomfortable with a course which seems to allow people to "get away" with bad shots and to make easy bogeys and the occasional par with nothing more than a putter.
But, that's not enough! You've got to also criticize the design because "only better players can pitch or loft shots off tight lies," which is too risky for the regular golfer. [I did not see the Public Links event on TV, but noted that in later matches the competitors often tried something besides a putter for recovery shots ... sometimes successfully, but other times to their detriment.]
Here's the rub. Golf is really only about one thing -- it's about getting the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible. It's not an obstacle course where you have to succeed at ten different shots in order to finish. If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault? Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often?
Part of the point of Old Macdonald is to let the C player just make his bogeys and doubles all day and enjoy the course and get out of the way. Good players usually don't have a problem with that, but it seems to bother them much more when they sometimes can't do better than bogeys and doubles themsleves.
I'm saving this one to my computer for future reference.
-
Two thoughts (and take this with as many grains of salt as you want, since I've never been to Bandon):
-- I read somewhere -- maybe Ran's review, or in Tom's comments elsewhere (and he gets at it here in this thread) -- that of the four Bandon courses, OM may be hardest for the low-handicapper and easiest for the high-handicapper. Some of the criticism that Joe and Tom reference about OM is some of the same criticism you hear about Scottish links courses (esp. TOC) -- little definition, random outcomes, the arbitrary nature of many holes. High handicappers are used to playing on a broader canvas than the low handicapper -- they hit the ball all over the place! So maybe OM appeals to them for providing that broader canvas.
-- Is OM criticized unduly or unfairly because it's the most "Scottish" (or "Irish" or "UK-ish") of the courses at Bandon, and thus the pencil-scoreboard-KEEP A SCORE AT ALL COSTS golfers doesn't see the appeal of it? I'm struck by how many references to scoring there are on this thread; when I went to Scotland and played with locals, hardly anyone kept score on individual holes -- they were either playing match-play, or simply playing the course for enjoyment and challenge, and not for keeping a score. Does OM lend itself (moreso than the other three Bandon courses) to match-play, and NOT being obsessive about one's score? The public-links match-play earlier this year looked like it was producing some really interesting play and choices out of the golfers.
-
Do you see the A player being more critical than the C player because of the grren sizes?
Anthony:
I don't really know, I haven't received enough feedback on the course yet. Joe Bentham would probably have a better idea than me. I would GUESS that A players think the greens are too big in theory -- they think they should be harder to hit. Meanwhile, C players don't worry about the size of a green in concept at all -- but some of them will three-putt and four-putt all day. Some of the C players will hate the course for that, but others won't care at all, they'll just be happy they didn't lose many balls.
-
I've spoken to multiple people that have played Old MacDonald this year who have very little to zero interest in playing it again.
This is a great illustration of the problems with sampling error. I too have spoken to numerous golfers who've played Old Mac and I am surprised how almost to the man they thought it was an outstanding, fun, unusual course. In fact, from my three trips to Bandon and many discussions with golfers from all over the place, there appears to be much less concensus on the popularity/greatness of Pacific Dunes- a number of people I've talked to prefer Bandon Dunes. It does appear that Bandon Trails sucks hind teat, an estimation I do not share. I'd thought that by now I would have strong preferences among the four as I do with most things but I don't. Put me out there on a moderately decent day on any of the four and I am happy as a clam.
Joe Bentham,
You have my admiration and sympathy for your work at Bandon. You are a much better man than I could be, chasing the ball of my two opponents, yet obliging their need to consult on each of their shots. I actually thought about shanking one your way with hopes of temporarily disabling you (and getting on with things), but I don't remember hitting a ball close (or hard enough) to where I was aiming that day so it would have been for naught.
From the loopers' perspective, please rank the courses in terms of the difficulty of your work (hardest to easiest) and why. Does it resemble how difficult they are for the player to walk? And how they would be ranked in terms of popularity?
Are the Trails greens that difficult to read and putt in comparison to the other courses? Would repeated play/familiarity/experience diminish the variance among the four?
It will be interesting to see what happens to Old Mac when the greens mature and the speeds get up to Trails'.
-
Joe,
What percentage of your loops are for total hacks? Seems to me like Bandon would get less of those than other places because if the nature of the place. Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.
-
Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.
Why? They make up the majority of golfers...
-
If I am understanding you correctly the disturbing aspect is the wide open choice with seemingly little trouble no matter which route (if they can be called that) is taken. This may the sort of the feature which takes time to understand and may be more appreciated once one learns pin positions, wind and a general idea of what score one hopes to acheive.
Sean:
That's the sort of feature that many people are NEVER going to appreciate; many will give up on it before they understand it.
But, that's the course. So far, the criticisms are that's it's too wide open, you hit a putter for your recovery shot, it's too random, it's unfair. I don't hear many people telling me it's too easy -- because it's not. It's just difficult in unconventional ways that frustrate some types of players.
Tom
Just so I understand what we are talking about, is the 4th tee shot at Pennard an example? While I understand that this hole only plays wide open off the tee because the rough is virtually non-existent, the effect is literally a wide open tee shot - ironically with the only trouble if one actually follows the fairway and hits it too far. Another course which has a many of these wide open holes is Bulls Bay, but because so often blindness or elevation change is involved the tee shots don't seem nearly as perplexing.
So far as the putter recovery issue is concerned, to me this is the ultimate in options because different skills can be utilized to great effect. I happen to have a great respect for a well judged long putt and think it one of the most beautiful shots in golf, but for more skilled players they can use a more lofted club for anything from the runner to the one bounce and check shot. Not having the skill to pull off these spin spins shots from short grass is not a shortcoming of the course because there are often other options. On the flip side for say a course like Yeamans Hall, I do think the there is a shortcoming in the rgeen complex designs because so often there is no option of type of recovery - even Pinehurst offers more options and if I believe that something is amiss with the design.
Ciao
-
I recently spoke with a member of my club who just came back from a trip to Bandon. He was part of a foursome of seniors who are all very good players - 0 to 5 handicaps. He said they didn't like OM and just didn't get it - especially the enormous greens. I think that the size of the greens is even more of a factor than the width of the fairways as to why there is some dislike of the course. You can score pretty well on a course if you hit it long and perhaps a bit crooked but if you are not a good putter you cannot make low scores. Higher handicap players accept that they will 3 putt some greens but better players will not. The greens are OM are so enormous that 3 and 4 putts are quite common and this goes for better players as well. The better player can use his skill to get up and down from off a regular sized green but at OM he winds up on the green with an enormous putt where his skills are not as much of an advantage. Yes, he is a good putter but a 70 foot putt across an undulating green is difficult for all players but the better player is simply not enthusiastic about a challenge like that because he is not able to take as much advantage of his skills.
-
Joe,
What percentage of your loops are for total hacks? Seems to me like Bandon would get less of those than other places because if the nature of the place. Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.
I know you don't mean it by this statement, but a 20 is not a total hack. Comparing a 20 to a 2, that is one extra stroke per hole - and in my limited experience, that one extra stroke is frequently lost around the green. And many 20s play a lot of good holes and good shots, they just have a few more blow ups. More than anything else, I'd guess a 20 is a 20 due to lack of play and practice, not because he doesn't have any skills.
Ok, John, fire away with both barrels...
-
With such large greens, golfers get away with wayward approach shots that are 20-30 yds off line. Perhaps the issue here is that they don't acknowledge that on any another course they would probably have ended up in a pond, thick rough or OOB. They end up with a 100 ft putt, and not surprisingly they three putt it. What's the first emotion they feel? Frustration.
No question they don't acknowledge the fact that the shot they just hit would have been in a pond, thick rough or OB at home. Then once they get the putter in their hand, no matter from where they are, they expect to get it close. I find myself saying "well if you'd hit that with a wedge you'd love the result". High handicappers are happy when greenside recovery shots get on the green when they are hit with wedges but give that same golfer his putter from that spot and he'll expect to burn an edge and two putt.
Sean--
90 percent of golfers who kept a USGA index last year didn't break 100 on a regular basis. We are all hacks. We get the whole spectrum at Bandon but the default setting is at least guys who play golf on a regular basis. Even if it is bad golf.
Lou--
The greens at Old Mac have been the quickest on the resort since the Pub Links.
The caddie yard as a whole LIKES working Trails because of the greens. They are smooth and way easier to read then Old Mac's so a good putter has a chance to make some putts there.
In terms of working the courses, I'd rank them:
1. Bandon Dunes
2. Pacific Dunes
3. Old Macdonald
4. Bandon Trails
And the reason trails is 4th is simply the walk.
-
Given that you have to putt once on the green, I'd like to see a little more variety of shot required when you're not. Its still a huge improvement over thick rough that requires a sand-wedge flop shot all the time.
Jonathan,
That's only true about better players that can pitch or loft shots off tight lies. Its a risky shot for the regular golfer.
. . . .
Here's the rub. Golf is really only about one thing -- it's about getting the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible. It's not an obstacle course where you have to succeed at ten different shots in order to finish. If all of the better players' superior shotmaking skills do not enable them to get the ball in the hole as often as they like, then is the course really at fault? Or are the players really just not that good, and just posturing and wishing the average guy would get his skull bashed in more often? . . . .
Amen, Tom. Much of this sort of discussion begs the question of "what is a good player"? I subscribe to the idea that if player A beats player B on course C, then on that day on that course player A is better than player B. Over time and on a number of different courses player B may be player A more often than not, in which case I'd say player B is generally a better (I should interject that I mean "better" in a playing skill sense) player than player A?
This analysis doesn't answer the question of whether either player A or B is a "good" player. I have no idea how you determine who a good player is, except by competition against other players, and then the ranking is only relative. Where is the good cut-off from the not-good? Against the course, I say the course always wins (absent some future player's ability to make 18 consecutive holes-in-one during a round).
Another pet peave of mine about the term "good golfer." I have a "friend" I play with from time to time who's about my age (near 70). He was a mid-single digit handicapper at one time, but now is in the 11 - 13 range. I now play to a 19. So I grant you that I would consider him to be a better (more skilled) player than I am, looking at it generally. However, he has told me that unlike himself, I am not a "real golfer." He's thinking in terms of skill, of course, and of course he's being rediculous, and I can ignore him. My perspective is that the phrases a "good golfer" or "real golfer" should be used to describe characteristics inclusive of, but far beyond, the skill level, a good part of which is summed up in "the spirit of the game" and other etiquette considerations as laid out in Section I of the USGA's Rules of Golf book. It should not take too much to figure out some of the other "good golfer" characteristics.
I've never played OM or any other other Bandon Resort courses, so my comment is not in that particular context. Also, I don't mean to highjack the thread. I just felt like this was a good opportunity to vent a little.
-
One thing that surprises me reading the discussion is the general surprise/disdain for the OM green complexes. Given the age of the internet and the resources available to scout out courses prior to arriving, I would think people could plan appropriately and even start practicing the different types of shots one might face on OM. If you understand what you are about to experience is unique, shouldn't one take the next logical step and throw your conventional thinking out the window. Part of succeeding in anything is one's ability to adapt - golf is no exception!
-
George,
Total hacks and 20 cappers are not the same.
-
Joe,
I'm surprised by how little comment there has been about the template/homage to Macdonald aspect of the course on this thread. Based on your experience, are the majority of the players aware of, intrigued by, or enthralled with the templates. Or, are most unaware and uncaring and more focused on the cool and disturbing features of the course? Or, are they just trying to golf and score?
On my first couple of plays I was somewhat disappointed because I was looking too much for the templates and trying to compare them to the originals and was let down a bit when I did make the comparisons. On subsequent plays, I was more able to just play it as a golf course and ended up much happier with the experience.
Do you find that the majority of people come to the course with expectations about the template nature of the course? Does it impact their initial assessment of it. Do you spend any time with your players discussing the template genesis of each of the holes or for most are you just trying to manage them around the course?
-
Ok, John, fire away with both barrels...
We need one of those popcorn emoticons.
-
Sean, got it, thanks, that was my bad on a misread.
One thing that surprises me reading the discussion is the general surprise/disdain for the OM green complexes. Given the age of the internet and the resources available to scout out courses prior to arriving, I would think people could plan appropriately and even start practicing the different types of shots one might face on OM. If you understand what you are about to experience is unique, shouldn't one take the next logical step and throw your conventional thinking out the window. Part of succeeding in anything is one's ability to adapt - golf is no exception!
Golf is indeed no exception: my experience is many people think they want to try something new, but once they do, they aren't always objective about the experience!
-
Just returned with a group of 16 guys ranging from +1 to 23. Unsurprisingly the 2 sticks in the group liked Trails best. We had strong winds the entire trip, even by average Bandon standards. The criticism that most had about OM was that the greens were running too fast for the winds we played in. A few of us really liked the course, particularly the big hitter who sprayed it and didn't lose a ball. Most didn't, but that might change with less wind and/or slower green speeds.
-
I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.
The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.
1. Old Macdonald lacks the definition of hole corridors seen on most other golf courses and ends up seeming to be a course built without boundaries, which is both cool and disturbring.
2 OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole, which is both cool and disturbing.
3. At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts. I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.
4. The course utilizes concepts on most of its holes that I have seen repeated many times (admittedly in interesting and creative ways... but nonetheless, my favorite hole is the unique 7th) which is both cool and disturbing.
5. The course offer tremendous numbers of options and plays remarkably different depending on hole location and wind...so many options that one can never really get to know and understand the course, which is both cool and disturbing.
I am certain someone will come on and claim that I posted without much thought. However, any lack of clarity comes strictly from the limits of the quality of my thought and not the effort ;).
Bart
Never having played the course, I think this post helped me understand it in a way that even photos couldn't. Nice job, Bart.
-
I do think that Old Macdonald presents a dilemma, at least for me.
The things that make it special and different and cool are some of the same things about which I am unsure.
1. Old Macdonald lacks the definition of hole corridors seen on most other golf courses and ends up seeming to be a course built without boundaries, which is both cool and disturbring.
2 OM has greens larger than any other course on the planet and one can easily be on the green and yet many yards from the hole, which is both cool and disturbing.
3. At OM, one can generally putt from nearly anywhere and one generally does putt if within 50 yards of the green (Nearly all the recovery shots are putts. I play a higher percentage of my shots at OM with a putter than on any other golf course), which is both cool and disturbing.
4. The course utilizes concepts on most of its holes that I have seen repeated many times (admittedly in interesting and creative ways... but nonetheless, my favorite hole is the unique 7th) which is both cool and disturbing.
5. The course offer tremendous numbers of options and plays remarkably different depending on hole location and wind...so many options that one can never really get to know and understand the course, which is both cool and disturbing.
I am certain someone will come on and claim that I posted without much thought. However, any lack of clarity comes strictly from the limits of the quality of my thought and not the effort ;).
Bart
Never having played the course, I think this post helped me understand it in a way that even photos couldn't. Nice job, Bart.
I'm returning, tardily, to this thread -- and concur, as I so often do, with Rick. Thanks, Bart. (Apropos of nothing: Bart Bradley would be a good name for a fictional private eye. Or maybe an Old West sheriff.)
Reading your list of cool and disturbing things, I thought: Is he describing Old Macdonald -- or the Old Course ... another course that seems to divide opinions.
Perhaps what we have here is a bastard cousin to the Raynor Paradox -- succinctly defined as "Why do I like what I shouldn't?" In this case, the Old Macdonald Paradox, perhaps: Why don't I like what I should?
Just a thought.
-
Bandon loopers frequently hand the putter to players for recovery shots around the greens because most of the players attempt the sand wedge fluff shot they would use back home. That shot is a recipe for a bounced skull at OM. The shame is that more players don't learn the fairly simple bump and run chip shot with a no bounce club (7,8 iron) at home that is a wonderful tool at Bandon. That shot, even marginally executed, will provide a decent outcome and is so much fun. I enjoy it so much, that I now have the opposite problem- I attempt it too much at home and the conditions are too slow. I am a recovering sand wedge flop/flip shot player. It has been 6 months since my last........
-
I enjoy it so much, that I now have the opposite problem- I attempt it too much at home and the conditions are too slow. I am a recovering sand wedge flop/flip shot player. It has been 6 months since my last........
Bless me, Father, for I have skulled...?
Dan (bump-and-run addict)
-
This discussion should be a reason to think back to the principles of why Bandon Dunes was started. BD is a connoisseurs' choice, yet lacks pretension and is welcoming to any with a willingness to try new things. It's level of popularity and success has led to a growth that could hardly have been envisioned 15 years ago. All good. But this success has resulted in more players traveling to BD who expect fairness at all times and their skill advantage to always be rewarded. Their commiserating has resulted in this debate- fine- but I want to make the case that their viewpoints are not valued. These courses were not designed to always reward their skill. For those of us who can't get enough of Bandon- I would make the case that part of our adulation is because, prior to Bandon, (in the USA) we dutifully played the courses we were supposed to play, but usually left with the thought, "I paid $$$$ for that? Dozen lost balls, water everywhere, approach shots that come up short and stop dead- am I missing something?" These type courses are great for the sticks. More power to them- god knows they have a lot to choose from. I ask that when you come to Bandon, you accept that it's a different type of golf- and adjust your expectations accordingly. Don't be the golf version of the ugly American who goes to a foreign place and can't understand why the surroundings don't comply with him.
-
...
Higher handicappers usually play better then their handicaps here....
I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there, with whomever he gets paired with (therefore, he had the misfortune of being paired with me). He told me almost everyone plays well over their handicap. What I think you will find is that high handicappers that spray the ball (me) will play closer to their handicap than others at Old MacDonald.
-
Here's another ringing endorsement for Tom. ;D
People figured it was just about time for Tom to have a high rated course so they did it for him with Pacific Dunes. They were mistaken, they should have waited until he helped Jim Urbina bring the truly great course there. ;D
Clearly sticks are going to like Pacific Dunes. Clearly sticks are more apt to travel to places like Bandon. Clearly if high numbers of high handicappers were to travel to Bandon and give their opinions to caddies (which they aren't hiring, because they ain't paying for golf lessons either) then it would be Old MacDonald in a landslide.
Are you saying that OM is easier for the higher handicapper than PD?
Anthony
Most definitely.
At least for one that sprays his shots.
-
Joe,
What percentage of your loops are for total hacks? Seems to me like Bandon would get less of those than other places because if the nature of the place. Of course, I am always surprised how many 20 cappers we have on GCA so maybe my perspective is way off.
It surprises me that there aren't more. Maybe Kalen and I post so much you think we're all 20 handicappers out here.
-
Bart,
Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"
I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.
For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.
Anthony
So it's "fun"... OK. What is the difference in the argument for those who pan the rough surrounding the greens arguing that it leaves only one option over and over?
Isn't one option over and over a sign of poor design? And before someone chimes in that it is not the only option the above quote was from a very solid player who has good command of an array of short game shots includiung the bump and run and flop shot.
And before Tom has a stroke (with a putter) this same guy grudgingly placed it in his top 100 albeit near the bottom.
Having never seen the course I would go out on a limb and say I would love it and would likley not use a putter everytime around the green... unless laying for a fair amount of money in a stroke play situation. AHA!
-
Well said greg. There are many recovery options at OM. Think about this for a momment. How many courses allow for one of those options to be a putter consistantly?
Anthony
-
Surprisngly....or maybe not, I'm actually a 14.8 now, (dropped 5 strokes just this year), who played like a 20 at Chambers Bay...sigh!! :'(
This thread has gone so many directions, its hard to know where to start.
First for Joe,
Thanks for the explanation. In retrospect, I probably over-reacted to the not losing balls issue. I don't doubt that the resort is better than average in the lost balls department. In my mind, I just went to the logical extreme and that was my bad....nothing personal was meant by the "looney tunes" comment! :)
I too have been interested in hearing all the feedback on Old Mac. When the original 10 holes were opened, all I recall hearing was epic this and epic that. Since then its been difficult to weigh that against folks who have played it recently who are more in "not sure what to make of it" camp.
Overall I am a little surprised to hear some of the comments that Old Mac isn't trying to be all things to various types of players. I thought the mark of a brilliant design was that it was challenging to the good player, keeps the medium cap player engaged, and is forgiving/interesting to the high capper. It would seem based on some of the comments that Old Mac isn't this, or that it wasn't even the goal to begin with? Perhaps I'm just intrepretting the various comments incorrectly.
Carry on gents, this has been a super terrific thread and I've really enjoyed all the comments....
-
Well said greg. There are many recovery options at OM. Think about this for a momment. How many courses allow for one of those options to be a putter consistantly?
Anthony
Thanks but that is not really what I was saying. My closing comment says more about my refusal to let go of the good ole days and prove that 1 of 5 times I can hit a shot that used to be somewhat routine as well as the influence of stroke play versus match play.
-
Bart,
Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"
I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.
For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.
Anthony
So it's "fun"... OK. What is the difference in the argument for those who pan the rough surrounding the greens arguing that it leaves only one option over and over?
Isn't one option over and over a sign of poor design? And before someone chimes in that it is not the only option the above quote was from a very solid player who has good command of an array of short game shots includiung the bump and run and flop shot.
And before Tom has a stroke (with a putter) this same guy grudgingly placed it in his top 100 albeit near the bottom.
Having never seen the course I would go out on a limb and say I would love it and would likley not use a putter everytime around the green... unless laying for a fair amount of money in a stroke play situation. AHA!
There is a big difference between leaving the same option over and over, and choosing the same option over and over. I suspect the person choosing the putter over and over chooses it because it is marginally better to him than each of the other options. To me, another option will be marginally better than the putter in most situations. This is opposed to the ball in the rough, where the wedge is grossly better than the other options probably for the both of us.
-
Surprisngly....or maybe not, I'm actually a 14.8 now, (dropped 5 strokes just this year), who played like a 20 at Chambers Bay...sigh!! :'(
...
Then how come I can't find you on ghin.com? Is your name really Balen Kraley?
-
Surprisngly....or maybe not, I'm actually a 14.8 now, (dropped 5 strokes just this year), who played like a 20 at Chambers Bay...sigh!! :'(
...
Then how come I can't find you on ghin.com? Is your name really Balen Kraley?
Why bother with keeping it on a "USGA" approved site.
I got the formula and a xls...thats all I need ;)
-
Bart,
Heard comment similar to your number 3 from a top 100 panelist... "What's so great about hitting a putter after your approach everytime regardless of the quality or lack thereof on your approach?"
I think Tom has addressed that criticism here previously.
For the higher handicapper its fun. And its far from everytime and OM. Those putts are not approch shots they are recoveries.
Anthony
So it's "fun"... OK. What is the difference in the argument for those who pan the rough surrounding the greens arguing that it leaves only one option over and over?
Isn't one option over and over a sign of poor design? And before someone chimes in that it is not the only option the above quote was from a very solid player who has good command of an array of short game shots includiung the bump and run and flop shot.
And before Tom has a stroke (with a putter) this same guy grudgingly placed it in his top 100 albeit near the bottom.
Having never seen the course I would go out on a limb and say I would love it and would likley not use a putter everytime around the green... unless laying for a fair amount of money in a stroke play situation. AHA!
There is a big difference between leaving the same option over and over, and choosing the same option over and over. I suspect the person choosing the putter over and over chooses it because it is marginally better to him than each of the other options. To me, another option will be marginally better than the putter in most situations. This is opposed to the ball in the rough, where the wedge is grossly better than the other options probably for the both of us.
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
-
Well said greg. There are many recovery options at OM. Think about this for a momment. How many courses allow for one of those options to be a putter consistantly?
Anthony
Thanks but that is not really what I was saying. My closing comment says more about my refusal to let go of the good ole days and prove that 1 of 5 times I can hit a shot that used to be somewhat routine as well as the influence of stroke play versus match play.
Sorry I misunderstood you. I couldn't understand your english.
Anthony
-
Greg,
I disagree. You can chip with any less lofted club quite easily. Personally I prefer a rescue club as you don't have to hammer it like a putter from distance. There are no shots that are off limits, just degrees of difficulty..
-
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.
-
Greg,
I disagree. You can chip with any less lofted club quite easily. Personally I prefer a rescue club as you don't have to hammer it like a putter from distance. There are no shots that are off limits, just degrees of difficulty..
Jud, What is the advantage in using the bunp and run verus a putter? Are you eliminating a turf type through which the putt is not predictable? Are you eliminating a slope over which putting is more difficult?
Given the nature of the turf I see only a pair of options - putt or pitch.
-
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.
What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.
-
1. yes, under some situations you can eliminate some humps and bumps.
2. you can hit more of a feel shot from say 30 yards off the green uphill with a midiron or a rescue club than simply having to hammer a putter that's very difficult to judge.
-
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.
What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.
There are many places that have bumps you want to clear before you want to let the ball roll out. Not best for a putter or a flop shot. Many of these are actually found on the putting surgface which is unique to this course and puts joy in shot selection. Putter can be used but not prefered because of the contours.
Anthony
-
With the pros putting 4 wedges in thier bag, and everything going green and gushy....
Has the art of the 8 iron "bump and run" really gone by the way-side in the states?
(This was exactly how I learned to chip, before i even learned how to chip around the greens with a sw) Its so much easier when you are new because so little can go wrong).
-
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.
What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.
I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard. That is why I said I may choose it downhill. However, we are discussing marginal differences here. From the rough, the differences would be gross.
-
I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard.
THat's because with your height when you putt you look like a giraffe getting a drink of water.
Anthony
-
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.
What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.
I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard. That is why I said I may choose it downhill. However, we are discussing marginal differences here. From the rough, the differences would be gross.
Had many a student say the same as they chunk and skull their way through a lesson.
-
Garland,
from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.
I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.
What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.
I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard. That is why I said I may choose it downhill. However, we are discussing marginal differences here. From the rough, the differences would be gross.
Had many a student say the same as they chunk and skull their way through a lesson.
Marginal differences are not chunks and skulls. Those are gross differences.
-
It did hit me in a way I did not expect. Old Mac has many incredible holes. It just seems to have too big scale at times. I have only played Old Mac once thereby creating some apprehension saying anything. I know so many of those involved that i expected something very special. We all got something special. I again feel like it may be a bit too big a scale and to me loses some of the pure joy that makes Mac/Raynor courses such joy to play. It fits in on the property in a more natural way more so that most Mac/Raynor courses. Yet I felt it loses some of the fun around the greens. It may be the green speeds are kept to slow. Since Tom is posting, please explain the 18th green complex to me. It did not really seem like a punch bowl to me. Yet I loved the hole.
-
Andy:
I am not trying to "level the playing field" any more than I'm trying to "produce a balanced test of golf". That's your interpretation, subtly influenced by your own biases.
I am trying to give each different description of golfer something they'll enjoy. For the C players, it's getting them around in one piece. For the A players, it's giving them a challenge. I think Old Macdonald does both -- maybe too well for some people's tastes and preconceptions!
P.S. I do not mean to be picking on you, in particular. I am trying to discuss this in terms of "the better player" and their biases, which you have tried to articulate.
Tom,
No worries. I'm not really that worried about your intentions though or to speak for better players. They'd fire me as their spokesman! However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion. I do think that your comment about "Old Mac" doing both of your objectives is very true--perhaps too well, as you say!
-
I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there....
Stop it already. Nobody plays 4 days a week at Bandon.
-
That much is true, Joe..............that no staffer, local, or caddie plays that much. I would wager that no one averages as much as twice a week.
We supts. are playing this morning......OM....third time this calendar year!
-
I think there are two issues that are relatively key to the enjoyment and appreciation of Old Macdonald. The first is mostly the vast visual "busy-ness" of the course. There are a lot of spots on the golf course where one can look across the giant meadow and see nine or more holes. This is visually disconcerting for some and thrilling for others. One can appreciate it immediately, be turned off immediately or develop an appreciation for it. The other aspect is the Brobdingnagian nature of most of the greens. Some people look at those greens and their pupils begin to dilate with sporting pleasure. Others see The Land of Four-Putts.
I love Old Macdonald. It's like Sheep Ranch on steroids. It's a fun, challenging and relatively unique course and it would be an amazing place to play Cross-Country golf.
-
However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.
And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.
Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.
The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.
-
However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.
And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.
Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.
The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.
Can a great course allow the following scenario all day long?
Good player hits tee shot down intedned line, Average player hits it 35 yards off line. Player are both in closely mown grass with a good chnace of hitting green in regulation.
Good player narrowly misses the green and is left with a very tough up and in. Average player rolls a hybrid that finishes in a better position that good player's near great shot.
Neither get u and down - Average player takes the hole with his stroke.
Good player has hit a pair of quality golf shots and penalized while the avergae player hits two stinkers and is rewarded... is that that good design?
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too aggressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefore deserves to win.
-
I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there....
Stop it already. Nobody plays 4 days a week at Bandon.
Maybe you should talk to your starters who call him and his wife "dear" friends and exchange hugs with them.
Why don't you stop the BS?
Just because you are a caddy at Bandon, doesn't make you omnipotent.
-
However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.
And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.
Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.
The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.
Can a great course allow the following scenario all day long?
Good player hits tee shot down intedned line, Average player hits it 35 yards off line. Player are both in closely mown grass with a good chnace of hitting green in regulation.
Good player narrowly misses the green and is left with a very tough up and in. Average player rolls a hybrid that finishes in a better position that good player's near great shot.
Neither get u and down - Average player takes the hole with his stroke.
Good player has hit a pair of quality golf shots and penalized while the avergae player hits two stinkers and is rewarded... is that that good design?
No, it's bad statistics. Your sample size is one, dude.
-
Can a great course allow the following scenario all day long?
Good player hits tee shot down intedned line, Average player hits it 35 yards off line. Player are both in closely mown grass with a good chnace of hitting green in regulation.
Good player narrowly misses the green and is left with a very tough up and in. Average player rolls a hybrid that finishes in a better position that good player's near great shot.
Neither get u and down - Average player takes the hole with his stroke.
Good player has hit a pair of quality golf shots and penalized while the avergae player hits two stinkers and is rewarded... is that that good design?
Greg:
Your hypothetical example doesn't happen "all day long" at Old Macdonald or anywhere else.
The "average" player is not going to get lucky time and time again with those bad shots. He's going to take some severe penalties occasionally, on almost any hole out there. He could top it into the cross bunker short of the green on #1, for example, a bunker that's only in play for the good player if he tries to drive the green. Every one of the par-3 holes [except maybe #8] is a potential triple bogey if you hit a really bad tee shot.
And the "good" player [if he has any brains at all] is not going to keep missing greens in places where he can't get up and down even with a good recovery shot.
The problem is that some "good" players are so fragile that if your example happens more than once or twice in 18 holes, they just fall apart mentally.
Do you really have a problem with it happening four times in eighteen holes?
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.
-
ok. the average player hit 5 average shots with no blowups. the good player hit 2 average shots and/or had poor course management.
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.
;)
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.
;)
OK, How did you 4-putt #2?
Dtsclaimer: Question asked by a guy who 9-putted in a tournament, making a 3 footer with about 6 inches of break on the 9th putt.
-
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
Not at all true.
How do you view Seve's famous shot from the parking lot?
On a well designed course with a lot of width, you pay for the off line shot with an approach from a bad angle. On a more typical course, you pay for it by hitting from the rough, a bunker or dropping from a hazard. The average golfer isn't going to get what you ascribe as "lucky breaks" all day long, that's just silly.
If you're getting pars from your hybrid all day long, you're not an average golfer. If you're not getting up and down all day on every hole, you're not a good golfer.
EDIT: read your example again, first time I read it I thought they were halving in par, now I see they're halving in bogey. Still doesn't really change my feelings, however; additionally, if you're halving every hole with another golfer, you're the same level golfer, you shouldn't be getting strokes.
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.
;)
OK, How did you 4-putt #2?
Dtsclaimer: Question asked by a guy who 9-putted in a tournament, making a 3 footer with about 6 inches of break on the 9th putt.
I miss, I miss, I miss, I make.
(Is that not Seve's famous explanation?)
-
I guess the question is how many 5 HDCP or better here have OM as their favorite course at the resort? How many of same prefer it to BT (the favorite of many strong players in my experience)?
-
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
Not at all true.
How do you view Seve's famous shot from the parking lot?
On a well designed course with a lot of width, you pay for the off line shot with an approach from a bad angle. On a more typical course, you pay for it by hitting from the rough, a bunker or dropping from a hazard. The average golfer isn't going to get what you ascribe as "lucky breaks" all day long, that's just silly.
If you're getting pars from your hybrid all day long, you're not an average golfer. If you're not getting up and down all day on every hole, you're not a good golfer.
I chuckle at the notion of preferred angle for a guy who just hit his tee shot 65 yards right of where he was trying to hit it. The angle is no penalty for the guy who has no clue where it is going yet can hit it wildly off line, roll a second shot up the fairway , get on the green and two putt for a bogey and tie the guy who has hit some form of quality golf shots. I love cross bunkering well short of the green 50-80 yards... puts some skill back into play anyway while still alowong for a real ground game rather than a ground only game to succeed.
-
I guess the question is how many 5 HDCP or better here have OM as their favorite course at the resort? How many of same prefer it to BT (the favorite of many strong players in my experience)?
Yes and in harmony with the comments from the panelist I referenced earlier in this thread. He's probably a 2 or 3 hdcp.
-
2 points in your example Greg:
1. Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.
2. Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.
Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke
Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.
;)
OK, How did you 4-putt #2?
Dtsclaimer: Question asked by a guy who 9-putted in a tournament, making a 3 footer with about 6 inches of break on the 9th putt.
I miss, I miss, I miss, I make.
(Is that not Seve's famous explanation?)
So for me it was...
I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I make.
-
I chuckle at the notion of preferred angle for a guy who just hit his tee shot 65 yards right of where he was trying to hit it. The angle is no penalty for the guy who has no clue where it is going yet can hit it wildly off line, roll a second shot up the fairway , get on the green and two putt for a bogey and tie the guy who has hit some form of quality golf shots. I love cross bunkering well short of the green 50-80 yards... puts some skill back into play anyway while still alowong for a real ground game rather than a ground only game to succeed.
But that's really where your hypothetical fails, imho. If you're hitting 35 or 65 yards off line all day, you're not rolling hybrids into ok positions every time, particularly if the well designed hole has preferred angles.
-
The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...
Not at all true.
How do you view Seve's famous shot from the parking lot?
On a well designed course with a lot of width, you pay for the off line shot with an approach from a bad angle. On a more typical course, you pay for it by hitting from the rough, a bunker or dropping from a hazard. The average golfer isn't going to get what you ascribe as "lucky breaks" all day long, that's just silly.
If you're getting pars from your hybrid all day long, you're not an average golfer. If you're not getting up and down all day on every hole, you're not a good golfer.
I chuckle at the notion of preferred angle for a guy who just hit his tee shot 65 yards right of where he was trying to hit it. The angle is no penalty for the guy who has no clue where it is going yet can hit it wildly off line, roll a second shot up the fairway , get on the green and two putt for a bogey and tie the guy who has hit some form of quality golf shots. I love cross bunkering well short of the green 50-80 yards... puts some skill back into play anyway while still alowong for a real ground game rather than a ground only game to succeed.
Greg, is your other name Joshua Crane?
This is the Crane - Behr/MacKenzie argument repeated.
I defer to defer to my learned Behr/MacKanzie counsel, and drop out at this time.
-
However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.
And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.
Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.
The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.
My idea of balance tips things in favor of those that can properly strategize shots and then execute them. And I don't aplogize for that. In no other sport (that I'm familiar with at least) is anything done to level the field for those who cannot do those things, whether it be for lack of athleticism, time to practice, etc. I certainly don't mind if a great course can also accomodate higher handicaps, but its not that important to me in the grand scheme of things, certainly not compared to some. Heck, Pine Valley ate me for lunch for the first nine holes because I played awful golf. The second nine was a 13 shot improvement because I executed at times. I certainly think there should be courses available to all level of players, and that some may favor courses that aren't appealing to me.
I should mention I have no problem with courses having bail out areas, etc. I certainly would rather play a course with a lot of room to drive like Old MacDonald than a course with not enough (like a lot of places). Recovery options are important, but I don't think every player should have the right to "recover" from EVERY spot on the golf course.
-
Recovery options are important, but I don't think every player should have the right to "recover" from EVERY spot on the golf course.
Andy:
I agree with this, but one of the things that peeves many players about Old Macdonald is that there are places around the greens where it's difficult / almost impossible to get up and down, even though it's all short grass.
-
Recovery options are important, but I don't think every player should have the right to "recover" from EVERY spot on the golf course.
Andy:
I agree with this, but one of the things that peeves many players about Old Macdonald is that there are places around the greens where it's difficult / almost impossible to get up and down, even though it's all short grass.
To quote A. Vernon Macan. "You can't buy your score in the pro-shop."
-
Tom,
Absolutely. My two favorite holes at Old Mac were probably #5 and 7, which were also my two doubles. I thought I hit the perfect shot on #5 until it kept rolling right into a very nasty bunker. Both have severe areas with short grass--you can hit the green on #5 and have a tough "recovery." #7 uses short grass as a very challenging hazard!
I like short grass as a hazard--but I think it can be overused in the same fashion that water hazards and bunkers can be overused. Old Mac uses short grass as a hazard VERY well generally, but it uses it a lot too. Good and disturbing perhaps, as Bart said! I might grow to appreciate it more with more plays too.
-
Recovery isn't just about being able to make par with an average chip and putt, its also about finishing the hole with the ball you started with, and maybe, if you pull off a great chip or bump and run and roll in a 15 footer, making par.
I don't understand Greg's argument at all. A "good" player hits a "good" shot into an area where he can't get up and down? Golf is not a beauty contest, a perfectly struck iron that makes a great sound on impact and soars beautifully thru the air while the player holds his follow thru, but ends up a short sided miss off the green is not a good shot. The greens at OM are massive, how is missing the green in the wrong spot a good shot?
-
Don
I was thinking the same thing. How does a shot missing a huge green become qualified as a good shot unless it was about the best recovery possible from a bad spot? Guys often mix up good strike with good shot.
The more folks talk about Old Mac the more intrigued I become. It is definitely the course I would like to see most at the resort.
Ciao
-
My idea of balance tips things in favor of those that can properly strategize shots and then execute them. And I don't aplogize for that. In no other sport (that I'm familiar with at least) is anything done to level the field for those who cannot do those things, whether it be for lack of athleticism, time to practice, etc.
It seems that your idea of balance is to tip things in favor of the specific things you favor. You label the things you favor as emphasizing the proper things, and the things you don't as attempts to level the playing field.
Read Don's post, it says it better than I can.
-
George,
Part of me is not sure how to respond. Of course I favor the aspects of architecture I think are important--so do you! Isn't that the point of having an opinion? Perhaps my labels aren't worded correctly.
I'm thinking of balance as a mix between strategy and execution. Speaking generally, I think courses can have too many options or be too strategic. If you've got 4 realistic options off the tee, then you've got a good chance of "missing" it in a good place. That "might" make for a great individual hole, but I don't find it appropriate 12 times per round (or to that extreme level even more than a few times). Ditto having narrow fairways with trouble on both sides--execution only. But there's a middle ground between those, and I think most of the great courses find that "grey" area. Old Mac for me is a little too far to the strategy side--which might be why so many here love it. Again, of course my idea of "balance" between these two is MY ideal. Yours might be different and there's no right/wrong here, but I think we all have an ideal mix. I would guess I find execution to be more important than the majority of folks here, but probably less so than most elite players (of which I am not).
Regarding Don's post I think too much emphasis is also placed on never losing a golf ball. I've never seen it written into the rule book that the golfer has a right to keep his golf ball for an entire round. Some of the most interesting hazards IMO are such because they contain the possibility of a lost ball. Others because of a steep slope away from the hole that causes a challenging recovery but no lost ball, or just a subtle feature that makes the next shot a bit more difficult but not overly burdensome. All of these things (and far more) are mixed together on the great courses--they don't rely on the same theme on every hole.
-
Andy,
Point taken. But doesn't that circumvent using what the land gives you? If what's available is plenty of sandy humps and bumps on wide open windy terrain, with no trees or water would you introduce some just to fit your ideal balance? would you leave more gorse or long fescue that folks would have to play around/over?
-
Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?
-
Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?
Because they're preferred or non-preferred? Why wouldn't the bogey golfer care?
A bogey golfer can control his tee shots, albeit to a less consistent degree than a better golfer can. If you can save yourself a stroke every now and then by being on the preferred side, why wouldn't you try to do that? Should a bogey golfer just swing away and hope for the best?
Andy, that was a good post, I have to think about it a bit.
-
George,
I think bogey and even most low and mid handicappers aim straight and hope to hit it solid and find it in a good spot. I don't know of bogey golfers that can pick their line. And on their second shot, if they hit it well, they are trying to hit it near the green, hopefully on it.
-
Andy,
Point taken. But doesn't that circumvent using what the land gives you? If what's available is plenty of sandy humps and bumps on wide open windy terrain, with no trees or water would you introduce some just to fit your ideal balance? would you leave more gorse or long fescue that folks would have to play around/over?
Jud,
I think you try to take what's available--perhaps on the site you mention you dig a few really challenging bunkers or include more fescue/rough, something that the golfer has to avoid. I don't think you introduce trees and water on a site where they look foreign. That's perhaps partially why irrigation ponds on desert courses (especially when there is only one) tend to look out of place. The desert often is penalty enough, however. I admittedly am a sucker for holes and courses that use creeks or burns or barrancas as diagonal hazards, but if you don't have one at your disposal you have to make due otherwise. You can achieve a similar result with a strategically placed bunker.
-
Andy's post does a good job of synthesizing the discussion. While the discussion has gone on for several days and pages, the lines for the "dichotomy" were drawn from the start and the issue dates back to some of the earliest discussions about the nature of golf course architecture. There is a continuum on which golfers fall regarding their approach to GCA. On one extreme are those who view golf as an examination of the execution of golf shots. For want of a better term, they are technicians. The target should be clearly defined and the player who can make the best shots should win. Elements of chance should be eliminated when possible. The other end of the contiuum emphasizes decision making. For these golfers, there should be a variety of ways to play a hole and the choice of options is at least as important as the execution of the shot. Elements of chance are expected and even encouraged as something to consider. Of course, most courses are a mix of these 2 approaches. Moreover, a player who makes a "good" strategic choice for his ability must still execute a shot in order to gain maximum benefit. But the difference remains. A course like Old Mac (I have only played 10 holes and walked around the others prior to opening) is clearly well to the strategic side. As such, it may be disconcerting to the "technician" who wants a defined target dictated to him. It may fail to sufficiently reward a well played shot if the "wrong" decision was made in choosing a option. The myriad of recovery possibilities may lessen the advantage for the well struck shot, particularly if that shot went to the wrong place. How one feels about this is directly related to their view of GCA. The vast majority of courses built 1950 until somewhere in the 90's favored the technicians' approach and thus a course like Old Mac is unfamiliar ro many players. But it is obvious that those who are involved in the ratings are less tied to that approach. This explains the high ratings.
-
All i know is many more penal hazards in the 40 mph winds we played in would have rendered the course virtually unplayable.
-
I went over every square inch of the golf course with George Bahto and then with Tom Doak - both playing it and walking. I understand that I'm probably not an objective evaluator on this particular subject. However, I do not care what anybody thinks. This golf course is one of the most amusing, whimsical wanders through Wonderland imaginable and when both George and my caddy told me on the 18th hole to aim 40 yards to the left of the pin, watching my ball scamper up the grade and tumble down the Punchbowl towards the pin was an experience that nearly brought tears to my eyes.
To start with a Double-Plateau, moving over the Sahara dune was an indescribable joy - almost as if we were wandering through golf history. I'm an enormous fan of the other three courses, but this one - with its width and wildly inventive strategies - just stands alone. There will be detractors for sure, but I know that C.B. is looking down (or up? ) from somewhere with great approval. Playing Old Mac was like walking into a perfect Black and White movie for me. It seemed real and unreal at the same time.
In the end, I believe this is far and away the most playable for the "retail golfer" of the four on the property and certainly an essay in strategic design light years beyond any public access course in the States. I suppose it is possible to nitpick anything to death, but I cannot think of a single hole on the golf course that did not give me pause to really look hard at what was in front of me and force a decision of some sort.
Standing on the tee over The Biarritz was a particular "Sound of Music Moment" and the angle of the swale reminded me of a cross between #9 at Yale for depth and the putting surface on #16 at North Berwick. The one aspect that sticks out in my mind is that despite Old Mac being a redux course, there was a fresh twist on nearly every classic arrangement. I've never seen anything remotely like the cottage cheese lumps guarding the Long Hole - nor the ripples in front of the Road Hole green encouraging a ricochet approach along the ground.
Our group stood on the tee of the Short and burst out laughing at the sheer temerity of it. Where else in America are you going to find a cross between #6 at NGLA and MacKenzie's Sitwell Park finale? All with enough understanding of the game to keep the putting surface speeds at an appropriate pace to match the wild undulations. Any place else, it would only be a matter of time before some dimwitted G.M. or humorless DoG flattened out the green and demanded it Stimp at 11.
Forrest Richardson did something similar - brilliantly I might add - at Peacock Gap in Marin County and three years later they have decided to blow up the four most outstanding greens and replace them with garden-variety puke. One thing you have to admit, Keiser has stones. Who else lets an architect get away with a back nine with only two par-4 holes?
In other words people, if nothing else, the golf world ought to celebrate the uniqueness of this latest offering. For a public access golf course, there is nothing remotely like it anywhere in the United States - a Macdonald course where a Plus-1 can play and have the same amount of fun and challenge as a 24 handicapper.
-
Gib, In case there was any doubt; and indeed in case it makes a difference to anybody; put me in the camp that loves the golf course. My post was an attempt to rationalize the different reactions.
-
Shelly,
It is certainly not a mystery to me that Old Mac elicits wildly different reactions because the sheer scope of the golf course is difficult to wrap your mind around. Sometimes you have to read a complicated novel two or three times to fully digest all the nuances. That golf course has so much strategic content that trying to dissect each hole from the various approach angles requires a slide rule and a compass.
Some people (most) do not want to be intellectually challenged when they play golf or see a movie. They crave defined boundaries of right and wrong and are uncomfortable when the answer to the riddle is ambiguous. Most of my friends do not understand why Bill Griffith and Zippy the Pinhead comics are funny because it is lost on them that "the point" is sometimes . . . . there is "no point!"
Even after pulling out the tweezers on every hole, I'm still not sure there is a correct answer because with such expansive greens, every move of the pin reintroduces a golf hole with alternate routes and contours to direct the golf ball along the ground. Anybody who lives and dies by the aerial game is going to hate Old Mac because you have to plan every swing backwards. Chess is not for everybody.
As usual, it comes down to the preference between looking at golf (and life) as a whimsical adventure or an objective examination.
-
Gib,you really gotta stop by here more often.Thanks for taking the time to type that.
-
I havent played OM but I watched the us publinx and just got back from playing toc. There seem to be similarities and OM may be even more confusing in it's open ness, green size, and wind variability? It also seems to be the kind of course where the player often doesnt make the score they think they "deserve" due to the inability to stop iron shots near the hole due to wind and green firmness and a multitude of 3 putts. Along with straight driving (not necessarily long), dealing with longer first putts than one would expect and good lag putting are the main challenges of links golf. Question: is OM much closer to pure links golf than the other bandon courses? Btw, I personally think toc models pure links golf.
-
Gibby, I'm very disappointed to hear about the destruction of four of the greens at Peacock Gap. I played that course some 40 years ago and thought it one of the most boring courses I had ever played. I thought Forrest's remodel was the best job I had ever seen of adding spunk and character to an otherwise bland, boring course. If the powers there are blowing up some of those wild greens, they are headed back toward mediocrity in a hurry.
Back to our regular programming........
-
Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?
A lot of enthusiasm about great golf design comes from comprehension, even if execution is a challenge!
-
Shelly,
It is certainly not a mystery to me that Old Mac elicits wildly different reactions because the sheer scope of the golf course is difficult to wrap your mind around. Sometimes you have to read a complicated novel two or three times to fully digest all the nuances. That golf course has so much strategic content that trying to dissect each hole from the various approach angles requires a slide rule and a compass.
Some people (most) do not want to be intellectually challenged when they play golf or see a movie. They crave defined boundaries of right and wrong and are uncomfortable when the answer to the riddle is ambiguous. Most of my friends do not understand why Bill Griffith and Zippy the Pinhead comics are funny because it is lost on them that "the point" is sometimes . . . . there is "no point!"
Even after pulling out the tweezers on every hole, I'm still not sure there is a correct answer because with such expansive greens, every move of the pin reintroduces a golf hole with alternate routes and contours to direct the golf ball along the ground. Anybody who lives and dies by the aerial game is going to hate Old Mac because you have to plan every swing backwards. Chess is not for everybody.
As usual, it comes down to the preference between looking at golf (and life) as a whimsical adventure or an objective examination.
Golf clap, ;D Well said!
-
I regret not visiting Bandon for quite some time. My guess is that I will enjoy OM because there seems so much to like, question and relive according to what I have seen, read and am listening to here in this discussion.
"Sound of Music Moment" ? really, Gib. Did you need a change of pants afterward ? ;)
[Re: Peacock ... I am not sure "puke" is a good description. A good friend played there yesterday and he felt they did a good job softening the greens that the new owners were uncomfortable with. Gary Linn did the work and he was kind to let me know it was purely owner-driven and was not amounting to any outright blow-up or redesign. I have not seen them, so I am merely reporting third party accounts.]
-
I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there....
Stop it already. Nobody plays 4 days a week at Bandon.
Maybe you should talk to your starters who call him and his wife "dear" friends and exchange hugs with them.
Why don't you stop the BS?
Just because you are a caddy at Bandon, doesn't make you omnipotent.
Wow G! throwing JB under the bus and backing up over him?
You must have spent hours with this golfer and if you had simply respected him by remembering his name, Kent, then your story would have not been questioned.
Old Mac is definitely not an an objective exam but a whimsical experience, thanks
-
Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?
Because when playing from the preferred angle they can cold top a hybrid and run it up next to the hole.
-
Forrest,
The new owners are clearly unclear on the features that separate a mundane 6100 yard golf course from something with real strategic merit, surprise and amusing quirk. Filling in the bathtub green and then softening the wild undulations on #10 is inexcusable, egregious stupidity by the new owners. I like Gary Linn too. He is a nice guy and I generally really like the work he and Don Knott turn out.
Doubtless they were doing the bidding of the new regime at Peacock Gap - and work is work in this horrible economy; but let us say arguendo that the new architect liked what was there. Is it not a violation of a philosophical moral code to deface the creation of another? Does temporary ownership of an artistic expression such as a sculpture, painting or golf course automatically transfer the right of absolute power to deface or destroy?
Paging Ayn Rand. White courtesy telephone please . . . . . Ayn Rand, white courtesy telephone please.
-
George,
Part of me is not sure how to respond. Of course I favor the aspects of architecture I think are important--so do you! Isn't that the point of having an opinion? Perhaps my labels aren't worded correctly.
Of course we all favors aspects we think are important. Where we differ is you seem to be defining balance, or your idea of srategy and execution, in terms of your own ideas. I believe when you say "I prefer balance that favors..." or that you favor execution, there is an implicit assumption that your ideas favor balance or that your ideas favor execution. As Tom says, the bottom line is getting the ball in the hole. And as Don says, there's no style points in golf, where the pretty shot deserves to be more rewarded than the ugly shot.
Some seem overly fixated on the notion that someone can top a ball into favorable positions - repeatedly and consistently, no less. If you're losing to a guy who is topping his way to halving every hole, you're not losing to an inferior golfer, you're being hustled by a superior gambler.
-
George,
I'm actually the guy hitting it all over the yard most of the time off the tee. The irony, perhaps, is that the iron game is easily my strength so if I can find the drive in a reasonable location my chances of getting it on the green are pretty good. Hence why I'm not totally in the "execution" camp, because some days I'm in the woods/water/OB all day.
On the flip side, as an example, I find centerline bunkers aren't strategic at all (for me) because I aim at them and swing hard knowing I'll only hit it that straight about 1 in 10 (depending on the size of the bunker, etc) and the rest will find one side of the fairway or the other. :P
So as much as I enjoy getting away with that kind of thing--I don't think its great design if I can do it all the time. Everything in moderation...
-
George,
Part of me is not sure how to respond. Of course I favor the aspects of architecture I think are important--so do you! Isn't that the point of having an opinion? Perhaps my labels aren't worded correctly.
Of course we all favors aspects we think are important. Where we differ is you seem to be defining balance, or your idea of srategy and execution, in terms of your own ideas. I believe when you say "I prefer balance that favors..." or that you favor execution, there is an implicit assumption that your ideas favor balance or that your ideas favor execution. As Tom says, the bottom line is getting the ball in the hole. And as Don says, there's no style points in golf, where the pretty shot deserves to be more rewarded than the ugly shot.
Some seem overly fixated on the notion that someone can top a ball into favorable positions - repeatedly and consistently, no less. If you're losing to a guy who is topping his way to halving every hole, you're not losing to an inferior golfer, you're being hustled by a superior gambler.
Great final statement.
-
TO channel some Matt Ward here, now that he's gone...
...not everyone likes to eat Thai Food. And in my experience, that number is actually MOST people don't what Thai Food. They want to eat Steak and Potateos night in and night out and not leave thier little boxed in domain of comfort.
Time and time and time again, folks on GCA.com forget that the whimsy, out-of-the box quirk and charm that we admire so much is usually greeted with a "WTF is that" when showed to the average joe as they march back to their conventional Doak 2 munis.
Gib,
I'm guessing you must have switched gears and been referring to Pac Dunes with the "only 2 par 4s on the back 9" statement. But hey I'm right there with you, the back 9 at Pac Dunes is easily in my top 5 of favorite 9s
-
Kalen,
Correct on the back nine at Pac Dunes. Sometimes when I'm riffing away, I mix my metaphors. Maybe I need an editor. It has been a while since I wrote anything but a legal brief.
-g
-
Kalen,
Correct on the back nine at Pac Dunes. Sometimes when I'm riffing away, I mix my metaphors. Maybe I need an editor. It has been a while sincve I wrote anything but a legal brief.
-g
Not a problem big guy.
We'll give you a pass on this one cause ur posts are usually so interesting to read. ;)
-
First of all, I have been to Bandon 5 times, and have played OM once and loved it. But a couple of random thoughts--
First, I love the history of golf and golf courses. OM was terrific to me because I was looking for features from other Macdonald and Raynor courses that I have played and loved. Not to be snobbish, but I wonder if most other golfers have had the opportunities to play as many Macdonald/Raynor courses as I have, and whether they are as obcessed with golf history as I am. Would this affect their opinion of the course? If you are judging it without the back-drop of history, and the role therein of Macdonald and Raynor, I suspect you might not love it as much--and might find some of the features quirky.
Second, as much as I have enjoyed Bandon, I think this discussion group gives Bandon a bit of a pass on its biggest negative--the wind. I know and accept that wind is a part of the history and ambiance of golf. But, having played several times in Scotland and Ireland, the Bandon wind is still extraordinary--and in my opinion is a detraction from the enjoyment of the golf there. In my time at Bandon, I have played at least 25 rounds of golf, and I have never (except very early in the morning) played in less than a 3-4 club wind. I was told by locals that the wind blows this much 300+ days a year. This is more than anywhere else I know--and certainly lessens the quality of the experience (at least to the repeat visitor).
So, while I am a fan of both Bandon and OM, I recognize the limitations of both--and can't be as over-the-top fanatical on either as what seems like most of the crowd here. It is a great place and a great experience, but not without negatives.
-
Jim,
Although your 25 rounds give you a large sample of rounds, I think it's unusual that you feel the majority are played in 3-4 club winds.
Typically, I would expect to play in a gradually increasing wind each summer morning, with one club winds early and two clubs winds late. Play the ocean in the morning and head inland to play the Trails each evening. The underrated Bandon Trails is beyond artistic in its presentation. Bandon Dunes #5 and #6 are brutal in the wind, but overall, it gives you the best chance, and is best suited, to the heavy afternoon winds. One reason why Bandon Dunes is a bit under-appreciated by the congoscenti.
Along with my beloved Ballyneal, Old Macdonald is a marvel of wind design, a spectaclular wide shotmaker's course which allows for the wind. Play five second shots at the 4th, The Hog's Back, a 500 yard downwind par 4, and tell me I'm wrong. Is it better than NGLA? Maybe; I only played NGLA once. I'm going to go down there and play that thing a lot. Pacific Dunes is more artistic, but Old Macdonald is Shotmaker's 301. And Tom, I can't believe you gave it only one star. That course rewards greatness and invention more than very few.
Before I go, let me emphasize the need to play Pacific Dunes with the prevailing northwesterly winds some summer. The four holes #10 through #13 near the water and into the wind form the backbone of the greatest walk in golf. The climax is early, but keep your cool as ou play foxy, rumpled holes downwind. The best walk in golf.
-
Maybe I've just been unlucky on the wind, but I know other people who feel the same way. But I want to emphasize that I like some wind and I like Bandon, only that the wind is a blemish on an otherwise good experience.
-
I've been to Bandon on four occasions. We had several days with virtually no wind in the morning, but 20-25 mph in the afternoon. Given the generous fairways on all of the courses, that is a challenging, but playable wind. On several other days, we had 15 mph in the morning and over 30 mph in the afternoon. That is really a test of one's endurance, focus and general state of mind, because the wind plays on your mind and fatigues your body. Finally, on two occasions, we played with winds in excess of 40 mph. At those wind speeds, you really have to start laughing and go with the flow. Avoiding sidespin and making sure that you're not too hard on yourself are keys to enjoying these courses under those extreme conditions.
-
George,
I'm actually the guy hitting it all over the yard most of the time off the tee. The irony, perhaps, is that the iron game is easily my strength so if I can find the drive in a reasonable location my chances of getting it on the green are pretty good. Hence why I'm not totally in the "execution" camp, because some days I'm in the woods/water/OB all day.
On the flip side, as an example, I find centerline bunkers aren't strategic at all (for me) because I aim at them and swing hard knowing I'll only hit it that straight about 1 in 10 (depending on the size of the bunker, etc) and the rest will find one side of the fairway or the other. :P
So as much as I enjoy getting away with that kind of thing--I don't think its great design if I can do it all the time. Everything in moderation...
Your game doesn't sound all that different than mine; you probably just do everything a little bit better.
I think where we differ on design is that I define execution differently than you. If you are 30 yards off-line, but draw a favorable lie but maybe not a favorable stance, if you can get that ball back into a good position, that is execution to me; I don't think you "got away with something". I think the recovery shot is very much the essence of the game - even more than strategy, which George Thomas called the soul of the game. When the best players in the world are hitting 60-70% of fairways or GIRs, I think there is often not enough attention paid to the scrambling aspects of the game.
I seem to recall you saying something on this thread about a golfer having 4 options, which worked out to too many options and maybe too easy, not enough emphasis on execution (broad paraphrasing there, I know). What you don't seem to consider is that you can have even more options, and it doesn't mean there is no emphasis on execution, as the options need not be equally valid. The sort of thing like, I can favor the side without the bunker, but that means I'm looking at a downhill putt; if I play short, I may flirt with the water, but I will be putting uphill. Those things are options, but that doesn't mean they are equal and that someone can just hit it anywhere.
I haven't played OM yet, and call me crazy or a butt boy, but I just can't believe Tom designed a course where it doesn't matter where you hit it. Just because there may not be an obvious downside to a shot doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's usually what I refer to as grayscale golf versus black and white golf. The best is of course full color!
-----
Sean, I guess I'm weird. I aim for sides of the fairway all the time. The side may change depending on how I'm playing, but it's rare that I don't at least try to hit a particular side. I frequently tee it on one side of the tee box and play away from trouble. Just because I don't hit it where I'm aiming much of the time doesn't mean I shouldn't at least try. If anything, I think angles and strategy can be more important to the lesser golfer, who can't just rip a high spinning wedge from anywhere over anything.
-
I just got back from my 5th trip. Fantastic as always. I have a hard time choosing a fave between BD/PD/OM, but, for today, I put OM at the top of the list. We played 8 rounds this time and I chose to have it 3/2/2/1, with 3 rounds at OM and 1 at BT. I went the extra round on OM since I have played it the least. It's quite a forgiving course to the bogey golfer (although there is a tiny gorse bush left of 13th fairway in which you can in fact lose a ball!), but I find it maddingly difficult to score well on. I'm a 10 hdcp and I've been able to break 80 on both BD and PD (my low round this trip was a 78 on PD), but haven't come close on OM.
On wind at BD: to me, it wouldn't be the same without the normal 20 mph summer wind; it is 50% of what the experience is about, to play in conditions unlike what we do on a normal basis; the requirement to hit a solid shot at a specific trajectory and the satisfaction of pulling it off and being rewarded.
-
While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player. The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit. A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture. A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.
-
While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player. The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit. A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture. A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.
"The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit."
But then golf simply becomes a matter of execution, which strikes me as pretty boring.
-
I couldn't agree more Phil.
-
While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player. The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit. A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture. A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.
"The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit."
But then golf simply becomes a matter of execution, which strikes me as pretty boring.
Phil / Joe -
Do you both find that true even after repeated plays of a course / hole?
The better player has the ability to take advantage of width and shaping shots, the execution part that Phil finds boring, while the +bogey has little chance of being successful when trying to hit a shot that is not in his arsenal.
The better player, when faced with "tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot" will know not to be in that position again.
-
As someone who has played as a high capper most of my golfing life.....(even though recently in the last 6 months I've been playing better and am down to a 14 which is borderline mid-capper), let me clear up one misconception about us high cappers.
We are indeed capable of hitting good shots.
On occasion we do in fact hit a shot exactly how we envision it.
We do aim away from trouble and play for one side of the fairway.
We do consider strategy and are usually pretty good at understanding our limited abilities.
For the most part, we are only just inhibited by one thing...
...consistency.
A good player may hit 8 out 10 shots that are either great or good enough to get the job done
Whereas us high cappers may only do it 3-5 times out of 10.
I can play several long stretches of holes and rack up tons of pars.
Just yesterday, I played a round on a medium level difficult course and had 7 pars and 8 single bogeys. But I only managed a 88 because I had 2 triples and a double bogey.
We high cappers have the shots in the bag to make pars....its just a matter of consistency that kills us, not a complete lack of ability to hit good shots.
-
... and are usually pretty good at understanding our limited abilities.
Kalen - Come on, you are a fine slouch ...
But your comment, which I have highlighted above, makes me ask, do you try to hit shots that the hole calls for (either based on the architecture or hole location) or hit shots that your are capable of?
Mike
-
Mike:
I don't find executiion to be boring; on the contrary, the challenge of successfully executing the shot called for is one of the joys of the game. But the journey to the shot is also -- and perhaps to me, moreso -- an interesting part of the game.
I don't find courses in which the architect "tells me what shot to hit" --to borrow Joe's phrase -- to be all that interesting. Courses in which the architect hints at where to go, or provides mulitple options, or even hides the best line of approach, appeal to me a great deal.
-
... and are usually pretty good at understanding our limited abilities.
Kalen - Come on, you are a fine slouch ...
But your comment, which I have highlighted above, makes me ask, do you try to hit shots that the hole calls for (either based on the architecture or hole location) or hit shots that your are capable of?
Mike
Mike,
Thanks, i'll take "fine slouch" as a compliment indeed!! ;D
As it pertains to shot requirements, the answer is... it depends, and I'll explain.
As one who can't move the ball right to left on demand, but who can also hit a fade on demand, (with any club PW thru Driver)...I do always prefer to hit the ball either straight or with a bit of a fade on it. So if there is any room for a fade or a straight ball, I will always play that shot type even if means flirting with tree branches or bunkers.
Now that being said, if I have a shot that requires a small draw, ie something that I have to move 5 yards or so right to left...I will try to hit that shot. Every now and then I'll pull it off and it works out great, and if I miss it usually just means I have a long putt or have to play from the far side of a fairway.
However if the shot requires a big draw or a hook, then yes in those cases I will not attempt it and will either alter the shot, ie hit a different club or play a punch or some other type of layup as an alternate.
So for example, yesterday I played Indian Canyon which is very treed and more shots than not require a draw over a fade. In most cases when I play out there, as was also the case yesterday, I usually find myself in 2-4 scenarios where I need to hit that big draw but have to do something else instead. However, I would consider Indian Canyon to be the extreme of all the courses I play on a regular basis, so more often than not I usually only have maybe 1 or 2 shots per round where I'm "stuck"....so I guess I can live with that.
On the flip side when I'm 180 yards out and I need a big slice around a tree, I can hit those shots with a low running 4i and more often than not end up with a good result where i'm either on the green or pretty darn close to it.
P.S. But that still doesn't mean just because I can't hit a nice big draw on demand that I can't do it. It just means that more often than not when I hit those big draws I'm way left of my target because they are unintended! :'(
P.P.S But yes in some cases I feel like Ron White from the blue collar comedy tour, relaying a story about when he once got arrested outside a NY bar. He said:
"Just because I had the right to remain silent, didn't mean that I had the ability! ;D
-
George,
I don't think we're going to come to much consensus. I don't worry about the difference between an uphill or downhill putt unless the greens are exceptionally fast (which they are not at OM). Uneven lies are interesting, but they aren't something I think you "recover" from unless there is also rough or something else involved. Ditto a poor angle from the fairway. Old Mac's fairways are so wide that you have to be pretty off to miss them.
Keeping in mind that I'm not really that experienced at OM, I felt that most of the time it was really difficult to get the ball within 10-15 feet, but pretty simple to get the ball on some part of the green. Obviously it still matters where you hit it, but even with mediocre shots it wasn't especially tough to hit greens in regulation. Perhaps that doesn't apply to everyone. It leads to a lot of lag putting; even more so because so many of the recovery shots call for a play along the ground. It requires thought and is interesting for the individual shots, but its still repetitive when done repeatedly IMO.
-
Uneven lies are interesting, but they aren't something I think you "recover" from unless there is also rough or something else involved. Ditto a poor angle from the fairway.
Keeping in mind that I'm not really that experienced at OM, I felt that most of the time it was really difficult to get the ball within 10-15 feet, but pretty simple to get the ball on some part of the green. Obviously it still matters where you hit it, but even with mediocre shots it wasn't especially tough to hit greens in regulation. Perhaps that doesn't apply to everyone. It leads to a lot of lag putting; even more so because so many of the recovery shots call for a play along the ground. It requires thought and is interesting for the individual shots, but its still repetitive when done repeatedly IMO.
Andy:
No, you don't know Old Macdonald very well, and you never will based on your words above. If you don't accept that driving in the wrong place makes it difficult to get within two-putt range of a certain hole location, and makes you risk missing the green in a place where you can't get up and down, then you are never going to see the logic in the course.
Have you ever played The Old Course at St. Andrews?
-
Tom,
I don't think you got the meaning of my post. Getting it on the green is a far cry from "two-putt range" on a course like OM. Hitting bad drives is more likely to lead to three-putts (or impossible short game shots) than instant trouble. Its not easy, but its too much emphasis on the flatstick for me.
Haven't played The Old Course...but my memory of last year's Open was watching lots of lag putting.
-
While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player. The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit. A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture. A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.
"The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit."
But then golf simply becomes a matter of execution, which strikes me as pretty boring.
Phil / Joe -
Do you both find that true even after repeated plays of a course / hole?
The better player has the ability to take advantage of width and shaping shots, the execution part that Phil finds boring, while the +bogey has little chance of being successful when trying to hit a shot that is not in his arsenal.
The better player, when faced with "tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot" will know not to be in that position again.
I don't think any good player thinks they can hit it anywhere at Old Mac, because a good player always picks a spot to which he/she plays to. For eaxmple, #3 at Old Mac, hitting it anywhere over the dune will get you a second shot that can be from anywhere while there are potential advantages with hugging the tree more to the left. And with #4 you want to be left off the tee towards that gorse in thedistance, but you don't have to be, all the holes play as such, nuf said, thanks
The difference at Old Mac is there are no corridors within which you must play like at Trials.
There are definite advantages from start to finish on your chosenline of play from the tee.
-
Tom,
I don't think you got the meaning of my post. Getting it on the green is a far cry from "two-putt range" on a course like OM. Hitting bad drives is more likely to lead to three-putts (or impossible short game shots) than instant trouble. Its not easy, but its too much emphasis on the flatstick for me.
Haven't played The Old Course...but my memory of last year's Open was watching lots of lag putting.
I understood, Andy, and I agree with you ... if you drive it badly, there's seldom instant trouble, but it's hard to get the ball into position with your approach in order to make four.
My problem is, why do you call that "emphasis on the flat stick"? It's the drive and approach which put you in bogey position, not the flat stick. You're implying that it's okay to hit a bad drive or approach and still make par, but only if you hit a "proper" recovery shot and not just a great lag putt. You write as if someone who's really good with the putter will consistently save pars from those difficult spots, but they would have to be VERY good to do so consistently ... it's more likely that poor driving will lead to approaches 50-75 feet from the hole, which will lead to bogeys. Why is it necessary to put in bunkers if those bogeys are going to happen without them?
It's the same on The Old Course ... if you drive it wrong (generally left), you have to hit away from the holes (which are more guarded by bunkers than at Old Macdonald), and then you have to lag putt like crazy to avoid bogeys.
-
Tom,
I don't have a problem with the lag-putt as a strategy--its that its the strategy on almost every hole! Its better than "bunker front left and bunker front right" on every hole because of the natural variety of the ground, but its still repetitive IMO. Can you honestly name a course (other than maybe The Old Course) where the average player uses a putter for a larger percentage of their strokes?
-
While width and multiple options off the tee help the 'bogey' player I'd make the argument that they make things tougher for the 'good' player. The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit. A draw, a fade or what not to accommodate the penal nature of the architecture. A 'good' player stands on a tee looking at a wide fairway and thinks 'I can hit it anywhere' and then when they are presented with a tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot they can't understand why.
"The 'good' player wants the architect to tell him what shot to hit."
But then golf simply becomes a matter of execution, which strikes me as pretty boring.
Phil / Joe -
Do you both find that true even after repeated plays of a course / hole?
The better player has the ability to take advantage of width and shaping shots, the execution part that Phil finds boring, while the +bogey has little chance of being successful when trying to hit a shot that is not in his arsenal.
The better player, when faced with "tough (or undoable) angle on their second shot" will know not to be in that position again.
I don't think any good player thinks they can hit it anywhere at Old Mac, because a good player always picks a spot to which he/she plays to. For eaxmple, #3 at Old Mac, hitting it anywhere over the dune will get you a second shot that can be from anywhere while there are potential advantages with hugging the tree more to the left. And with #4 you want to be left off the tee towards that gorse in thedistance, but you don't have to be, all the holes play as such, nuf said, thanks
The difference at Old Mac is there are no corridors within which you must play like at Trials.
There are definite advantages from start to finish on your chosenline of play from the tee.
At #4 you had better NOT not be down in the hollow to the right. From there bogey is daunting.
-
...
The difference at Old Mac is there are no corridors within which you must play like at Trials.
...
What on earth do you mean by that?
-
...
The difference at Old Mac is there are no corridors within which you must play like at Trials.
...
What on earth do you mean by that?
Labryinth without guide rails. :-*
-
OM is not as wide open as people think. It is very playable but the holes do have nice seperation.
Anthony
-
...
The difference at Old Mac is there are no corridors within which you must play like at Trials.
...
What on earth do you mean by that?
Labryinth without guide rails. :-*
As a wild sprayer of shots, I found no "corridor" at Trails that was significant to my wild swings. It appears that you simply are referring to the woods that border the Trails course. If so, that corridor appears to me to be wide enough that you will get yourself in quite a bit of trouble on Old MacDonald too if you stray that far astray.
If you are referring to the bunkering that more extensively guard the edges at Trails than at Old MacDonald, then I could better understand your comment. But there is a good chance to advance your ball from the bunkers.