Paul, I think my critique is aimed more at the construction and the naturalness of both courses. Its great that they both have their different characterisitics, we aren't talking about Myrtle Beach here, where each course has its own manufactured identity. We are talking about a bluff of sandy dunes. Bandon Dunes has some very artificial-looking/manufactured areas. If you look under the Golfweek critieria, there is many categories where Bandon Dunes doesnt even hold Pacific's golf bag. (pun intended) It's something that seperates both course by quite a distance. A brief retrospect of those areas:
I'm going to do some dissection here that is going to piss some people off. Sorry if it does.
Bandon LOOKS like a resort course. Pacific Dunes architecturally is so superior in construction technique, if not the painstaking attempt by a group of guys to get it just perfect. I feel that the groupl that built Bandon were there to do the job and get it done; go home and cash the check. It looks as if it had about as much heart, detail wise as a CCFAD course here in SoCal. There are too many slopes that don't tie-in, let alone follow the lines that Nature provided and were scooped-away. Look how many plateau-like greens there are at Bandon. Do you think their shaping was the result of wind blowing at them? This is the spot where Golf Construction in 2003 could actually be then 1803 or 1903. The ability to understand nature is far superior now then it was then, when it is properly studied and understood. There is a reason why Tom Doak & Company made those bunkers huge, left of the green on #6, because they actually make the hole look closer from the fairway, deceptively. A player will come-up short and find himself having to putt a much longer distance because of it--or--he may decellerate his swing and come-up even shorter, running all the way back towards him. Did you notice how the bunkers tie-in at several places at Pacific Dunes? Another BIG PLUS critieria wise. (From the fairway, how many bunkers did you see right of the green on #18?) If you really were paying attention, the bunker way back of the green on the dune, ties-in withthe right bunkers, and then it looks as if it is one mass bunker. Unfortunately you don't have that at Bandon Dunes
Does the bunkering look familiar? It should, it was done by Jim Haley, who works for Rees Jones. Jim is a super guy, but, I don't think this bunkering looks like it belongs on a links course. In fact, I will go so far to say that the bunkering at Arcadian Dunes is far superior looking; shaped more interesting, and probably even placed better in some spots. That doesn't mean I don't have an affinity for the bunker placement on #8 at Bandon. Its in some great spots on that hole. Maybe even #9, And I'll backtrack to #7 and say that the bunker built into the little hill-like swale off of the tee is not bad either. But it could have been much better.
Holes #3 and 4 suffer a bit of an indentity problem. No really outstanding features utilized, but a duneline used more for contiainment.
On the front, The shaping and the look of the bunkers on #10 are not what I would call good work. Maybe placed O.K. but not what I would call great shapes for such a high profile project. #13, had its problems, and ultimately, I think it had a redal affect on the course as a whole. I would even guess to say that this is one of the reeasons why Tom Doak passed on the original site, knowing the environmental problems in that area, to an very artificially constructed green. Its unfortunate.
You won't hear a single complaint from me on #14. #15 is a tad too penal, even for links golf; and I don't have a problem like most everyone else does on #16.
#17 & 18 are completely different stories however. If they don't affect the course at least two points in your mind, then you weren't lookinag as close as you should have. At least by the Golfweek critieria.
And, I do respect diversity. But give me some facts why!:)