Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jimmy Muratt on February 15, 2006, 03:21:24 PM
-
On the Dismal River Club's website, there is now a hole-by-hole tour of the golf course. There really are some very interesting looking holes. A few that immediately jump out to me are:
#5, Par 3, 195 yards: appears to play uphill to a skyline green. The green appears to be protected by a sole bunker in the middle and fall offs to the front left and right sides.
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/5-green-back-tees.jpg)
#6, Par 4, 295 yards: really a dramatic looking short par 4 with trouble all around the green. The green almost appears to be a punchbowl type in the natural amphitheater.
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/6-tee.jpg)
#15, Par 3, 165 yards: appears as though the entire hole is slanted from right to left, could play as a Redan.
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/15-from-tee.jpg)
Here is a link to the site so you can view the entire course:
http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Default.aspx?tabid=80
The routing is also shown at the bottom of the page, the green to tee walks appear to be quite short.
-
Um... Nicklaus? JACK Nicklaus?
-
Um... Nicklaus? JACK Nicklaus?
Maybe he actually learned a little something working with Doak at Sebonac...
;D
-
Wow...
-
Didn't Jack start work on Dismal BEFORE he worked with Doak at Sebonac?
-
Golf in the sandhills continues to shine bright!
Great looking stuff. :)
-
Looks very intriguing.
Although Jack may never have visited Sand Hills, I'm betting that whoever his lead associate is at Dismal has.
-
Careful, all this gushing about a Nicklaus course can get you banned from the site. ;)
Lets see... Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Wild Horse, Dismal River and the Gil Hanse course in 2007.. I'd say that area is looking pretty good.
I wonder if there will be much overlap in the memberships.
-
Lets see... Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Wild Horse, Dismal River and the Gil Hanse course in 2007.. I'd say that area is looking pretty good.
Ballyneal is around 170 miles from Mullen, Nebraska, so it's not as much "in the area" as the others, but still............It is amazing to see so much great stuff being built in what was until recently (and in fact probably still is) the middle of nowhere.............
-
The first two photos are evident that Nicklaus still wants an ariel game and will not allow you to run the ball up. He did this numerous times at Old Greenwood and if the pin is directly behind the bunker, you have no chance at getting the ball close.
Does anyone know the status of the Hanse/Shackelford course in Valentine? I heard they had an indefinite suspension due to lack of money.
-
The first two photos are evident that Nicklaus still wants an ariel game and will not allow you to run the ball up. He did this numerous times at Old Greenwood and if the pin is directly behind the bunker, you have no chance at getting the ball close.
Joel,
I don't see much difference between these two holes and #13 and #8, respectively, at Sand Hills (in fact, they look fairly similar). The bunker fronting the green on the DRC par 4 is just bigger. For a very short par 4, a (mostly) aerial approach is not unheard of, nor 'bad architecture', IMO. On both of these holes, there is room around the bunkers to run up.
Does anyone know the status of the Hanse/Shackelford course in Valentine? I heard they had an indefinite suspension due to lack of money.
Craig indicated the date above for it, but that assumes that they get the go ahead this year to break ground.
-
I can't wait to see the next few years. Will interclub rivalries develop? It all looks very exciting for the Sand Hills region. It looks like Dismal even has a "Jack's Shack" to rival Ben's porch and Swamp's Shacks at Sutton Bay. Has Ruppert considered a burger stop called "Doak's diner" or "Tom's tent"?
This is going to be fun.
congrats on what looks like a spectacular effort to Golden Bear Designs...
-
I think that Jack is a lurker.... ;D
Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC
-
Mike Cirba,
If an architect had to visit Sand Hills in order to "get it" in that part of the country, I'd question their abilities.
The land speaks for itself.
What local course did C&C visit before they built Sand Hills ? ;D
-
Patrick's going to make fun of me for siding with him after years of arguing the opposite, but how can you guys make claims about the course from those photos? Between zoom lens foreshortening, the translation of 3D elements into a 2D photo, etc., how can anyone say the photos show the ground game is not available?
Nice aesthetics in the photos, anyway.
-
If the Redan is the most copied hole from the British Isles, then Pebble Beach #18 must be the most copied hole from the U.S. One difference is that #18 gets copied as the finishing hole like it is at PB. It's almost like Nicklaus, Jones, et. al. go out of their way to decide on a par 5 turning left along a long hazard as the finishing hole. Maybe if I am lucky, Mickelson will get in the business and design a par 5 finishing hole turning right around a long hazard.
-
The first two photos are evident that Nicklaus still wants an ariel game and will not allow you to run the ball up.
Disagree, in the first photo, there is no indication what the line of play is. In the second photo, there would seem to be an option of running the ball to the hole if one played to the extreme right or left of the fairway.
-
Pat, C&C spent considerable time at Prairie Dunes before SH.
-
Dick, The land plan is different at Ballyneal. The course is designed to be walked, therefore the returning nines bring you back to the clubhouse.
Now, one of the big reasons it's walking, is for the turf. A secret blend of Wilber's finest. You'll probably be able to figure it out when you see it, soon. However, if and when you do figure it out, don't tell anyone, otherwise Dave will have to kill you.
I wonder what the turf considerations were, and what they are using at Dismal?
-
It is very interesting that generally interest in golf seems to be declining as a whole, yet in the sand hills of Nebraska a totally new, world-class golf destination is taking shape.
A destination, judging by pics and published reviews (I have never been there), that one day may rival Bonnie Scotland.
Amazing, and very encouraging (if only there were some public tracks there!)
edit: I just realized this: #6 - Par 4, 295 yards???
Cool.
-
Pat, C&C spent considerable time at Prairie Dunes before SH.
Brad,
Prairie Dunes isn't remotely like Sand Hills, and it's not because the two courses are approximately 321 miles apart.[/color]
-
They started Dismal River almost precisely as we were finishing up Sebonack. However, I will claim no influence on whatever they've built there. A different associate of Jack's was in charge of the project, and none of them ever peeked at Ballyneal to see what we were doing there.
One of my associates walked Dismal River late in the fall and said it looked really difficult.
As for the questions about "interclub rivalries", all of these clubs are national memberships except for Wild Horse, and I hear even they have let in a guy from Wisconsin. I doubt there will be much mingling between the memberships, though I could be proven wrong someday.
-
It is very interesting that generally interest in golf seems to be declining as a whole, yet in the sand hills of Nebraska a totally new, world-class golf destination is taking shape.
A destination, judging by pics and published reviews (I have never been there), that one day may rival Bonnie Scotland.
Amazing, and very encouraging (if only there were some public tracks there!)
edit: I just realized this: #6 - Par 4, 295 yards???
Cool.
It looks like theres something of a catch. The scorecard on the website seems to indicate that the 295 is not the backmost tee.
-
I'm impressed!
-
Okay, I agree with everyone I think the pictures look good. But I have to go with Cary's comments from a while back, that most people on this board could do a course ourselves out here and have it come out decent. I am sure I am going to take some flack for that one, but I think its true.
Here is the biggest problem I have with the short Nicklaus hole. There is a big bunker right in front of the green. That leaves only two choices fly the bunker (Hank Kuene) or lay up short. I don't understand how this is a well designed hole. Please set me straight or tear me a new one for the first comment.
-
. But I have to go with Cary's comments from a while back, that most people on this board could do a course ourselves out here and have it come out decent. I am sure I am going to take some flack for that one, but I think its true.
I disagree, Steve, as I did very sternly, probably too much so, when that was initially posted by Cary.
There are maybe three dozen people on this website who can build a decent golf course on a given piece of land and less than a dozen who can build one that would please this obsessed group.
Most of us can build a very rudimentary, amateurish rendition of something that the general population might call golf.
If you think we can build anything which approaches the brilliance of a design by any number of archies who post here, or Rees or Fazio, my belief is you are in error.
-
A friend of ours is designing the clubhouse and has reported many fine aspects of the course. Each time he returns I ask for photos, only to be told he will get me some. Well, great to see them, even if not from the source I expected!
Dick Burtness, the developer, is a great and passionate guy. He loves great golf and I recall when he had a site in Colorado that he always wanted to do something in the sandhills, even though his "job" at the time was getting the Colorado resort underway. Colorado never panned out and he has been working on the Dismal River project for several years. Congrats!
-
A few things that I noticed upon closer study of the routing map:
- all four par 3's play in different directions (1 north, 1 east, 1 south, and 1 NE)
- hole #6 and #8 are both short par 4's that play in completely opposite directions, one plays due north and one due south. This reminded me of how great #'s 7 & 8 are at Sand Hills Golf Club. Two wonderful and potentially driveable par 4's, yet hardly ever on the same day because they go in completely opposite directions. And, I think they play even more difficult in a crosswind.
-
Okay, I agree with everyone I think the pictures look good. But I have to go with Cary's comments from a while back, that most people on this board could do a course ourselves out here and have it come out decent. I am sure I am going to take some flack for that one, but I think its true.
Here is the biggest problem I have with the short Nicklaus hole. There is a big bunker right in front of the green. That leaves only two choices fly the bunker (Hank Kuene) or lay up short. I don't understand how this is a well designed hole. Please set me straight or tear me a new one for the first comment.
Who says you have to drive it ON the green? From the picture, I think I'd aim about 3 yards right of that bunker and hope I got lucky. If I push it a bit its fine, if I pull it or draw it, its in the bunker. I'm much better at a greenside bunker shot than I would be hitting a wedge in from 80 yards out.
It might play into the prevailing wind and driving it isn't an issue most of the time.
Or it could be a long par 3 ;D
-
I've been there, and reported a few of my observations a couple months ago. In summary:
1. The scale of the course is enormous. If you go to the website, the routing diagram the huge area the back nine covers. Not as walkable as the routing diagram suggests.
2. There are some unusual "quirky" features. The windmill in play on the early par 5, and a huge undulating green on the par 3 10th, to name two.
3. I agree that the course will be very difficult.
4. That 295 yard 6th hole is sort of a dogleg, with the last 70 yards or so WAY uphill. The picture minimizes that somewhat.
5. The greens are pretty wild, and they are using A4 bent grass, so it will be interesting to see how the pin placements and green speeds work out.
6. The clubhouse and lodging area overlooks a gorgeous river valley. Spectacularly beautiful, well beyond any views at Sand Hills.
Overall, should be a great place. Too hard for the mere mortal from the back tees.
-
An interesting project overview from the dismal river website:
http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60
Hope there were a few entries missing.
-
John Kirk, Tom Doak, et. al.,
Does is make sense to design a very difficult course in such a remote location ?
After you've played it a few times, what's the lure to return ?
Isn't it the, "it's a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live their" syndrome ?
I would think that a sporty, fun to play golf course would be the ideal product, not a back breaker.
What are your thoughts ?
-
Okay, I agree with everyone I think the pictures look good. But I have to go with Cary's comments from a while back, that most people on this board could do a course ourselves out here and have it come out decent. I am sure I am going to take some flack for that one, but I think its true.
That is an interesting question. How difficult is it to build at least a very good course in the Sand Hills?
-
There really is a striking familiarity to the courses in this area. It’s almost as if there has been an entirely new genre created. Almost more traditional than traditional.
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/4-green-(early).jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Sandhills17.jpg)
If I were being picky, I would have to state a preference for wispier long rough and browner fairways. A less manicured look would create perfection.
-
For those who haven't visited the club's web site (linked by 2 different guys above), here are some of the other pics:
#1, 412 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/1-from-tee.jpg)
#1 green (falls away, it appears)
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/1-green.jpg)
#3, back tee, 189 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/3-from-back-tees.jpg)
#4 576 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/4-from-tee,-10-11-2005-096.jpg)
#4 green
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/4-green-b.jpg)
#7 back tee, 488 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/7-from-back-tee.jpg)
#8 357 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/8-from-tee.jpg)
#10 green
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/10-green.jpg)
#11 approach from fairway
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/11-approach-to-green,-10-11-2005-102.jpg)
#11 green
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/11-green,-10-11-2005.jpg)
#12, 565 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/12-from-tee-10-11-2005-104.jpg)
#14 441 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/14-from-tee.jpg)
#15 160 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/15-from-tee.jpg)
#16 398 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/16-from-tee.jpg)
#18 back tee, 582 yards
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/18-tee.jpg)
clubhouse site
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/clubhouse-site.jpg)
scorecard:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/foodstat/Miscellaneous%20GCA/dismalriverscorecard.jpg)
routing:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/foodstat/Miscellaneous%20GCA/dismalriverrouting.jpg)
-
Is it true that the caddies at Dismal River Club will be exclusively female, and wear long prarie dresses and bonnets?
-
On the routing map above, check out the location of the back tee on #15, it appears to be just an extension of a collection area off of the 14th green, very cool feature.
As far as difficulty goes, why must one play the 7500 yard back tees? The blue tees are a manageable 6752 yards and features three par 3's under 170 yards and two par 4's under 300 yards. Now besides length, I can't say how difficult the course would play even from the blue tees, but no one except a low single-digit player should venture to the tips.
-
John Kirk, Tom Doak, et. al.,
Does is make sense to design a very difficult course in such a remote location ?
After you've played it a few times, what's the lure to return ?
Isn't it the, "it's a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live their" syndrome ?
I would think that a sporty, fun to play golf course would be the ideal product, not a back breaker.
What are your thoughts ?
Patrick,
I've tried to answer this post four times, and there is some magical combination of keystrokes on my computer which causes the form to reset. So here's a quicker answer.
In general, I agree. It would be demoralizing to join a club, and never be able to reach your typical range of good scores with a well played round. But I think the true nature of demoralization has more to do with the number of instances where a disappointing result is encountered. For a sand hills type of course like Dismal River, I would say the most demoralizing things that could happen are:
1. Having to make a difficult walk in the native areas looking for a ball. Especially if you can't find it.
2. Having to make a difficult walk into a bunker to play a shot, especially if you have to rake it afterwards. Both 1. and 2. are time consuming and tiring.
3. Hitting a second putt that ends up nowhere near the hole. It's OK if I misjudge the first one, but if I hit a good second putt and can't get it close, that's BS.
Generally, I feel self conscious when I take lots of time playing the hole. I'm holding up the parade.
I played Sand Hills three times last fall. In our foursome there were two low handicappers and two mid handicap players. The wind was calm, but we still spent lots of time in the native areas looking for balls. We had to hurry other aspects of the game to keep up. That was my only real disappointment with the Sand Hills experience. On the other hand, I suppose one might feel demoralized if they hit a wedge approach to the first hole, misjudged the uphill, and watched it roll 60 yards backwards when it came up short. To me, that's more amusing than disappointing.
The natural sand hazards at these sand hills courses are much more difficult than your typical country club course, and I say that's a good thing.
In my experience, most of the courses considered the greatest in the world are very difficult. I thought Sand Hills was really tough, but also also very enjoyable. Same thing with Merion. I think the golf architect has to be clever to present difficulty while pleasing the player at the same time. Harking back to Gene Greco's post, it's a subtle and non-trivial art.
But back to your point, Pat. Not every course should be backbreakingly hard. Mostly, Dismal River and Ballyneal will be played by older guys who can afford to, and generally we don't play the power game. Dismal River will be hard, but the 6750 yard length of the second tees suits my current game. Ballyneal won't be too difficult, unless the wind blows hard. Plus I can't tell you how the short game will be until the dry turf is optimized.
-
Jimmy Muratt:
Well, if they have a teeing ground connected to a green through a chipping area, then I will venture that Jack & Co. did learn a few tricks from working with us at Sebonack.
I got that idea from looking at a plan we have of The Valley Club which was drawn just after the course opened. The plan shows nearly every tee connected to the previous green by a fairway cut. At first I figured that was just an artist's flourish on the drawing to make it look cooler, but when we got the old aerials of the course, sure enough, they mowed it that way. So we started looking for places to do the same.
As for 7500 yard back tees, my only question is how many people are going to play them at a club like that? If no one really does, are they worth having around, and doesn't it encourage golfers to play from further back than they should? These courses do play shorter than the card says, because it's dry and because they are all at 3000-4000 feet in elevation. But 7500 yards in the winds they have out there is a pretty difficult track, even a Tour pro would struggle with that.
-
I got that idea from looking at a plan we have of The Valley Club which was drawn just after the course opened. The plan shows nearly every tee connected to the previous green by a fairway cut. At first I figured that was just an artist's flourish on the drawing to make it look cooler, but when we got the old aerials of the course, sure enough, they mowed it that way. So we started looking for places to do the same.
I first saw this feature at Gil's Applebrook. I still think it's the coolest unique thing I've seen in my admittedly limited travels.
Can anyone make out the numbers on the routing well enough to figure out how walkable Dismal River will be? I think for a lot of architects, the vast territory would provide an almost irresistible temptation to build a cartball course with "better holes".
-
My God, George! ...the coolest unique thing I've seen in my admittedly limited travels...
You cannot be serious...? A neat detail, look and attribute? Yes. But the coolest unique thing...I cannot believe that.
-
Forrest, you don't know how limited my travels are. :)
In all seriousness, I'm talking about things I haven't/hadn't seen on a golf course before. That automatically limits the feature to a relative few. If you have some ideas that leap to mind, I'd be happy to consider those.
Actually, the coolest thing I've seen is all the fallaway greens at Oakmont, but I know everyone is sick of hearing me talk about that.
-
Is it true that the caddies at Dismal River Club will be exclusively female, and wear long prarie dresses and bonnets?
Yes, and the job ad says former hooters employees need not apply. :)
-
I'd rather you talk about Oakmont — real meat — than the latest "retro" design trick that has been dug up off some old plan from a dead guy.
"Give me innovation, not vomit."
— Forrest Richardson
-
Jimmy Muratt:
Well, if they have a teeing ground connected to a green through a chipping area, then I will venture that Jack & Co. did learn a few tricks from working with us at Sebonack.
I got that idea from looking at a plan we have of The Valley Club which was drawn just after the course opened. The plan shows nearly every tee connected to the previous green by a fairway cut. At first I figured that was just an artist's flourish on the drawing to make it look cooler, but when we got the old aerials of the course, sure enough, they mowed it that way. So we started looking for places to do the same.
Tom,
Are you suggesting that you are the first modern architect to use this feature?
I don't know who brought back the idea first but I know C&C have done it as well as Weed, Hanse and I'm sure some others.
Jason
-
Jason: I was not necessarily claiming to be the "first modern architect" to use that feature, I don't know if someone else did first or not. But I surely haven't seen Jack Nicklaus use it anywhere before, and I would suggest that it's not a coincidence that it popped up right after we'd finished Sebonack. Jack seemed to like the feature, and so did some of his associates when they all took a tour.
I did connect the third fairway and green and the fourth tee at High Pointe -- so I know that's where Gil first saw it on a modern course, and that predates anything Bill and Ben did. They seem to be using the feature more and more as well, I've heard Colorado Golf Club does it on most holes, Friars Head has a couple of instances.
As Forrest says, it's partly cosmetics and has little if anything to do with strategic design ... but it does stress the walkability of the course, and we like it better than having to wade through the rough to get to the next tee.
-
I'd rather you talk about Oakmont — real meat — than the latest "retro" design trick that has been dug up off some old plan from a dead guy.
"Give me innovation, not vomit."
— Forrest Richardson
To dismiss it as a retro design trick is pretty weak, if you ask me. It's an interesting use of a walking oriented feature, something that is sorely needed, imho.
What earth shattering innovations have you given the game? I'd love to read about them on here. Seriously.
* Edited after reading Tom's post. :)
-
Jimmy Muratt:
Well, if they have a teeing ground connected to a green through a chipping area, then I will venture that Jack & Co. did learn a few tricks from working with us at Sebonack.
I see that Pine Needles had a few of these cut chipping areas leading to the next tee. I think the first hole has achipping zone behind the green leading to the 2nd tee. The Road also has a chipping zone between 15 green and 16 tee.
The first and easily the best I have seen was at Leven. I think the 15th, a par 3. The tee for the next hole is up a slope which kicks balls from the left onto the 15th green. Guys teeing it up on the 16th can literally be maybe 40 feet from the 15th flag. Very dangerous, but I remember being amazed at the feauture the first time I saw it.
Ciao
Sean
-
So does The Gailes at Lakewood Shores in Michigan - 1993 by Kevin Aldridge. But I guess Tom's 1989 High Pointe pre-dates The Gailes.
-
Marc Haring,
In the drive from North Platte to Mullen you will see an infinite number of golf holes that would all bear a striking resemblance to the ones pictured.
It's the land.
I believe Bill Coore described it as the best land for golf in America, and anyone who drives from North Platte to Mullen during daylight hours, who has the slightest architectural vision, can see the infinite number of holes waiting to be discovered.
P.S. I think Gil Hanse used closely mown chipping areas contiguous to greens and tees at Applebrook.
-
George — I don't know if I've given the game earth shattering innovations, but I do enjoy discussing things like that. Perhaps my take on turfed areas extending from greens to the next tee was a bit flippant. I do agree; it is interesting.
Some recent work from our team includes the following: A short cut hole that allows a non-returning 18 to be played as a 9-hole or a 6-hole; alternate play (routing) on a 10th hole which allows it to play to the 11th green...cascading holes to then include a bonus hole (the course has three separate cards as a result); a 55-yard par-2; a loop of practice holes configured into a course using No. 10, a designated hole and the course's 18th; a peninsula green in the spirit of Desmond, bordered by a stone wall that has running water around the edges, eventually spilling into a lagoon (not everyone's cup of tea, but I like it); a 9-hole course-within-a-course of 18-holes (precision length) that allows members of an under 3,000-yard layout to establish transient handicaps on 9 pre-determined holes; and two par-3s which cross each other over a lagoon.
-
A short cut hole. That is fantastic.
One of the first continuous examples I saw was just recently at Jasper Pk, A few hundred google points back, it was one of coolest things especially since it came into play for the Bad Baby.
-
George,
It looks like the greens are close to the next tees, but considering those are the 7500 yard tees, it adds about 1000 yards to the walk where you and I would play.
A lot of the holes look like the long hitter has a significant advantage - they open up after the turning points - 850 feet if you are counting.
-
Marc Haring,
In the drive from North Platte to Mullen you will see an infinite number of golf holes that would all bear a striking resemblance to the ones pictured.
It's the land.
Uhh...Patrick?
Wasn't it you who started the thread last week that the land doesn't matter?
That's like me starting a thread claiming, "How to shave strokes off your game with the wedge". ;)
-
Count me among the rookies who were floored the first time they saw the back of a green complex dissolve into the next tee.
Never shall I forget peering over the edge of the sixth green at Friar's Head to behold her seamless integration into the seventh tee.
Don't even get me started on the seventh hole!
-
[size=4x]
There really is a striking familiarity to the courses in this area.
[/size]
Mike Cirba,
Read what Marc said.
Then, read what I said.
There's a reason the courses SEEM to have a striking familiarity, it's because the land is almost identical.
I suspect that the courses may NOT have a striking familiarity, and that the familiarity has more to do with scale, and THE LOOK OF THE SURROUNDINGS to someone not intimately familiar with each golf course, each hole.
You're starting to get dense, like TEPaul.
Do you have the same water supply ?[/color]
-
Forrest I had no idea.....my lawyers be trackin you down boy less you be doin this down meheeco way...lol.
...just proves that nuthins new, just new to me the first time I thought it ;)
but, seriously as I can be...call me crazy...sounds like neat stuff...shurr nuff.
-
Patrick and Mike.
I reread my initial post and thought what a dunce, I should have put ‘what a striking similarity these courses have’. If I had meant ‘familiarity’ I would have meant that they bore a resemblance to courses that I am familiar with i.e. British links. That’s why I posted a picture of Sand Hills in there. Sorry for my ineptitude but what I was saying was that courses in that area all look very similar which is clearly a product of the land but also maybe the ultimate design opportunities that the land allows. I guess any other design style would be sacrilegious.
-
"One of my associates walked Dismal River late in the fall and said it looked really difficult."
That's what they first said about Pine Valley too. ;)
-
Marc Haring,
Without playing each course, and looking solely at the photos, I think the surrounding land overpowers the golf course features.
One of the comments and discussions during a 3-4 day trip to Sand Hills was the impact of the surroundings. While they may be attractive and pristine, they're identical, and this doesn't help in seperating the uniqueness of each hole.
On many holes there's a feeling of isolation.
The golfer, the hole and the surroundings are one world.
The high tee, low fairway, high green architecture acts as a catalyst in that regard.
The uniqueness of the topography promotes that effect.
Hence, even if the golf courses were greatly disimilar, the scale and identical nature of the surroundings would present the aura of similarity.
-
TEPaul,
The difference is that Pine Valley was close to two of the biggest cities in America at the time it was being built, hence it had a large potential membership pool, and was convenient.
In addition, it was built for a specific golfer.
Building a hard, remote golf course is puzzling to me.
-
"Building a hard, remote golf course is puzzling to me."
Not to me. The perception of PVGC back in construction had nothing to do with any membership. That's what got everyone else's attention with that course out of the box. It's great architecture and that was apparent from the git-go, but "hard" is what put the course on the radar screen bigtime---and apparently with the entire profession. It even made it somewhat controversial in the beginning. Everyone was talking about it. Why do you think so many within and without the busines made the trip down there to look at it in those years between 1913 and 1918-21?
It was a "ringing the bell at the State Fair" kind of thing and it was brilliant even if Crump may not have foreseen that going in.
-
TEPaul,
Not surprisingly, you've missed the mark, or at least half of it.
Building a hard golf course isn't something new.
Building a hard golf course far removed from civilization isn't so common.
Pine Valley had millions of people within a short distance of the club.
-
Patrick:
That may be your 'mark' but it's not mine.
Furthermore, this whole "remote" thing you mention is into a whole new modern phenomenon. The idea today in a place like Sand Hiills is that at least three courses, even if they're technically competing will actually help each other in a remote area like that.
Not just that but as you must have seen when at Sand Hills G.C courses like that do not need to run anywhere near the amount of play through that most other courses in America do.
Why? Because their entire cost structure from ground up is so much lower.
-
Tom: Your statement about the cost of courses in the sand hills is right on. However, I don't understand how these courses will help each other in any way ... members of Dismal River are not going to be welcomed with open arms at Sand Hills. There may be a modicum of crossover play but that's all.
Gil's project in Valentine may benefit from the success of the others if it stays public per the new plan; but there is also a risk in having no membership to keep it afloat if times get tough. If it's good enough that won't be much of a risk.
Bottom line is that synergy may be good sometimes, but I would bet you that the owners of each of those courses would rather be selling to 1/2 the potential members instead of 1/3.
-
It seems to me that the real challenge in the sand hills would be building a bunkerless hole. no?
-
SPDB,
Speaking of bunkerless hole, check out #14 on the routing map on Page 2 of this thread. It's a 514 yard par 4 from the back tees and appears to be bunkerless. I'm sure there are native blowouts on the perimeter of the hole but the routing shows it as bunkerless. This is also the hole that has the next tee directly off a chipping area to the back right of the green.
-
Mike Cirba,
Read what Marc said.
Then, read what I said.
There's a reason the courses SEEM to have a striking familiarity, it's because the land is almost identical.
I suspect that the courses may NOT have a striking familiarity, and that the familiarity has more to do with scale, and THE LOOK OF THE SURROUNDINGS to someone not intimately familiar with each golf course, each hole.
You're starting to get dense, like TEPaul.
Do you have the same water supply ?[/color]
Patrick,
Neither Tom Paul nor I drink much water that I'm aware of. ;)
-
Must be that Italian wine that was fortified with antifreeze several years ago, you know about the time that Mike and Tom decided it was time to stock the wine cellar. :) ;) :D ;D
-
Some recent work from our team includes the following: A short cut hole that allows a non-returning 18 to be played as a 9-hole or a 6-hole; alternate play (routing) on a 10th hole which allows it to play to the 11th green...cascading holes to then include a bonus hole (the course has three separate cards as a result); a 55-yard par-2; a loop of practice holes configured into a course using No. 10, a designated hole and the course's 18th; a peninsula green in the spirit of Desmond, bordered by a stone wall that has running water around the edges, eventually spilling into a lagoon (not everyone's cup of tea, but I like it); a 9-hole course-within-a-course of 18-holes (precision length) that allows members of an under 3,000-yard layout to establish transient handicaps on 9 pre-determined holes; and two par-3s which cross each other over a lagoon.
Thank you for responding in the spirit you did, I was indeed trying to be serious and not smart assed. I'd love to see a thread on some of your innovations, maybe a diagram of the layout that allows the shortcut hole.
-
However, I don't understand how these courses will help each other in any way ... members of Dismal River are not going to be welcomed with open arms at Sand Hills. There may be a modicum of crossover play but that's all.
Tom:
I'd be suprised if a healthy rivalry doesn't develop between these clubs. In fact, I think a ryder cup style match play event or multiple course member guest would go far to create that type of environment. For me, the idea of travelling an entire day to play one course for 2-3 days and then travel home is far less appealing than travelling for perhaps a week to two or more locations and playing multiple rounds. Much like one does on a trip to other regions.
I'm attracted to these clubs for their remoteness but IMO reciprocity among clubs would strengthen the overall appeal to the area. Perhaps the other clubs need time to mature before that happens but it would benefit all, IMO.
-
George — The only smart asses on GCA live in the West...west of here. When our new website gets up and going I can post stuff (images.) On Tuesday I get to argue the par-2 again. Some members of this very short executive course think it belittles their course. I've told them that it actually makes their short 3 more difficult — now one less shot to match par.
-
TEPaul,
You're starting to make progress, but, very slowly.
Building a hard golf course in a remote area is going to attract whom ?
One of the benchmarks of a good golf course is the desire to walk off the 18th green and head straight for the 1st tee.
When presented with a difficult golf course, that's not the thought process for the great majority of golfers.
Few golfers, after getting beat up, want to rush out to get beat up again.
Who in their right mind would travel an entire day, each way, to play a golf course that isn't sporty or fun, but, instead is a brute that beats the golfer up.
If you think there's a strong demand for that product, I think you're kidding yourself.
As to low cost, perhaps in construction, but, I'm not so sure that the maintainance budget is significantly lower than any other club, interpolating for the length of the season.
And, with substantive mileage between them, I don't see these clubs benefiting one another in their present structure.
For a man who was lost and stranded in the Denver airport for three days because he lost his ticket, I can't see you traveling to Nebraska or Colorado anytime soon, at least not without a chaperone.
-
"However, I don't understand how these courses will help each other in any way ... members of Dismal River are not going to be welcomed with open arms at Sand Hills. There may be a modicum of crossover play but that's all."
TomD:
If there's little cross-over play amongst the courses around Sand Hills then of course these courses won't help each other. But somehow I have a feeling golfers from afar who go out there will have a way of playing all of what's out there. God knows how many non-members from afar play the likes of NGLA, Shinnecock and Maidstone when they go to Eastern LI and it doesn't get much more private than those three. Although maybe that doesn't apply any longer with the recent inclusion out there. Do you know anything about that one, TomD? ;)
-
"TEPaul,
You're starting to make progress, but, very slowly."
Patrick:
If I'm in any way starting to think like you do I'm definitely headed in the wrong direction. Your threads and posts and thoughts are becoming more and more bizarre and bumble-headed every day.
;)
-
I think you will find that nearly ANY player will be welcome at these courses when they are up and running. Providing, of course, they pay their fees and act accordingly. The perception that remote clubs are off limits is, well, a perception in most instances.
-
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/15-from-tee.jpg)
Is it just me, Or is there something odd about the look of the sandy areas?
As Pat said, on your way to SH, you see everything in it's natural state. The distant blow-outs don't look much like this photo. It resembles more of an Oceanside sandy area than this regions. Anyone else notice anything?
Now I will qualify all this by saying, I'm basing this on this one photo, and I have not seen the Dismal, yet played SH.
-
A lot of this thread is laughable.
Mr. Clayman - Honestly now, did you ever look at a pictures of Sand Hills and ask if there is something "odd" about the look of the sandy areas?
Could it be that because Nicklaus' name in on this course, you begin looking for "odd" things.
I am glad to know there isn't any bias on this board. Laughable!
-
Adam,
I suppose what you're looking at could be areas that were recently seeded and hydro-mulched. In other words, areas that will be in play.
And......pet peeve.....anonymous posters are laughable. Why do we still allow this? If the McCloskey was here to add anything at all, he might have actually looked at the above picture and came to a similar conclusion as I did...even if I'm wrong, I'm trying to help.
Joe
-
Funny — "odd" can be both good and bad. I would not call this "odd" Adam. It looks interesting. "Odd" would the palm trees that you and I had to endure as we finished a certain 18th hole a few years back. ;)
-
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/15-from-tee.jpg)
Is it just me, Or is there something odd about the look of the sandy areas?
As Pat said, on your way to SH, you see everything in it's natural state. The distant blow-outs don't look much like this photo. It resembles more of an Oceanside sandy area than this regions. Anyone else notice anything?
Now I will qualify all this by saying, I'm basing this on this one photo, and I have not seen the Dismal, yet played SH.
Adam
Stop it before you strain something. (Just a friend trying to help) 8)
-
There was a thread from last year that I have tried to find in vain that someone posted a few bunker pictures from SH in the 90s and compared them to ’05. Several bunkers have “grown” in since and they definitely look more native now than they did in the 90s. IE if left alone, the washed away bunkers at DR will look more native as time goes on.
-
I believe if you squint hard enough it is possible to see a likenes of Jesus in the third dune hill from the lower-left, toward the right edge of the green.
-
You guys go ahead and make fun all you want.
It only strengthens my biases.
-
For those of you at all interested, I have now leaned to deploy smilies. Please forgive any and all previous posts which did not adequately capture my jabs and sarcasm to the degree you are used to.
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
-
Fascinating. I try to turn the conversation back to GCA and am attacked for making an observation.
Mclosky, or whoever you are. I find your comment to be a most sensitive reaction. Similar to a women who protests too much.
What apparent bias do you have regarding Jack's work? You must have one if you make the leap you imply I was making. It was a comment for discussion not a condemnation of the work. I asked if anyone else noticed anything. I suppose your experiences dont encompass both seaside dunesland and the sand hills regions blowouts. Otherwise you could perhaps grasp what I was trying to discuss. Not bash. Glad you had a good laugh.
Now show us all how much honestly and integrity you have by answering my question.
-
I remember the thread Jason is trying to recall, but can't find it on the feeble search engine. I had made comments then about early construction photos of DR - that there appeared to be important differences in the construction approach compared to SH. That being that DR appears to have more grading and shaping work done for fairways, yielding a more even flow of contours, as opposed to SH, and a more abrupt and rumpled natural lay of the land that was achieve by merely turning over the native soils, and seeding the turf with minimal grading.
I think the DR hydromulching was more needed at DR than SH, or atleast it might have been felt that hydro would yield a faster take due to even more sloping.
Also, I said that it seemed that in the photo up the 18th, with the vast waste area on the left of equal width to the fairway on the right, with a sort of drainage trough that appears to be behind in the grow-in due to wash down, that some issues might arise. Sand migration-drifting from the waste to the fairway (depending on direction orientation) and desication are factors up there.
I think Adam might be looking at what he deems "odd" in that the hydro-mulch seed take on the photo he uses demonstrates a slow grow-in, leaving sparse sandy slope.
The thing about the 1995-6 photos I had posted of SH is that they show significant winter errosion in the bunkers, with various pallets and bales and tires being used to try to stabilize them during winter.
They don't call them blow-outs for nothing. The real test at DR will come in a few more months, coming out of winter that appears to have its share of severe, blowing and freeze warm cycles. Up there in the sand hills, a severe winter can raise hell with the golf course features. With as much sand, waste, and natural blowouts and contructed bunkers as is depicted, I'm betting they will have their hands full.
One maintenance meld or architects specification that could make DR very enjoyable IMHO would be to maintain the greens surrounds with wider short fringe cut and intermediate rough cuts than SH. Set the native areas back at least 20-30ft from the green surfaces, generally. Provide run-away collection areas for the option of putting or chipping back onto the greens, like Wild Horse offers. That is one of my biggest biases. ;D ::)
-
Dick, If that is hydro seeded fairway that appears to be a giant sandy waste area, than I think you nailed my odd.
-
I dont know how to ask this question, but here it goes.
Do C&C or JFN consider the fact that the bunkering on those courses wil...be reshaped by nature? That sounds like a dumb question, and it probably is, but because of the brutal nature of the sight, would they have considered/hoped for/welcomed these "blow-outs"
Thanks in advance for not laughing
-
Adam
I will admit to a bias. My bias is for fair play.
I do enjoy many of Nicklaus' courses, especially those over the past 15 years or so. There are several that I am not very fond of. I can say the exact same thing about C&C. and other favorites on this board.
My bias is not for any particular architect, but I do think all should be treated fairly when being critiqued.
You said that you were only trying to make a comment and not a condemnation in your post and you get attacked. I apologize if you think I attacked you. I thought I merely asked you an honest question, of which, you have failed to answer. Perhaps you do not have a bias, and that your assessment that the blowouts at DR didn't even look like they were from Nebraska, but from coastal dunesland, was not a criticism. However, from the posts that followed yours, I wasn't apparently the only person to think you were being a bit nitpicky. So after reading others post that someone said the course looked hard (negative opinion), then others commenting on why would anyone want to build a hard golf course out there, etc, etc, I then read your post about the bunker shaping didn't even look like it belonged in Nebraska. I just had to laugh at the bias, because I can never recall reading anywhere any questioning the naturalness of the shaping of C&C or TD and others. It just doesn't seem possible to me, and I could be wrong, that someone could look at a picture and have a thought like you did without some major bias against Nicklaus.
Bias is OK to have. I am biased against courses designed by Rees, Hills and others because I have seen enough of their work to know what they produce. Nicklaus has much more variety in his designs than those mentioned, and for the most part, I like his design approach a lot. I know that is not the prevailing sentiment on this board, and I have no problem with that. Excuse me, though, when I post when I think I see unmitigated bias leaping from my computer screen.
Golf design is a big tent, and I am accepting of more than most.
Not offense intended.
-
Mc, I believe my observations would've been the same no matter who the designer. They are after all from a photo. Honestly, I do not have a built in bias against Jack's courses. I let them each speak for themselves. And Trutfully, I hope that Jack's team does learn "how to do that". And that that to me, is creating intelligent design where every aspect is considered especially the elements that tie a course into it's environs. That is my bias. No offense taken.
-
I'm jumping in.
First, I will admit to some bias. I am a member of Ballyneal, and I like it better than Dismal River, at this early juncture. I also think Dismal River is a very exciting and interesting golf project, and I expect it to receive plenty of acclaim. It's terrific.
This happens to be one of the holes that really caught my eye, during my hour long tour of the course. That blowout bunker, short of the green, is huge, and any mishit shot short of the green will end up in it. I think there will be plenty of 30-70 yard, difficult bunker shots here. It will be a very hard hole for the less talented player.
However, my main objection to this hole is the right greenside bunker, adjacent to the green. To me, this hole looks like I should draw a 6 or 7 iron in there. If it goes straight, I end up in that bunker.
There just doesn't seem to be an adequate bailout area for the conservative play to the right of the green. Even for the low handicapper, this is a tough hole, where par is achieved only with a well struck 6-8 iron.
-
The DR, 15th par 3 states that it plays 160-165. I assume that is a back tee. Thus, it is highly likely that a forward member tee is about 150ish. That puts it right in the wheel house for comparison to SH 17th. Now, from what I can tell of the photo, the hole plays more redanish than 17 SH (leaving out the apparent opposite direction of the two holes). It almost looks like there is enough runaway slope in the green moving to the left to compare to Shinny's infamous "unfair" hole. Yet, I also think I see a good downslope into the green from the massive fronting bunker. I would like to see how much room there is on that down slope behind the fronting bunker edge, which would certainly be very relavant to the fairness of it. Then, there are two bunkers guarding a run-up slope to the green. The left greeside bunker is deceptive in that it looks like it is part of the massive front bunker, almost camoflauge or Ross style deception with a fronting bunker that appears at a different distance than it is. The backstop slope looks like it is very big and would bring overshoots back onto the green, given the constantly firm nature of the sandy soils there. The bunker on the greenside right looks like there is also a very large/generous LZ in the foregreen, offering a very weak player a chip and putt par.
But, the photo shows significant wind drift sand migration in front of the massive bunker. On one hand, that is out of play anyway. The hole is depicted to play down wind if the map orientation is right. So, it could play from the back with anything from a wedge with strong down wind, to a 3 iron or more if the odd north howling wind comes in.
I might be able to fall in love with that hole... :o
-
I played Sand Hills #17 three times and never made par. That is a tough little bastard of a hole.
-
Scott Cannon:
I can tell you for sure that we thought a lot about sand blowing out of the bunkers at Ballyneal and at Pacific Dunes, because we had heard all about the issue from Dick Youngscap. In fact, in some cases at Ballyneal we purposely did not excavate the bunkers as deep or as big as we might have, because we figure they will get there soon enough, and that's a year or two longer before the client has to start refilling them with sand after the winter.
We also hydroseeded the floors of a lot of the Ballyneal bunkers so the sand wouldn't blow so much this winter before the place even opened. That's one thing I notice from the pictures that they didn't do at Dismal River. They built them as they would like them to look, but they will look different in a year's time.
-
Scott Cannon:
I can tell you for sure that we thought a lot about sand blowing out of the bunkers at Ballyneal and at Pacific Dunes, because we had heard all about the issue from Dick Youngscap. In fact, in some cases at Ballyneal we purposely did not excavate the bunkers as deep or as big as we might have, because we figure they will get there soon enough, and that's a year or two longer before the client has to start refilling them with sand after the winter.
We also hydroseeded the floors of a lot of the Ballyneal bunkers so the sand wouldn't blow so much this winter before the place even opened. That's one thing I notice from the pictures that they didn't do at Dismal River. They built them as they would like them to look, but they will look different in a year's time.
Thanks Tom,
Can always count on you to answer newbies stupid architecture ?'s
-
I am one of the principals in the Dismal River project and have some comments regarding the interesting posts on this thread.
First, I am a passionate walker, to the point where I frequently try to obtain exceptions to allow me to walk courses with mandatory cart rules. I have walked Dismal several times, and I believe it is a very walkable layout. Of course, I also believe Sand Hills is very walkable, an opinion that may not be shared by others in this discussion group. (I've played at least 50 rounds at Sand Hills, and I've walked it the majority of those times; the only exceptions being second and third rounds played in one day). Tee to green distances generally are short at Dismal, but there are a few significant climbs to tee boxes, particularly the back tees on numbers 7 and 18. One of the few absolute instructions we gave the Nicklaus design team, and something they wanted to do anyway, was make this a walkable golf course.
Second, I agree it will be tough course from the back tees, particularly if the wind blows. I think it will be very sporty and fun from the next set, and not overly difficult, though the bunkering near the greens will always make a big number a possibility. As you probably can tell from the photos, the fairways are quite wide. As such, we are hopeful that there will not be a large amount of frustration from players hitting three from the tee. The big challenge at Dismal will be the approach shots to the greens and trying to make sure you don't miss it in the wrong place. There will be some frustrations around the greens, but I think those are the sort of frustrations that make golf interesting and challenging, not the kind that make you vow to never return. I agree with John Kirk that it can make for a long and unpleasant experience to be searching the native all day long for lost balls. I also believe it can be an amusing and interesting experience to watch a member of your own group, preferably your opponent, roll a putt off the green and fifty yards down the fairway. I have seen this happen many times on both numbers 1 and 4 at Sand Hills, and, even when it happened to me, I actually thought it was a tad bit humorous. Very, very little dirt was moved for the green sites at Dismal. They have a huge amount of natural undulation. People will occasionally putt off the green. Hopefully, they'll laugh about it later.
Also, regarding degree of difficulty, I believe that the members at Dismal River, as they begin to learn the course, will create their own layouts which are most suitable to their abilities. By this, I mean there is certainly no requirement that a group play every hole from a particular set of tees. I think even the very low handicappers may choose to bypass the back tees on number two. Players will mix and match tee boxes freely, and, in essence, create their own course. Also, as most of you know, the course is above 3000 feet, and the fairways will play hard and fast. So, the length is not nearly as much of a concern as it might be at another location.
Regarding the photo of number 15, I am not entirely clear as to what the focus is regarding the "oddity" of the bunkering. I think it will be an extremely fun hole and not tremendously hard. There is room to run up the shot on the right side if needed, but, as pointed out previously, the hole is not so long that a run-up is necessarily the play (depending, of course, on the wind). There also is more room directly in front of the green than you can tell from the photo. I would guess that many players will aim for the far right side of the green. If you miss a little to the right, you may end up right by the pin after you bounce down the bank. You cannot see it from the photo, but there is a large collection area directly to the left and rear of the green. The chip/putt/utility wood shot from that area is not particularly difficult as the green is sloping directly towards you and the ball will stop quickly. I don't think this hole is nearly as hard as No. 17 at Sand Hills.
-
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Tim. There is nothing better to me than when someone personally involved with a course comes on and offers such insight. And thanks for answering my questions about walkability, it's a topic of personal interest to me. Best of luck in your venture. You'd probably make a good Feature Interview.
-----
McCloskey, I'd say from the content of your intial post, you're not nearly as accepting as you think you are, otherwise you would accept criticism and questions from other posters, and perhaps even address it, rather than immediately pulling out the tired "bias" card.
-
I am one of the principals in the Dismal River project and have some comments regarding the interesting posts on this thread.
...
Thanks for the thoughtful post and welcome to the site. With this post as a standard, I hope you get by the newbie designation real soon.
I am curious as to what "principals" means. At first I thought it meant you were a principal on JN's design team. Then I was guessing it meant you were one of the people that got the project started. Is my second guess correct?
-
Garland, your second guess is correct. I am one of a group of five that started this project and hold an equity interest.
I do hope to someday move out of the newbie ranks. Only two more posts (after this), and I will at least be in double digits.
-
Tim, just follow Huck's example and you'll be a YabbGod in no time.
:)
-
Tim, just follow Huck's example and you'll be a YabbGod in no time.
:)
Interesting comment coming from someone with 2000+ more posts than me.
;D
-
Tom Doak,
Is stabilization a problem ?
Is there anything you have to do at a highly windy site to insure that features remain as they were intended to be ?
-
(http://www.dismalriverclub.com/Portals/1/15-from-tee.jpg)
Is it just me, Or is there something odd about the look of the sandy areas?
As Pat said, on your way to SH, you see everything in it's natural state. The distant blow-outs don't look much like this photo. It resembles more of an Oceanside sandy area than this regions. Anyone else notice anything?
Now I will qualify all this by saying, I'm basing this on this one photo, and I have not seen the Dismal, yet played SH.
Adam,
I noticed it as well, but, I don't think it's a bad thing.
I don't see anything wrong with exposing the underlying sand.
I think it's a rather unique and appealing look.
However, as Tom Doak stated, the winds will have a dramatic affect on the landscape and thus those areas may be altered for better or worse. Time alone will tell.
-
First, I am a passionate walker, to the point where I frequently try to obtain exceptions to allow me to walk courses with mandatory cart rules. I have walked Dismal several times, and I believe it is a very walkable layout.
Of course, I also believe Sand Hills is very walkable, an opinion that may not be shared by others in this discussion group.
I'd be one of those that don't share that opinion.
Anyone with a slight impairment will find walking SH difficult.
The tee to fairway walks can be difficult.
Walking in soft sand is always tedious.[/color]
(I've played at least 50 rounds at Sand Hills, and I've walked it the majority of those times; the only exceptions being second and third rounds played in one day).
Tee to green distances generally are short at Dismal, but there are a few significant climbs to tee boxes, particularly the back tees on numbers 7 and 18.
I don't understand the comment.
Did you mean green to tee distances ?[/color]
One of the few absolute instructions we gave the Nicklaus design team, and something they wanted to do anyway, was make this a walkable golf course.
Second, I agree it will be tough course from the back tees, particularly if the wind blows. I think it will be very sporty and fun from the next set, and not overly difficult, though the bunkering near the greens will always make a big number a possibility.
I don't think golfers object to encountering difficult features at the green end because they usually don't require strength or length to overcome them. Heroic carries and penal off fairway areas tend to be objectionable.[/color]
As you probably can tell from the photos, the fairways are quite wide. As such, we are hopeful that there will not be a large amount of frustration from players hitting three from the tee.
Wide fairways seem to be one of the principle features that allow a golf course to play difficult from the back tees but "sporty" from the middle or forward tees.
What's the average width in the DZ's ?[/color]
The big challenge at Dismal will be the approach shots to the greens and trying to make sure you don't miss it in the wrong place.
There will be some frustrations around the greens, but I think those are the sort of frustrations that make golf interesting and challenging, not the kind that make you vow to never return.
I agree with John Kirk that it can make for a long and unpleasant experience to be searching the native all day long for lost balls.
It also affects every group behind you.
Long native grass may present an attractive appearance from afar, but, from a playability perspective, they can be counter productive.[/color]
I also believe it can be an amusing and interesting experience to watch a member of your own group, preferably your opponent, roll a putt off the green and fifty yards down the fairway. I have seen this happen many times on both numbers 1 and 4 at Sand Hills, and, even when it happened to me, I actually thought it was a tad bit humorous.
With strong winds buffeting a golf course wouldn't this be considered a design flaw, or, would it limit your green speeds ?
Or both ?[/color]
Very, very little dirt was moved for the green sites at Dismal. They have a huge amount of natural undulation. People will occasionally putt off the green. Hopefully, they'll laugh about it later.
Also, regarding degree of difficulty, I believe that the members at Dismal River, as they begin to learn the course, will create their own layouts which are most suitable to their abilities.
By this, I mean there is certainly no requirement that a group play every hole from a particular set of tees. I think even the very low handicappers may choose to bypass the back tees on number two. Players will mix and match tee boxes freely, and, in essence, create their own course.
This seems to becoming a popular trend at many courses.
The custom designing of the course you want to play.
Wouldn't this also be considered a flaw in the design ?
Or, is it a philosophical flaw on the part of management ?
Shouldn't the architect forge a uniform test for the golfer ?
Or, should golfers determine, on a hole by hole basis, where they want to play ? The 18 flavor test, with four sets of sub-tests ?
It sounds as if you're trying to appeal to everyone's desires, providing golfers with the ability to determine the challenge they will face on a day to day, hole to hole basis. Doesn't this represent a significant departure from the roots and traditions of the game ?[/color]
Also, as most of you know, the course is above 3000 feet, and the fairways will play hard and fast. So, the length is not nearly as much of a concern as it might be at another location.
Regarding the photo of number 15, I am not entirely clear as to what the focus is regarding the "oddity" of the bunkering. I think it will be an extremely fun hole and not tremendously hard. There is room to run up the shot on the right side if needed, but, as pointed out previously, the hole is not so long that a run-up is necessarily the play (depending, of course, on the wind). There also is more room directly in front of the green than you can tell from the photo. I would guess that many players will aim for the far right side of the green. If you miss a little to the right, you may end up right by the pin after you bounce down the bank. You cannot see it from the photo, but there is a large collection area directly to the left and rear of the green. The chip/putt/utility wood shot from that area is not particularly difficult as the green is sloping directly towards you and the ball will stop quickly. I don't think this hole is nearly as hard as No. 17 at Sand Hills.
I think Adam was referencing the removal of vegetation and the exposure of the native sand, which I think provides a unique and attractive look, a departure from other courses in the greater area.[/color]