Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Chris Johnston on March 27, 2014, 06:57:28 PM
-
This thread is dedicated to David Moriarty and is THE definitive frank and open discussion about Dismal River. Feel free to discuss either course, any hole, starts, carts, and finishes, fun, and YES! even the pork chop! Mr. Moriarty believes such discussions are lacking, so, without further ado...
Gentlemen, start your engines!
-
I am reserving my opinion about both golf courses for two more years, until I am obliged to publish my opinions in print, and have a duty to the readers who have paid for said opinion.
Luckily, there's no rule here that you are REQUIRED to post your opinion on something, or I'd probably have been shot in the back by now. But I don't own a gun, so nobody needs to worry about my reaction. Generally, as with Pete Dye, I'm confident enough in what I've built to know if you are right or wrong.
-
Chris,
Thank you for making my point for me. Your absurd overreaction to my comments on the other thread makes my point better than I ever could.
-
Chris,
Thank you for making my point for me. Your absurd overreaction to my comments on the other thread makes my point better than I ever could.
David,
Not a thing absurd - you wanted open and frank discussion, and here is your chance. Come into the sunlight, good sir.
-
Gentlemen, please. This contretemps is over.
-
Sorry, Judge. My goal is to foster frank, open and honest discussion. One (or many) here believes it is being thwarted.
Here is his/their chance to weight in with no squelching, thwarting, belching or farting.
Have at it gents!
-
I'll be your huckleberry.
1. Question for Tom - Is the Red the best routing you've ever done?
2. Question for CJ - What changes are being made to the White course and why?
Sven
-
Here is the DEFINITIVE thing about Dismal for me. It begins and ends with Chris. Is he proud of the facility that his family owns and his contributions to it? Absolutely, as he should be. That may rub some wrong on here. Why? I am not sure. What I do know is that I am unaware of any other golf club in the US, much less one with two courses of this quality and only a 4 1/2 month season, that is so open and accessible to anyone with the ability to compose a simple, polite email request. Chris opens his club up, eager to share it with all, in a way that I have never seen of a club of its caliber. In fact, he, through Eric's 5th Major, opens it up to the entire GCA community once a year at a significant discount so that anyone can come and enjoy it. In that regard, I don't think there is another private club in the US that embodies the accessibility that I have come to appreciate and respect of the great UK clubs, particularly those in Scotland. Course tastes are a matter of personal preference and reasonable minds can differ on where the two Dismal courses rank in the grand scheme of things. What can't be disputed is Chris's welcoming, jovial nature. "Come one, come all, and be yourself. Because I sure as hell am going to be myself." Best I can tell that is Chris's motto. Maybe a bit too much for some, but absolutely spot on for me, and I respect that. This is what convinced me to join and motivates me to write the check each year (which is a significant sum for golf for my young and growing family), not the golf.
But damn, the golf is great....That's just makes it all the better.
Besides, who couldn't love this place?
(http://imageshack.com/a/img27/7818/lct0.jpg)
-
Chris,
I tried to understand the evolution of Dismal River White in a thread once, which was not very well received. I do have a genuine interest in its evolution. I see parallels with Erin Hills, another course that opened around the same time with next to no earth moving that was changed a lot after the fact. I am equally interested in its evolution, perhaps even more so, as it's relatively close to my backyard and I once did a routing on the same topo.
So that said, I was looking at a google aerial of the 13th hole at Dismal White and am still trying to figure out what is going on there. Is the hole moving to newer, lower left green? I think Adam Clayman mentioned there was another green complex originally? Where was it in relationship to the right green? Is it in the upper right of the pic below?
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Xlu4sJ0oanc/UzTMS-b0RSI/AAAAAAAADcM/cUplufZ_4UE/s640/blogger-image-1653243088.jpg)
-
Chris,
I tried to understand the evolution of Dismal River White in a thread once, which was not very well received. I do have a genuine interest in its evolution. I see parallels with Erin Hills, another course that opened around the same time with next to no earth moving that was changed a lot after the fact. I am equally interested in its evolution, perhaps even more so, as it's relatively close to my backyard and I once did a routing on the same topo.
So that said, I was looking at a google aerial of the 13th hole at Dismal White and am still trying to figure out what is going on there. Is the hole moving to newer, lower left green. I think Adam Clayman mentioned there was another green complex originally? Where was it in relationship to the right green.
I'll post an aerial picture in a few minutes...
I am curious about Chris's response too. I have played down to the lower left green and like it. If I had a vote, I would keep both greens and vary it day by day. I don't love the upper green for a number of reasons and think the variety/quirk would fit well with the rest of the course and add some interesting options of playing from the upper fairway to the lower green, lower fairway to upper green, etc.
-
Chris,
One of these days I'd like to see Dismal, but can you share some perspective on the location of 18th?
Distance back to clubhouse? Topography for walk back? Attractiveness of the green site to construct the hole? How much you and Tom might have debated the issue before construction? What ultimately determined the decision to do something unconventional (like the starting location for #1at Lost Dunes)?
Thanks!
-
1. Question for Tom - Is the Red the best routing you've ever done?
I don't know how to answer. Routing is about making the best use of the features of the property at your disposal, and I think the routing at Dismal does that terrifically well. But the same could be said for Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle, Rock Creek, St. Andrews Beach, and Ballyneal.
Dismal is "better" than those others in two respects:
1. the green to tee walks are even less, because I place more emphasis on that than I used to; and
2. there are actually more greens at Dismal where we did zero grading, than on any other course I've built.
But, as Jack Nicklaus once said to me, why would a golfer care about the latter point? And am I just more likely to leave the green alone now, or wasn't it just a piece of property with more land flat enough for untouched green sites?
-
Tom:
Almost sounds like in some ways it was the easiest course to route, and I don't mean that in a negative way.
Would you say Lost Dunes was your hardest course to route, or did the limitations of the property almost dictate the layout (leaving aside the decision to start on the other side of the highway)?
Sven
-
1. Question for Tom - Is the Red the best routing you've ever done?
I don't know how to answer. Routing is about making the best use of the features of the property at your disposal, and I think the routing at Dismal does that terrifically well. But the same could be said for Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle, Rock Creek, St. Andrews Beach, and Ballyneal.
Dismal is "better" than those others in two respects:
1. the green to tee walks are even less, because I place more emphasis on that than I used to; and
2. there are actually more greens at Dismal where we did zero grading, than on any other course I've built.
But, as Jack Nicklaus once said to me, why would a golfer care about the latter point? And am I just more likely to leave the green alone now, or wasn't it just a piece of property with more land flat enough for untouched green sites?
Tom I have been trying to figure out how to ask the question about 18 not returning to 1 in a manner that doesn't incur the wrath of others so I thank you for giving me the forum and also the lead in.
Up front please recognize I have not visited dismal so this isn't a criticism of that particular course. It is an inability to understand the importance of your point number one without also addressing the walk back to hole number one.
If you aren't walking then you don't necessarily care about either. If you are walking then you'd probably prefer both. I get that you can get away with it since it is private and they have an ability to have return carts waiting to take eager walking golfers back to one but I am intrigued to know if you at all wrestled with this concept or immediately came to the conclusion that the return to one didn't matter.
I can totally appreciate that it likely yielded better holes based on everything I have seen I guess I am just shocked a move like that came from you and not at the RTJ Trail.
I recognize the sensitivity here given the call out from Moriarty in the other thread and I am not trying to stoke that fire but I am genuinely interested in the conversations or mindset that led you there.
It seems if this approach is fair game in routing a course going forward that many architects could find better holes if there wasn't a defined stopping point for the course.
Finally - Could you have improved the routing of either Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal if you had employed this technique?
-
Tom:
Almost sounds like in some ways it was the easiest course to route, and I don't mean that in a negative way.
Would you say Lost Dunes was your hardest course to route, or did the limitations of the property almost dictate the layout (leaving aside the decision to start on the other side of the highway)?
Sven
Actually, no, it wasn't the easiest course to route. All those people who say "you could lay out holes in any direction in the sand hills" have never seen how many blind holes they'd wind up with, out of 18. Certainly, I figured out the routing faster and easier at Sebonack and St. Andrews Beach, even though there was more construction work to do at Sebonack.
Lost Dunes had lots of complications, but not so many options.
The hardest ones are those where the parameters keep changing ... the Bay of Dreams [changed owners mid-stream, and each had their own ideas about what land should be reserved for development], or the second course at Stonewall [where we had to put several parcels of land together, and not everyone would sell]. Having thousands of acres [as at Rock Creek] is another complication, it takes much more time to decide where to start. I didn't even see the land for the golf course on my first visit to the Ranch.
-
Gents,
I will answer the questions posted thus far, but will not do so going forward on this thread. Some here feel apparently uncomfortable with my participating and I certainly don't want that to inhibit discussion at all. I can understand that some questions would best be served with a response, but that places me in a no win situation. If I answer candidly, skunks will call it marketing. I didn't plan to participate much in this thread as I never would dream to inhibit others here.
Cliff: Thank you. If we can't be ourselves, we don't have anything. We aren't serving a higher or sacred purpose, we aren't curing disease, we are having fun.
Sven: What changes are being made to the White course and why? No decisions yet but we are always looking and, believe it or not, listen to feedback. Most course have slow spots, and spots where looking for balls is more than normal. We believe it is a living work and the better we know her, the more opportunities may be revealed. Opportunities can be both architectural and/or related to mainetenance. Hole #2 is double blind, long, and very wind affected. The stretch of 5 an 6 is very popular, but both abrupt and extremely (extremely!) challenging to maintain. I love the daring of hole #10 but mowing the transition from front to back it is more than challenging. - love the front but may see an opportunity in the back. Hole #14 is both very tough, and extremely challenging to maintain. There are several bunkers that we probably don't need, and we can always widen spots on an already wide course to better accommodate wind. We'll know more in the next few months and I'll happily share here any changes after consulting with a host of related constituencies, including the Unofficial Dismal River Golf Committee.
Jim: wrt 13...The hole as she's played is the hole that we will keep. Before we became involved, a prior group added a new fairway and green - we will keep most of the fairway but lose the new green as that version would make for three very long holes is a row. There new hole is a gift of sorts, as we will rework the current green as it has settled over time and isn't what was intended. This happens more than you know in the Sandhills. The new hole may be a temp hole while we do the necessary work, and then the green will be unplugged. The fairway will be kept as wider is better out here, and actually provides more variety wrt alternatives/opportunities.
I wasn't there at the beginning (I was at Sand Hills then) but understand the original 13th was deemed "too hard" by early members. I never saw it so can't provide comment. The green was moved (40 yards closer?) to the current location, making the hole a really fun shorter par 4 in a neat setting, and between two longer and stout tests. A better fit in my book and, with the wider fairway, a cool hole. One of my favorites.
Tim: Distance back to clubhouse? Topography for walk back? Attractiveness of the green site to construct the hole? How much you and Tom might have debated the issue before construction? What ultimately determined the decision to do something unconventional (like the starting location for #1at Lost Dunes)? Distance back to the clubhouse is less than 1 mile but you won't walk back. Green site is absolutely stunning, completely natural, with a 300 ft bluff across the Dismal River. Very unique and an outstanding golf hole with better than outstanding visuals.
I don't recall that Tom and I ever debated, he was the designer and I really wanted to stay out of his way. If he neede me, he found me, but he didn't need me much and that suited me fine. I do recall Tom asking me how important to me it was for the new course to "finish where it started", so I assumed his idea would be different. My response was simple, and still is today...we wanted the best 18 holes we could have in a routing, and we didn't want to sacrifice quality of golf. Some may find that odd but, if you think about it, I bet most would agree. I also didn't care about yardage or aggregate par. We just wanted good golf, turned Tom loose to do what he does, and he did very, very well.
-
Tom I have been trying to figure out how to ask the question about 18 not returning to 1 in a manner that doesn't incur the wrath of others so I thank you for giving me the forum and also the lead in.
Up front please recognize I have not visited dismal so this isn't a criticism of that particular course. It is an inability to understand the importance of your point number one without also addressing the walk back to hole number one.
If you aren't walking then you don't necessarily care about either. If you are walking then you'd probably prefer both. I get that you can get away with it since it is private and they have an ability to have return carts waiting to take eager walking golfers back to one but I am intrigued to know if you at all wrestled with this concept or immediately came to the conclusion that the return to one didn't matter.
I can totally appreciate that it likely yielded better holes based on everything I have seen I guess I am just shocked a move like that came from you and not at the RTJ Trail.
I recognize the sensitivity here given the call out from Moriarty in the other thread and I am not trying to stoke that fire but I am genuinely interested in the conversations or mindset that led you there.
It seems if this approach is fair game in routing a course going forward that many architects could find better holes if there wasn't a defined stopping point for the course.
Finally - Could you have improved the routing of either Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal if you had employed this technique?
Tim -
I don't mind discussing the decision. I think I discussed it well before, but since that thread was full of vitriol [some of it my own], I'm happy to post here and not have to refer back to it.
First, the idea of a remote start and a remote finish was not new to me. I'd done it once before, at Black Forest in Michigan, for basically the same reasons.
In both cases, we were building a course on an existing project that had not originally anticipated the location of the new course. The land around the clubhouse had been sold off to founding members, plus it was very steep, and there was no way to start OR finish the golf course at the clubhouse. And in both cases, the client said to consider using any of the other land that I wanted to.
The starting point I chose in each case was about as close to the clubhouse as I could find a good golf hole. (At Black Forest, I had to convince the client to buy back three or four undeveloped lots from their owners, comprising the first 150 yards of the hole, so that players didn't have to drive out all the way to the current 2nd tee. At Dismal, it's even farther from the clubhouse -- I think it's 3/4 of a mile.) In both cases, this starting point was about 100 feet higher than the most attractive part of the parcel, where I intended to locate some golf holes.
I could have chosen to build an inferior hole or two to get back up to the starting point, right at the end of the round. But why would I want to do that, if 95% of players were then going to hop in their carts and drive back to the clubhouse? No one walks to the first tee at Dismal River -- on either course -- and no one walks in from the 18th green. Between 1 and 18, the "open-jaw" solution is easier to walk, because you don't have to play back up the hill at the end. The only people who would prefer that I'd closed the loop are those who want to go right back to the first tee and play some more ... and usually, they will have a cart at their disposal to do just that. If not, they can walk up the same hill they would have had to play up, and go back to the first tee.
I do not think this is a solution you'd want to look at for most golf courses, like Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal. At Ballyneal, I might have been able to include a couple of great holes that missed the cut because you couldn't get there and back, but the final call was that they weren't significantly better than the holes we did build.] If you can start and finish at the clubhouse, most everyone is going to prefer that solution, myself included ... though if someone else decides not to, I'd judge it on the merits. But when you CAN'T start or finish close to home, and there's no budget to build a remote clubhouse, the question is how much it matters whether the course ends exactly where it starts.
I looked at the options, and decided it didn't matter much. I knew not everyone would agree, though I'm confident they couldn't come up with a better plan. If the discussion is about whether this makes the golf course "less than ideal" and automatically deducts two points from its GOLF DIGEST ballot, I would question whether they were just making up a rule to protect their favorite course as superior, but we shouldn't be building courses for ratings -- we should be building the best course we can.
-
Tom,
Thanks for your response. It is a fine example of why you shouldn't even consider not commenting on your own projects.
Now, if there is some way you can make Geoff Shackelford's "The Good Doctor Returns" actually come true, I would appreciate it. I have a few questions for the Doctor!
-
Here's a question; how is it that the course isn't officially open yet is already rated? Is this common practice?
-
Here's a question; how is it that the course isn't officially open yet is already rated? Is this common practice?
That's up to multiple different magazine editors, not to me.
-
I would really like to hear more about the pork chop. Seriously. I have been waiting nearly 3 years to try it, and can't wait until late June. How is the pork chop prepared and cooked? Is it breaded and fried? Marinated then grilled? How big are we talking? What kind of potatoes go best with it? I lean toward au gratin, but fear that might take away from the main event here. Is it the kind of meal you love, but only have once a visit, or am I potentially looking at 3-4 of these in a long weekend? Can someone post a photo? Thanks. Can't wait to visit Dismal.
-
I would really like to hear more about the pork chop. Seriously. I have been waiting nearly 3 years to try it, and can't wait until late June. How is the pork chop prepared and cooked? Is it breaded and fried? Marinated then grilled? How big are we talking? What kind of potatoes go best with it? I lean toward au gratin, but fear that might take away from the main event here. Is it the kind of meal you love, but only have once a visit, or am I potentially looking at 3-4 of these in a long weekend? Can someone post a photo? Thanks. Can't wait to visit Dismal.
Brian,
I'm not privy to how it's prepared, but I could eat one for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Every day. Can't wait until June.
-
Here's a question; how is it that the course isn't officially open yet is already rated? Is this common practice?
Hi Jud.
No, was probably my naivety. We were never contacted by any of the magazines asking us if we wished to be rated, and I honestly thought "preview year" meant not officially open, meaning let wait to rate it. Eric requested, as part of the 5th Major last year, that the new course could be played in the event. And that was a week before the unofficial preview opening for members and I have no idea who was, and wasn't a rater.. I told Eric it was what it was at that time, but it was playable...in infant form. Infant= not optimal. Remember, many of the guys at that event walked the course with a very gracious Tom the previous year...mostly in the dirt.
With that foundation, raters did come and they, obviously, did rate. Candidly, I would have preferred the rating wait until next year with ratings beginning when we were ready and the course was closer to maturity. I suppose it was the lack of new courses and, again, my naivety. I take full responsibility for it. I'd be curious to know how many ratings came in before we installed a planned and long awaited bridge over an obvious costraint.
We don't fuss much with ratings as much as others may, as the vibe and spirit here are about something completely different. I enjoy raters very much but, at times, find that ratings for some in the business are a means to an end. I've actually thought about opting out of them all, but I have many good friends in the industry who make their living that probably wouldn't appreciate that. There are a ton of constituiencies in this business and it's a challenges at times to serve them all. We are learning on the fly.
Brian...The Pork Chop is grilled, and then finished in a convection oven. Then drilzzled with a wonderful barbecue sauce. Bakled potato and fresh veggies are the norm, but red skins may be in season. As to its size...slighly smaller than the student section at Notre Dame Stadium, but probably slightly bigger than the "backer".
-
Literally everyone involved (including quite a few members that were assessed for the course) with building Dismal River Red save the superintendent and irrigation sub-contractor are members of this website. THAT'S the definitive statement about Dismal Red that almost no other golf course can claim. And unfortunately, it has come with a lot of attachments, baggage, and emotion.
-
Literally everyone involved (including quite a few members that were assessed for the course) with building Dismal River Red save the superintendent and irrigation sub-contractor are members of this website. THAT'S the definitive statement about Dismal Red that almost no other golf course can claim. And unfortunately, it has come with a lot of attachments, baggage, and emotion.
I would estimate that less than 5% of the members of Dismal are members of this website.
-
Chris:
If you're going to break your own rule and respond to rating and porkchop questions, please stick around to talk about the architecture.
Is the contemplated change at 10 just about the maintenance? As someone who hasn't seen the course, this hole remains the biggest mystery to me.
Sven
-
Why do no courses in this genre seem to have any shade?
-
Literally everyone involved (including quite a few members that were assessed for the course) with building Dismal River Red save the superintendent and irrigation sub-contractor are members of this website. THAT'S the definitive statement about Dismal Red that almost no other golf course can claim. And unfortunately, it has come with a lot of attachments, baggage, and emotion.
I would estimate that less than 5% of the members of Dismal are members of this website.
Less than that, actually.
-
Literally everyone involved (including quite a few members that were assessed for the course) with building Dismal River Red save the superintendent and irrigation sub-contractor are members of this website. THAT'S the definitive statement about Dismal Red that almost no other golf course can claim. And unfortunately, it has come with a lot of attachments, baggage, and emotion.
I would estimate that less than 5% of the members of Dismal are members of this website.
Less than that, actually.
So a handful of members and almost everyone that had anything to do with putting the course in the ground.
-
Hard to believe that 7 or 8 of us plus the revenue from the 5th Major doesn't finance a 36 hole operation for a year. I better stop before I stifle more frank and honest commentary. I am sorry that Ben finds it "unfortunate" that the people who hired and financed his summer experiment all are members of this site.
-
So a handful of members and almost everyone that had anything to do with putting the course in the ground.
Ben:
A lot of the young guys on the crew do post here, in addition to Don and myself, but the three most important players on the team never participate here -- that's Brian, Brian and Eric. Each of them is responsible for some of the best stuff out there. I know you knew that, but most here don't.
-
Mark - few trees in the Sandhills thus little shade in the region aside from the river corridor where there are non-native cedar trees. No oaks, etc. to be found anywhere...just grass for grazing originally, and near perfect soil for golf.
Sven - happy to answer, I just don't want to be accused of limiting candid discussion, or even candid criticism. I'm always happy to answer questions from good folks here...that has never changed.
The 10th green was originally designed to have the lower back bowl area of the green, with the front as an approach with a center bunker. Sometime in the design phase (before my time so secondhand knowledge at best) the designer thought it may be cool to convert the appraoch to green as well. That put the front center line bunker in the middle if the green, and created 3 very distinct green zones. It's a blast at 150 yards, but not quite as enjoyable at 200 yards. Generally, I would suppose length of a par 3 matters to match it to a more wild green.
The maintenance issue is a very steep slope (estimated 4-5 feet) connecting the front to the back, and walk mowing a very steep slope is not very easy even for the best at the craft. Also, the center bunker tends to blow out (many do) and that changes the dynamics of the green. The green is unique, quirky and fun, yet a major challenge to both physically maintain and maintain quality turf. I would suppose this is true in most greens with high and low spots. High spots get dry quickly, low spots hold water.
Tom and his team had long term maintenance very much in mind on the Red. Like most courses, we are seeing maintenenace challenges with the White due to more longevity.
The "puzzle" is what changes can you make to moderate challenges while trying to preserve the designers intent. Be it widening, adjusting bunkers, blowing sand, or re-seeding with a new type of grass, we all face the same challenges out this way. It's perfectly normal but normally behind the scenes.
-
I get it, nit pick details of my post. Still doesn't change the number of major players from DR that post here. And that creates unique issues and is the largest reason for the issues we're having on this site right now.
We've got three threads precipitated by a silly comparison exercise that now involves members, the owner, the architect and the irrigation/construction/grassing company. That's unique and I think a definitive example of why Dismal River is talked about the way it is.
-
That's unique and I think a definitive example of why Dismal River is talked about the way it is.
What does that mean?
-
That's unique and I think a definitive example of why Dismal River is talked about the way it is.
What does that mean?
It's unique that we have so many, so close to it here on this site. And that's what generates all the insanity we've seen today and other days regarding it.
-
The number of members is not unique, the personalities are.
-
Barney,
You win. There nothing about so many of those involved at DR Red being members of this site that in any way affects the way it is discussed. I was wrong.
-
Barney,
You win. There nothing about so many of those involved at DR Red being members of this site that in any way affects the way it is discussed. I was wrong.
I'm not trying to win I am just saying that there are a dozen courses with five or more members that participate on this site. This is supposed to be the honesty thread. What can the handful of members and builders do that participate on this site do to make our participation less unfortunate for you? I would be thrilled if none of us ever mention the course again. Is that what you want?
I am not trying to fight I just want to be able to enjoy a course where I am a member in peace. This site makes me wish I had never heard of the place.
-
It has nothing to do with me. You're placing emphasis on the wrong part of this. I don't give two figs anymore. I was simply highlighting that DR is unique in that so many close to it are here and are active posters. It's what causes the consternation IMO. That's ALL I was saying.
Rarely has anything good come of discussing Ballyneal or Dismal River on this site. That's unfortunate, because both are great places. Although my negative opinion of Dismal White is strong, it doesn't change the fact that both places have great golf courses that we have the unique opportunity to know so much about. But like I said earlier, that closeness has backfired dozens of times over on this DG. I don't think that is a revelation or news to anyone.
-
Barney,
You win. There nothing about so many of those involved at DR Red being members of this site that in any way affects the way it is discussed. I was wrong.
Ben,
For those of us who haven't seen Dismal or really followed the GCA discussion about, can you just take up Chris Johnston's offer and summarize with a few bullet points your criticisms?
Thanks.
-
I'd like to see the final match-play scores from the Red vs White thread, for those who were playing. Even though the exercise is tilted towards White, since Red apparently needs (or needed) more grow-in time to play the way it was designed.
-
Tim,
I probably shouldn't do this, but I will offer my thoughts on DR White as it seems to be the time to air opinions that were left unsaid.
-In my mind, the Nicklaus course is routed poorly. It negates the walking golfer. Hikes are made to prominent points in order to get a view. If you're going to site a course far away from infrastructure in a bid to get to the best land, why not create a walkable golf course?
-It's true that very little dirt was moved at DR White. This is a negative in a few places. Sometimes getting it right involves doing something with the land. It's through the severest part of the property and without earthmoving, it becomes a severe course unnecessarily.
-Having a "bowl" in a green is fun. But how many times can you revisit that idea in one round?
-Revisiting severity, several holes are severe enough to warrant questions of remaking them. 5, 6, 10, 13 come to mind. I don't buy into the idea that there is something special and unique about these holes. Instead, I think they offer very little in the way of variety and playability.
-A few tee shots (2, 9 and 11 come to mind) are arbitrary shots of chance. This isn't to say I hate blindness. The counter-intuitive flow of some fairways causes results that aren't consistent with the shape or camber of a hole.
I will say that there are some shots at White that are quite good (approach to 2, tee shot on 8, tee shot on 15, approach on 16), but it's not enough to negate what I think is an unrealized opportunity on great sand hills land. I also want to emphasize that there are many people that think Dismal White is the bees knees. They paid a lot of money to join a club that takes a lot of effort to play. And my analysis is just an opinion of course architecture and certainly not a foreword for the amount of joy that should or should not be provided by the golf course. Like I said earlier, I'll likely regret being honest and get flamed here shortly.
As for DR Red, sometimes I gravitate to analyzing golf courses that I think are very good by examining its weakest 2-3 holes. For me, 16 is probably the weakest hole at DR Red. It's in a beautiful setting with a green that's a little odd. Sort of a three-leafed clover on flattish ground right by the creek. I think a better par three could've been made by using the sloped terrain about 80 yds on a 190 heading from the current 16 green. That would've provided a conundrum for 17, which I love. So all in all it works. The second weakest hole on Red to me is probably 12. But the green site has changed from what I saw originally, so I can't comment with any validity.
I think it's a genius routing. It's been explained elsewhere why I think this way. I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole. The finish at 18 will prove to be epic I think. But he's left us panting before on 13 green at Pacific Dunes. You've still got 5 holes to play there!
--EDITED for syntax and subject-verb agreement, not content--
-
Ben,
Thanks. I haven't been to Dismal River and have no idea whether your observations are fair or accurate. However, generally your comments do sound like architectural criticism and not some kind of personal attack on anyone involved in the project.
Feels like the appropriate response for anyone who disagrees with your observations is just to detail why.
Even some of the most esteemed courses in the world have been debated here with people expressing very different views. Pebble Beach would probably be a good example. Some people here love it. Some believe it has too many so-so holes.
-
Ben...
You ain't getting flamed by me, or probably anyone, for that post. Well thought out and worded. A valid opinion from someone who's played the course.
I disagree on some of the specific hole comments, especially 16 on Red... but that's inherent in talking golf holes and courses, its opinion.
Thanks for sharing this post and your previous ones...I 'get' your point and think you are right on a lot of your thoughts. Dismal is a bit unique in those regards, that has benefits and negatives.
-
I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole.
Really?
That wasn't caution. We barely scraped enough money together to get the 12th hole built, as it was. There was no money for the irrigation pipe on 19, and we'd have needed another bridge to get from the tee to the fairway. Even if I'd really wanted to build it, I'd already spent some of my design fee to get 18 holes done. [Thanks for working a bit for free; every bit helped.]
I've been back twice to play and never felt a twinge of regret when I got off the 18th green and didn't have another hole to play.
-
I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole.
Really?
That wasn't caution. We barely scraped enough money together to get the 12th hole built, as it was. There was no money for the irrigation pipe on 19, and we'd have needed another bridge to get from the tee to the fairway. Even if I'd really wanted to build it, I'd already spent some of my design fee to get 18 holes done. [Thanks for working a bit for free; every bit helped.]
I've been back twice to play and never felt a twinge of regret when I got off the 18th green and didn't have another hole to play.
Tom,
Knowing the there was a 19th hole from an old Topo, I regret playing the course three times and forgetting to look for it after the round. But I guess that means I agree with you.
After seeing the finished product and getting early feedback from your from your friends and other, any tweaks in the works or changes you'd like to make?
-
After seeing the finished product and getting early feedback from your from your friends and other, any tweaks in the works or changes you'd like to make?
Jim: I really haven't played the course enough to answer your question.
Unless there was something egregious [which we are paid to avoid], I would generally want to wait five years before I thought about making changes to one of my courses. When you've just finished a course, you know why you did everything you did, and it's sometimes hard to see how a hole plays, instead of how you ANTICIPATED it would play. We anticipate correctly way more than we miss one, but there are certainly holes of mine that turned out differently than I thought ... some worse, and some better.
The hole I expected to be least popular is #12. We built it last because I was trying right to the end to decide exactly what I wanted to build there, so it's the one hole that really wasn't in good playing shape last year, and it's the most important to see how it plays. I did enjoy watching it play into the wind in the finals of the Renaissance Cup, at alternate shots with some really good players ... I had moved the tee back for the final and they were hitting some long approaches to that scary green. It worked better than I thought that day.
-
I looked at the options, and decided it didn't matter much. I knew not everyone would agree, though I'm confident they couldn't come up with a better plan. If the discussion is about whether this makes the golf course "less than ideal" and automatically deducts two points from its GOLF DIGEST ballot, I would question whether they were just making up a rule to protect their favorite course as superior, but we shouldn't be building courses for ratings -- we should be building the best course we can.
Tom,
Even if you can justify a routing that doesn't return to the proximity of the first tee, there s no way that you can argue that it is one of your best routings.
If you remove one of the major rules of the routing puzzle (and there is no way of arguing that finishing where you begin is not traditionally a major rule of routing a golf course) , it should not be a satisfying a solution.
It's comparable to shooting a course record with a mulligan, or completing a cryptic crossword whilst peaking at the non-cryptik clues. If you don't have a hollow feeling in your stomach when thinking about the Dismal River routing, you have lost the essence of what golf is about. Frankly, you cheated, plain and simple. The result may be a great golf course,but it can't be a great routing.
-
Tom...
I found that you are your teams attention in building the Red course was impressive. The White Course, which as everyone knows I like very much, has gone through a few rounds of "tweaking"...and potentially there is more to come. It seems from day 1 the Red was "ready". That is a testament to you, and your teams skill.
Do you foresee any tweaks to the Red, or do you like it just like it is?
-
It's comparable to shooting a course record with a mulligan, or completing a cryptic crossword whilst peaking at the non-cryptik clues. If you don't have a hollow feeling in your stomach when thinking about the Dismal River routing, you have lost the essence of what golf is about. Frankly, you cheated, plain and simple. The result may be a great golf course,but it can't be a great routing.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with what you've said. First of all, I'm here to build great golf courses, not to win prizes for routings.
We talk all the time here about "breaking rules" of design. Young designers posture about it on their web sites, to give themselves street cred. Probably two-thirds of the posters on this board lament that architects won't take more risks.
I didn't even think my routing solution at Dismal was taking a risk, much less "cheating". The fact that the course had to start out in the boonies freed me up to do it however I wanted. As you quoted me, I knew not everyone would agree, but I didn't expect a reaction as strong as yours.
The other piece of this discussion goes back a bunch of years, to a conversation Jim Urbina and I had while driving through New Mexico, on our way to Apache Stronghold. We were on a road down a very long and steep valley, and Jim mentioned that it would be cool to build a golf course along a site like that, starting at one end and playing all the way to the far end, since it was clearly too steep to provide room for holes out and back. He "trademarked" a name for his concept which I won't reveal. Anyway, I thought it was a great idea; I would love to play a course like that, whereas apparently you would rule it out of ever being.
When the routing for Dismal became public, Jim seemed to feel that I'd stolen his concept. I had to remind him I'd done the same thing at Black Forest, a few years before he started to work for me.
-
The coolest thing I've heard of in skiing is that run in Europe where you ski all day from one town to another and take the train back. IMO those mediocre holes that folks often settle for to get back to the clubhouse, and usually twice at that, are the equivalent of the boring traverses one makes to funnel back to a ski lift. Saying this is a compromise is like saying heli-skiing isn't really skiing. Don't knock it till you've tried it...
-
The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.
Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.
-
The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.
Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.
Brandon:
Thanks for that. You ARE the only guy who's done it five times in one day.
-
This is bullshit.
The only club we've ever had significant troubles discussing is Dismal River. Name one other club where we've had problems like this.
The Dismal River vs. Ballyneal thread, while a worthy attempt at serious course analysis, was the worst experience I've ever had participating in a GCA thread. The people who participated were me and a few members who are rightfully excited about their golf club that they love. And I participated despite an attempt to stifle my input. Nobody else wanted anything to do with it.
And here we are with another recent Dismal River thread, with people walking on eggshells, followed by an outpouring of anger and emotion.
Figure it out.
-
The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.
Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.
Nothing like a little hyperbole on a Friday morning. Who is "everyone" and where did anyone discuss distance?
I asked the question because I was curious and Tom provided a good response. David E was a little more biting with his words, but that's two people, neither of whom implied it was anywhere close to a mile.
Only one of the two posts was even a criticism.
-
The only club we've ever had significant troubles discussing is Dismal River. Name one other club where we've had problems like this.
Deal? Kingsley? /ducks
BTW I certainly appreciated your commentary in that thread. As a bonus, it helped me work through the cognitive dissonance of Kavanaugh praising Doak.
-
The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.
Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.
Nothing like a little hyperbole on a Friday morning. Who is "everyone" and where did anyone discuss distance?
I asked the question because I was curious and Tom provided a good response. David E was a little more biting with his words, but that's two people, neither of whom implied it was anywhere close to a mile.
Only one of the two posts was even a criticism.
Tim,
I apologize. I should have been more clear. What I should have said is "... everyone who criticizes the walk from 18 green to 1 tee..." I wasn't even talking about just this thread. It has come up many times on GCA.
I'm not into hyperbole and waiting for a meeting and typing on my phone tends to make me hurry though and not proof read. I'm not that eloquent to begin with... let's face it, we can't all be Gibs or Pallottas :)
-
This is bullshit.
The only club we've ever had significant troubles discussing is Dismal River. Name one other club where we've had problems like this.
The Dismal River vs. Ballyneal thread, while a worthy attempt at serious course analysis, was the worst experience I've ever had participating in a GCA thread. The people who participated were me and a few members who are rightfully excited about their golf club that they love. And I participated despite an attempt to stifle my input. Nobody else wanted anything to do with it.
And here we are with another recent Dismal River thread, with people walking on eggshells, followed by an outpouring of anger and emotion.
Figure it out.
John:
Putting 100% of the blame onto the Dismal River guys for the Dismal vs. Ballyneal thread is probably bad math.
This site has had plenty of trouble discussing lots of courses. Courses where critics tend to be shouted down as heretics include:
Ballyneal
Kingsley
Rustic Canyon
Augusta National
Pebble Beach [don't you dare criticize #11 or #1]
Trump International [plenty on both sides]
Doral [new entry with a bullet]
And there are plenty of others where the naysayers have the floor, including one that you are a member of ... Stone Eagle.
I do think the discussion is more inhibited when the course owner participates directly in the discussion, and Dismal River is [almost] unique in that situtation. Rivermont, maybe ... except that nobody criticizes it, instead of Chris Cupit arguing with guys who do.
Thought of the day: imagine Clifford Roberts participating here :)
-
Dismal River Red was the first course that was chronicled from beginning to end on GCA.
That wore some people out as there was a group that grew weary of all the Dismal "love".
For me, I thought it was cool to pull back the curtain on the design and construction of a course in the Sand Hills.
But I also know that some viewed the threads as marketing of the course and participants, and they have always felt the need to reign in the excitement.
I enjoyed helping to tell the story, and I hope I can tell another one like it, but many people in the business are very unwilling to do that here.
I wish Gil Hanse participated here because we could then watch as the Rio course came to life as well from the "inside". That would be a very interesting story with all that is going on there. I know some of the folks down there are on GCA and I wish we had more in depth threads about the creation of that course.
I think there will be more opportunities like we had at DR, but lets hope the negativivity that comes with telling the story doesn't hold others back.
-
I haven't been to Dismal yet, so take this for what it's worth. But I think a lot of the issues stem from the White Course. In pictures and from descritpions, it seems like one of the weirdest courses in the world. It's quirky, funky, difficult, beautiful and any number of other descriptors. Because it's such a different course, opinions can vary wildly. One person may absolutely love it and one may hate it for the same reason.
It's also one of the reasons that if I were choosing a place to visit in the sand hills, I would choose Dismal first. It has what could be called the most polarizing modern course and what seems to be one of the top 30 or so modern courses. They both are very unique and seem wildly different from anything else in the region. Maybe the White is really bad, maybe it is really good, but I sure as hell know it looks completely different from anything I've ever seen.
-
The problem is one of self-selection. There are a number of courses- Dismal, Kingsley and Ballyneal being the 3 most obvious ones, where there are a fair number of members who post here. As members, they by definition like their course and know it better than almost anyone posting here. So if a guy who's played Kingsley once or twice comes on and criticizes a hole there are a dozen members who collectively have over a thousand rounds fighting back. Even if their points are valid and unbiased, it's a no-win situation for the non-member. The trade off is that we get a ton of insight and local knowledge about a course but it can become too much of a good thing. Personally I've tried to highlight the cons as well as the pros of my club and not be a complete cheerleader, and I think it's each members responsibility to be more than mere shills for their club. If they have a significant financial interest, a la CJ, it's an even finer line to walk.
-
There is a select group of courses that get discussed too often. It leads to charges of boosterism, favoritism, bias or whatever you want to call it. But it also gets BORING. I almost didn't join Dismal because I was so sick about the number of threads and the repetitive rah-rah bullcrap. And I'll go on record again saying I just love the place and that the buddies trip there was the single best guys trip I've ever taken, and I've taken a LOT of golf trips.
Doesn't mean I want to get inundated with threads about the place. CJ doesn't need our help. Doak doesn't need our help. Dismal doesn't need our help. It's a classic case of turning a positive into a negative. Probably some internet psychology lesson there. Not that we'll pay attention to it.
-
Hi Tom,
Perhaps I'm not being clear. Even in the last post, I'm asking the reader to "figure it out". I'm saying that Chris's participation stifles and distorts discussion. I'm grateful that me and big JK and the other members made the best of it, but some of my friends wanted no part of the discussion. It's not that the naysayers get shouted down as heretics, it's that the naysayers didn't want to play. The architect and irrigation guru wanted very little to do with it as well.
The way the DR vs. BN thread ended was atrocious, with pages of non-architecture related garbage attached to what I considered pretty solid analysis. So the DR White vs. Red thread comes along, and the same thing happens. Nobody wants to say anything negative. I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red. I don't want to worry (again) about critiquing DR's courses, especially when I could be accused of having an alterior motive. Nobody wanted to play, including yourself. Since nobody offered any criticism, Eric Smith ends up looking bad for his sunny analysis of his beloved club. It's not his fault.
I am always a bit more careful evaluating golf courses that don't have full memberships, or may not be financially secure. [Note: This is not to say I believe Dismal River is financially insecure - Chris Johnston has reiterated many times this is not the case.] I am a member of two clubs that have been through a bankruptcy, so I'm sensitive to that. Many top notch golf courses opened between about 2000-2009 have had difficulties, and many still do. Regardless, it means I'm a bit more careful and respectful in asking questions rather than making judgements, and shy away from broad-based generalizations.
After the DR vs BN thread, it doesn't feel worthwhile to offer much about Dismal River, because I found it unrewarding the first time around.
-
The problem is one of self-selection. There are a number of courses- Dismal, Kingsley and Ballyneal being the 3 most obvious ones, where there are a fair number of members who post here. As members, they by definition like their course and know it better than almost anyone posting here. So if a guy who'se played Kingsley once or twice comes on and criticizes a hole there are a dozen members who collectively have over a thousand rounds fighting back. Even if their points are valid and unbiased, it's a no-win situation for the non-member. The trade off is that we get a ton of insight and local knowledge about a course but it can become too much of a good thing. Personally I've tried to highlight the cons as well as the pros of my club and not be a complete cheerleader, and I think it's each members responsibility to be more than mere shills for their club. If they have a significant financial interest, a la CJ, it's an even finer line to walk.
Jud - agree 100%. I am probably the most critical guy at Dismal River as I notice and see things that others normally don't and have certainly played more than most anyone. I'm on the record agreeing that there are flaws and believe no course is perfect. I really don't feel the need to defend her, I just try to share firsthand experience. Everyone is more than entitled to their opinion, as I am to mine. It isn't about fine lines, it is about speaking the truth as you know it. One thing that I don't think anyone can dispute is, despite some flaws, places like Kingsley, Ballyneal, and Dismal are an absolute blast to visit and play the game. I often wonder if those who tend toward the constantly critical have any fun playing the game at all, if it isn't fun, the game is doomed.
It's kinda funny, nobody ever asks what holes I may not like less than others. Maybe they assume I like them all?
-
John:
Putting 100% of the blame onto the Dismal River guys for the Dismal vs. Ballyneal thread is probably bad math.
This site has had plenty of trouble discussing lots of courses. Courses where critics tend to be shouted down as heretics include:
Ballyneal
Kingsley
Rustic Canyon
Augusta National
Pebble Beach [don't you dare criticize #11 or #1]
Trump International [plenty on both sides]
Doral [new entry with a bullet]
And there are plenty of others where the naysayers have the floor, including one that you are a member of ... Stone Eagle.
I do think the discussion is more inhibited when the course owner participates directly in the discussion, and Dismal River is [almost] unique in that situtation. Rivermont, maybe ... except that nobody criticizes it, instead of Chris Cupit arguing with guys who do.
Thought of the day: imagine Clifford Roberts participating here :)
- Merion
-
...
Previous post also edited.
-
The architect and irrigation guru wanted very little to do with it as well.
John, I not exactly sure what you are saying here.
When it comes to DR, I've always tried to explain what we did there in an honest way. If I have misrepresented something, please let me know.
If you are saying I wanted nothing to do with the BN vs DR thread, then yes you are right. I've learned I have very little desire to rank two very good courses; I happy to say I think they are both great and leave it at that. I'm not one of those guys who thinks every kid should get a medal, but I happen to think Brady and P Manning are both great QBs and who you think is better is often based on where you live and which team you favor. The problem with the course vs course threads is one has to won and one has to lose.
Neither BN or DR are losers and I don't see the point in ranking them against each other.
-
Hi Don,
You are correct. I am saying that neither you nor Tom elected to participate in the DR vs. BN thread, and nothing more. I had high hopes that the thread could be a great way to discuss a variety of architectural concepts; the two courses are enough different, and built several years apart, that we could have made it a comprehensive study of Tom's work and evolution as a designer. I enjoyed the part where I chose one hole was better than the other, but it wasn't the point for me. I thought it was an ideal platform to study architecture, and I felt kind of abandoned when a number of knowledgeable people dropped out. Even the act of choosing one hole over the other was a revelation; I learned to understand my own biases better, such as liking long par 3s. Those were my selfish motivations. I wanted everybody to not be defensive about it, and go into the exercise confident that both courses were outstanding, so we could discuss nuances of fine architecture. I tried to make observations that were begging for an explanation, and I didn't get what I wanted. It was frustrating.
-
I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole.
Really?
That wasn't caution. We barely scraped enough money together to get the 12th hole built, as it was. There was no money for the irrigation pipe on 19, and we'd have needed another bridge to get from the tee to the fairway. Even if I'd really wanted to build it, I'd already spent some of my design fee to get 18 holes done. [Thanks for working a bit for free; every bit helped.]
I've been back twice to play and never felt a twinge of regret when I got off the 18th green and didn't have another hole to play.
I'm not saying that the finish isn't grand, it most certainly is. But I never made any bones about being a huge fan of that short uphill 4. There's just something about a short-ish, uphill par 4 at the end. It's triumphant in a way. I was a member of a course that had a hole sort of like that (Palmetto) and I'm on record as thinking Ballyneal has just a couple of equals in the US. So I'm a shill for these kinds of finishes.
And obviously I'm ignoring the financial aspect which is impossible to ignore. Maybe you should've cut into your design fee a bit more? ;D
I never actually got the story on why 12 green was moved. That original peninsula was pretty cool and tilted oddly.
-
Hi Tom,
Perhaps I'm not being clear. Even in the last post, I'm asking the reader to "figure it out". I'm saying that Chris's participation stifles and distorts discussion. I'm grateful that me and big JK and the other members made the best of it, but some of my friends wanted no part of the discussion. It's not that the naysayers get shouted down as heretics, it's that the naysayers didn't want to play. The architect and irrigation guru wanted very little to do with it as well.
The way the DR vs. BN thread ended was atrocious, with pages of non-architecture related garbage attached to what I considered pretty solid analysis. So the DR White vs. Red thread comes along, and the same thing happens. Nobody wants to say anything negative. I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red. I don't want to worry (again) about critiquing DR's courses, especially when I could be accused of having an alterior motive. Nobody wanted to play, including yourself. Since nobody offered any criticism, Eric Smith ends up looking bad for his sunny analysis of his beloved club. It's not his fault.
I am always a bit more careful evaluating golf courses that don't have full memberships, or may not be financially secure. [Note: This is not to say I believe Dismal River is financially insecure - Chris Johnston has reiterated many times this is not the case.] I am a member of two clubs that have been through a bankruptcy, so I'm sensitive to that. Many top notch golf courses opened between about 2000-2009 have had difficulties, and many still do. Regardless, it means I'm a bit more careful and respectful in asking questions rather than making judgements, and shy away from broad-based generalizations.
After the DR vs BN thread, it doesn't feel worthwhile to offer much about Dismal River, because I found it unrewarding the first time around.
John, With all due respect, I think I posted, maybe 4 times, on the first 18 or so pages on the thread you mention and both Don and Tom posted more that I did. One of those posts was to describe the unique 12th hole strategy to my friend Simon Holt. It seems you want to choose who should participate, and my very small participation seems a thorn. That is sad.
Beginning around page 9, some began to question the scoring of a match between two good clubs and in good fun...then the usual suspects began to emerge questioning the thread itself. Again, for the record, that wasn't me. Those that did begin the hijacking had never played one or both of the curses, yet the usual "question of motives" began. If I stepped in, it was to defend you and your efforts on a very good thread that I know did indeed require a bit of effort on your part.
I am very honest in my assessment of our courses and other that I have played. Lets cut to the chase here, where I may comment about your beloved Ballyneal (btw a course I too like very much) the thin skins emerge and wagons are circled and that is where I believe the puzzle began. It's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the greens there as they don't suit my palate, but I'm glad they suit yours. Some erroneously claim that I shouldn't comment about that, and that to me is silly. I'm also sorry you are part of two bankrupt clubs, and both are fortunate to have good guys like you still supportive.
John, I make no claim to architectural superiority, but I did watch and participate a bit in a course being built from start to completion. I have also played some pretty competitive golf and, while not as skilled these days, I can still get it around ok when I do. I also have a very unique perspctive to share yet, after these few days and weeks, I understand why others like me choose not to. The one time you and Cheryl visited last year, you were admittedly off your feed - I think you would agree you were not a very happy person. I didn't shun you for being surly, I came to visit to try to brighten your mood.
To assert that people don't want to participate due to me really fails basic common sense, and no one is more critical of me and mine than me. There is only one person here who deliberately hijacks threads for kicks and that isn't me. I post honestly and, like everyone else, probably unintentionally offend good friends on occasion. I wouldn't be true to myself if I "pulled punches" and my opinions are pretty well known. Yet, if I do post what I believe, somehow you find wrong in that too.
I have never stifled honest debate, but I don't suffer fools very well. I spoke with a friend last week who, after a dustup not with me in this realm, actually asked me if he was still welcome to see Dismal River. I laughed very hard and told him friendship doesn't mean we have to agree and friendship, to me, is a lot more than that.
I created a thread yesterday to foster an frank and open discussion about both courses at Dismal River, in response to a silly claim that it was not possible. While enjoy the posts, the accuser failed the test as he didn't provide any frank or open commentary. Strawmen are always easier.
I suppose I could accuse you of being a "homer" and claim that you distort discussion but that serves no real purpose any more than yours did me. I respect and invite your views regardless if I agree or not, and I enjoy looking at things through your lens.
It well past time to put down the guns and competitive koolaid and realize we all share something wonderful...friendship, and an appreciation for golf and the wonderful places we play it.
-
I wish Gil Hanse participated here because we could then watch as the Rio course came to life as well from the "inside". That would be a very interesting story with all that is going on there. I know some of the folks down there are on GCA and I wish we had more in depth threads about the creation of that course.
That couldn't happen, because of the non-disclosure agreements we all had to sign before we even bid on the project. Information is tightly controlled. I was surprised it was okay for Ian to put up his pictures of the course, but I guess after all the questions about the schedule they thought a little good p.r. might be helpful.
-
Hi Don,
You are correct. I am saying that neither you nor Tom elected to participate in the DR vs. BN thread, and nothing more. I had high hopes that the thread could be a great way to discuss a variety of architectural concepts; the two courses are enough different, and built several years apart, that we could have made it a comprehensive study of Tom's work and evolution as a designer. I enjoyed the part where I chose one hole was better than the other, but it wasn't the point for me. I thought it was an ideal platform to study architecture, and I felt kind of abandoned when a number of knowledgeable people dropped out. Even the act of choosing one hole over the other was a revelation; I learned to understand my own biases better, such as liking long par 3s. Those were my selfish motivations. I wanted everybody to not be defensive about it, and go into the exercise confident that both courses were outstanding, so we could discuss nuances of fine architecture. I tried to make observations that were begging for an explanation, and I didn't get what I wanted. It was frustrating.
John:
There are two parts to my answer there.
One, my participation is sometimes limited by circumstances -- there are weeks when I've got time, and weeks where I don't have much.
Two, you were comparing two courses that are both among my best, that were both competing for members, and that both have many ardent supporters here. Do you really wonder why I would avoid getting in the middle of that? Anytime I came out in favor of one or the other -- on either side -- I'd be accused of bias by half the participants, and of being a self-promoter all of the time, by a few in the L.A. contingent.
I'm happy to talk about the differences between courses, just not for the benefit of a bunch of guys keeping score [or settling scores].
-
Never mind. Tim and Tom already addressed the issue.
-
I created a thread yesterday to foster an frank and open discussion about both courses at Dismal River, in response to a silly claim that it was not possible. While enjoy the posts, the accuser failed the test as he didn't provide any frank or open commentary. Strawmen are always easier.
I failed the test? Ironic, given your oblivious posts to John and JT.
Prior to this latest round of navel gazing, there actually had been some frank and honest commentary in this thread, and it has been interesting and enjoyable, and I hope it picks up again. It is just a shame that the website has to go to such absurd lengths to create a space where such commentary is briefly possible.
Also, it'd be nice if John could have expressed his views about your participation without your unfortunate response. I guess perhaps he should be grateful you made his point for him. Even Tom Doak acknowledged that your participation inhibits discussion, yet you still don't get it.
As for me, I am just enjoying some semblance of actual frank and honest discussion of the courses, and trying to learn something along the way. That is a large part of why I am here; to read the views of others and learn about golf architecture. The lack of frank commentary doesn't just impact those participating, or wishing to participate, it impacts the readers as well. I may chime in at some point on issues I feel are worth further exploring, but I think it fair to expect that my participation in the substance would not be entirely welcome. So for now I am just reading, and hoping that the thread takes a turn back toward substance.
I am particularly interested in this notion of what sounds like one way, downhill, ski hill architecture. With all due respect to Mr. Urbina, I am not sure I see that as a positive development in golf course architecture.
-
I created a thread yesterday to foster an frank and open discussion about both courses at Dismal River, in response to a silly claim that it was not possible. While enjoy the posts, the accuser failed the test as he didn't provide any frank or open commentary. Strawmen are always easier.
I failed the test? Ironic, given your oblivious posts to John and JT.
Prior to this latest round of navel gazing, there actually had been some frank and honest commentary in this thread, and it has been interesting and enjoyable, and I hope it picks up again. It is just a shame that the website has to go to such absurd lengths to create a space where such commentary is briefly possible.
Also, it'd be nice if John could have expressed his views about your participation without your unfortunate response. I guess perhaps he should be grateful you made his point for him. Even Tom Doak acknowledged that your participation inhibits discussion, yet you still don't get it.
As for me, I am just enjoying some semblance of actual frank and honest discussion of the courses, and trying to learn something along the way. That is a large part of why I am here; to read the views of others and learn about golf architecture. The lack of frank commentary doesn't just impact those participating, or wishing to participate, it impacts the readers as well. I may chime in at some point on issues I feel are worth further exploring, but I think it fair to expect that my participation in the substance would not be entirely welcome. So for now I am just reading, and hoping that the thread takes a turn back toward substance.
I am particularly interested in this notion of what sounds like one way, downhill, ski hill architecture. With all due respect to Mr. Urbina, I am not sure I see that as a positive development in golf course architecture.
David,
Thanks for the mostly nice comments. After all, I started this thread to encourage frank and open commentary, so it's hard to fathom how I get any blamed if you like that commentary, but if there is an angle, you'll likely root it out. I've become used to you and would probably miss you if you didn't chime in as expected. I hope you notice that I didn't respond to any other posts that didn't name me personally, and I tried to answer questions posted by others - in both a civil and professional manner.
I appreciated John's comment, although I do wish his comments would have been true to the topic at hand "either course Dismal River" and not me. John is a great guy and friend, but criticizing me for doing nothing but expressing my own opinion from time-to-time is really silly. I also felt obligated to correct some imperfections as I wasn't an active participant in the thread he cited, that is, until you came in and hijacked it with the usual assertions of bias, and fake scoring.
Failed test? Yes! Indeed. You have offered nothing constructive to the thread I began. Others did, you did not.
Fact is, David, it serves no purpose to criticize another here, yet it is certainly appropriate to offer a different opinion if you have one.
You don't have to make things personal to make a point, David. Try as you might, you schtick is well worn and you fool no one. Unless Ran decides otherwise (and I recall his directing you to behave a few months back) the other fact is I have every right to share my honest opinions here. I'm sorry you have a problem with that and I suggest you consider starting your own website, where you will benefit from the control you always seem to seek. btw, we haven't see a horde of invisible ninjas yet.
Thanks for the compliments on the thread, backhanded as they were. It must have been hard for you.
And, pretty please don't hijack this thread.
-
1-Sick of the Dismal bashing. If you don't like the topic, don't read the posts. I don't read 75% of the threads in this Discussion Group. Doesn't mean I have to trash those that start what I deem to be "stupid" threads.
2 - I have never felt restricted to share my honest views on Dismal River - in any thread. Chris and its members have always welcomed criticisms ....so long as they were honest and on the merits. Likewise, I have always welcomed their defense of their club. If these refutes were personal, I would bash Chris and the other members. But they rarely are.
3-Chris, you know that I think highly of you. For those that don't know him, he is a good guy. However, unlike David, I think that this thread is a regurgitation of things discussed in other threads. People are going to criticize your participation. It is undeservingly in my opinion, but it is life. If you ignore them, it dies. If you respond with a thread, it just furthers the negativity. Unfortunately, some take discussions on important worldly topics....like golf courses...and make them personal. I don't understand it, but oh well.
4-Back to the original question of the thread - my honest opinion of Dismal River White. I have provided it before, but provide it here again. I hope that it is post worthy.
Dismal White is a really good golf course that is very fun to play. I fondly remember a lot of the fun shots that I hit there. It is designed to be a fun golf course...not a tournament golf course. If you like having fun and hitting fun shots, you will like the golf course. If you like walking only courses or "fair" courses, you may not like it. I brought 8 guys to Dismal for the 5th Major. I was the only architecture geek. The others just liked playing golf. 6 guys (including myself) loved Dismal and can't wait to go back. 2 guys thought it was too quirky. Ben doesn't like the bank shots. I thought that they were a lot of fun. I am not going to nowhere Nebraska for the same old thing. It should be different.
On the negative, it could use some changes that would improve playability and avoid lost balls, which always increases the enjoyment of the game. Here would be my changes:
Hole #1- widen the right fairway. Too many lost balls on the opening tee shot. The right side of the fairway still provides a blind shot to the green and no roll off the tee. So a player will have a longer approach shot to a blind green. Meanwhile, the left side still provides the speed slot.
Hole #2- the more you play it, the more you like it (I really enjoyed it by the end of the visit). But I understand the criticisms. To make it more playable, I would use the "left" tees so that it plays slightly less at an angle off the tee (still incorporating Cape concepts, just not so 90 degree-ish). This would limit the balls that go down in the gulch due to picking the wrong line. Then, I would try and reduce the blindness of the 2nd shot with some earthmoving. It is already an exciting approach with the bank to the left and the fall off to the right. Seeing how the ball reacts and ends up would be fun to watch.
Hole #5- the quirkiest hole on the course. I love quirk so I love this hole. So please don't take the quirk away. However, it could be made more playable. Add a bailout area to the left of the green (so if someone wants to try and get up and down, they can do so) - ie. just give more places to miss on the hole.
Hole #9 - my favorite hole on the course from fairway to green. However, I did not like the driving area. Need to define driving area (maybe lower the front of the fairway so it is not blind or add a bunker at the front of the fairway as an aiming point) and widen fairway to the right.
Hole #14 - I would get rid of the existing fairway and make the fairway on top of the ridge to the left of the existing bowl fairway. It would play as a dogleg right Cape hole around the bowl, it would be easier to maintain and would be a nice hole on top of the dunes (instead of down in the dunes). The green complex is really special so I would not touch it.
That said, it is a great place and I loved my time there. I hope to get back someday.
-
I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red.
John Kirk made this comment earlier in this thread. I wanted to comment on it.
I picked White 10 as the winner in my match play contest because it is so much fun. I didn't say that it was a "better" hole than Red 10. I consistently mentioned the holes on the Red were "solid awarding winning classically good holes"...or something to that effect. Some of the White holes are unique and fun, to me. They are not necessarily better.
Kind of like Caddyshack is a movie I'd prefer to watch over Ordinary People, which won the Best Picture award in 1980...same year that Caddyshack come out.
That is what I find fun about going to Dismal...two different styles of courses...which I brought up multiple times in that thread.
And, finally, as I mentioned in my last post on that thread...Red won my match play contest. I think Red is one of the best courses I've ever seen...I'm proud to be a member of the club...I'm proud to have contributed to getting it built...I hope that what occurred there can have some kind of impacted on the golf world, as it seems the construction team did some unique things that helped get the course built cost effectively and should help it be maintained in the same manner. I also tip my cap to Mr. Doak for, as he mentioned earlier, giving back a portion of his designer's fee to get that course built. (I've heard of him donating his time and expertise on other courses/causes before, for the better of the game...he has my respect for that).
Having said all that, I really enjoy the White course too. If you are a design and construction expert...you may disagree with my take/opinion on that course. That is fine with me...as a player (with no business interest in golf whatsoever), I find it fun and I enjoy playing it. Could someone have done a better job in regards to building it...it sure sounds like it...but that is okay...I still like it.
I hope Red continues to grow in well and I hope it continues to get the credit it deserves on all levels...it is something special.
-
That is what I find fun about going to Dismal...two different styles of courses...which I brought up multiple times in that thread.
I agree with you Mac. They are 2 very different courses. Any changes to White should not be made to be more like the Red. I love the differences.
-
Let's at least be honest here, Chris. You started this thread as some sort of rhetorical gimmick to try and "test" me. It just so happened that people were so starved to have an opportunity to engage in frank commentary about your courses, that they took of the rare opportunity to explore some actual issues. Funny that after the countless Dismal threads that it took a thread started as a result of a tantrum to make that happen.
As for the rest, not interested, except to to scratch my head about the obliviousness expressed in your suggestion about not making things personal. Look at your creation of this thread, for goodness sake!
I do hope the thread finds its way back to actual substance.
David,
Aside from your constant flirting with me, do you have anything meaningful, either frank or open, to contribute to this thread? If you don't, do everyone a favor and please move along. I really don't think many here are entertained by our budding bromance.
Still waiting for the invisible ninja army to weight in with frank and open commentary on either course. That was the purpose of the thread, and it shall not be hijacked for the same old pettiness.
-
Kind of like Caddyshack is a movie I'd prefer to watch over Ordinary People, which won the Best Picture award in 1980...same year that Caddyshack come out.
What would be the Raging Bull in this scenario? The film from 1980 that should have won Best Picture.
-
Hi Chris,
To clarify...
It has nothing to do with what you have written or said about Dismal River, or Ballyneal, or anywhere else. You are a regularly participating member of GCA, and the owner of Dismal River GC, a position of considerable and growing prestige. It is my belief that you impact the nature of the debate just by being here. It is the first time we've had the owner of a high profile course participating in discussions about the course, and there have been some unique consequences, some negative, because of that dynamic.
I think you have maintained a gentlemanly demeanor throughout this all. I do think you sometimes take a dig at somebody/something by qualifying compliments, using the general formula "I like _______ , but _______ ."
A few years ago, a well-known architect joined the group. Everybody was happy to have him join, until he revealed his agenda, which was to go after a couple posters who were criticizing a couple of his courses. Soon after, he disappeared. Man, he was pissed. This has been nothing like that.
I went back and looked at the DR vs. BN thread for the first time in three months, and it looked better and more civil than I remembered. I admitted that I was feeling down about it, perhaps for selfish reasons. Some of my buddies decided not to participate, and I had hoped that me and JK could have had a few laughs about it afterwards.
"The one time you and Cheryl visited last year, you were admittedly off your feed - I think you would agree you were not a very happy person. I didn't shun you for being surly, I came to visit to try to brighten your mood."
"To assert that people don't want to participate due to me really fails basic common sense"
"I have never stifled honest debate, but I don't suffer fools very well."
I isolated these quotes from your last post.
I told you I was unhappy that day, which had nothing to do with the golf course. I was not unhappy when studying and writing about the two courses. I was excited about it, and had the additional task of separating my mood that day from a dispassionate analysis, which was a challenge.
No need to question my common sense or foolhardiness. That's just dumb. Are you crazy? You must be nuts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_kwXNVCaxY
-
John:
There are two parts to my answer there.
One, my participation is sometimes limited by circumstances -- there are weeks when I've got time, and weeks where I don't have much.
Two, you were comparing two courses that are both among my best, that were both competing for members, and that both have many ardent supporters here. Do you really wonder why I would avoid getting in the middle of that? Anytime I came out in favor of one or the other -- on either side -- I'd be accused of bias by half the participants, and of being a self-promoter all of the time, by a few in the L.A. contingent.
I'm happy to talk about the differences between courses, just not for the benefit of a bunch of guys keeping score [or settling scores].
Perhaps it was wishful thinking that you would at least contribute with thoughts about design, while staying away from the "which one is better" aspect of the thread. If you remember, you did say at the beginning how the poster who guesses your picks would win a prize of immense value. But I think you quickly realized that was not a good idea. Still, I had unrealistic hopes you'd offer some regular insight.
-
I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red.
John Kirk made this comment earlier in this thread. I wanted to comment on it.
I picked White 10 as the winner in my match play contest because it is so much fun. I didn't say that it was a "better" hole than Red 10. I consistently mentioned the holes on the Red were "solid awarding winning classically good holes"...or something to that effect. Some of the White holes are unique and fun, to me. They are not necessarily better.
Kind of like Caddyshack is a movie I'd prefer to watch over Ordinary People, which won the Best Picture award in 1980...same year that Caddyshack come out.
That is what I find fun about going to Dismal...two different styles of courses...which I brought up multiple times in that thread.
And, finally, as I mentioned in my last post on that thread...Red won my match play contest. I think Red is one of the best courses I've ever seen...I'm proud to be a member of the club...I'm proud to have contributed to getting it built...I hope that what occurred there can have some kind of impacted on the golf world, as it seems the construction team did some unique things that helped get the course built cost effectively and should help it be maintained in the same manner. I also tip my cap to Mr. Doak for, as he mentioned earlier, giving back a portion of his designer's fee to get that course built. (I've heard of him donating his time and expertise on other courses/causes before, for the better of the game...he has my respect for that).
Having said all that, I really enjoy the White course too. If you are a design and construction expert...you may disagree with my take/opinion on that course. That is fine with me...as a player (with no business interest in golf whatsoever), I find it fun and I enjoy playing it. Could someone have done a better job in regards to building it...it sure sounds like it...but that is okay...I still like it.
I hope Red continues to grow in well and I hope it continues to get the credit it deserves on all levels...it is something special.
Mac,
I've got a lot of respect for you. I was trying to think about how the members (and Tom) would feel if Jack Nicklaus were brought in to build a second course at Ballyneal. I think I would be opposed to building something so dramatically different than the first one. I obviously love the first course and that's the main reason I'm a member. I kinda know what I like and I rather just stick to playing courses that fit my ideal at this point in my life. Maybe I'm just getting old and set in my ways.
I guess the other way to look at it is to celebrate the differences and just enjoy your club with your friends and fellow members. That seems to be where you are at and obviously it brings a lot of joy to you. Very cool that we've both found out nirvana in different ways.
Chris, since you admitted that a very small portion of your membership are GCA nerds, did you have any challenges educating or convincing some members to go with Doak for the second course (or even the need to build a second course at all)? I'm sure some fraction had to be relatively narrow minded like me, and since they probably joined due to an affinity to the Nicklaus course, would've preferred more of the same.
This thread reminded me of a similar thread that I started back in 2010 - looking back, I think the discussion was frank and honest with some challenges but pretty civil. Reading it now, I can see how people are at times guarded in their comments, not wanting to offend members of the course. Adam and I were probably a bit too quick on the defensive. I guess some of that is common courtesy, but does it move us away from discussing the courses in earnest?
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45086.0.html
-
I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red.
John Kirk made this comment earlier in this thread. I wanted to comment on it.
I picked White 10 as the winner in my match play contest because it is so much fun. I didn't say that it was a "better" hole than Red 10. I consistently mentioned the holes on the Red were "solid awarding winning classically good holes"...or something to that effect. Some of the White holes are unique and fun, to me. They are not necessarily better.
Kind of like Caddyshack is a movie I'd prefer to watch over Ordinary People, which won the Best Picture award in 1980...same year that Caddyshack come out.
Hi Mac,
In my opinion, #10 White is very unusual, one that would yield lots of discussion about its playability. If people had been more willing to discuss specifics, we might have learned something. It looks like the penalty for not hitting the proper part of the green is enormous, as much as any green anywhere. We would have also discussed whether that constitutes good design, and whether it should be considered better or more fun, than #10 Red.
Personally, in a hole-by-hole comparison, I almost always prefer a par 5 over a par 3. Typically there's more strategy.
"Ordinary People" is a downer of a movie. It did not age well. There's a reason you don't see it circulating on late night TV.
-
Hi Chris,
To clarify...
It has nothing to do with what you have written or said about Dismal River, or Ballyneal, or anywhere else. You are a regularly participating member of GCA, and the owner of Dismal River GC, a position of considerable and growing prestige. It is my belief that you impact the nature of the debate just by being here. It is the first time we've had the owner of a high profile course participating in discussions about the course, and there have been some unique consequences, some negative, because of that dynamic.
I think you have maintained a gentlemanly demeanor throughout this all. I do think you sometimes take a dig at somebody/something by qualifying compliments, using the general formula "I like _______ , but _______ ."
A few years ago, a well-known architect joined the group. Everybody was happy to have him join, until he revealed his agenda, which was to go after a couple posters who were criticizing a couple of his courses. Soon after, he disappeared. Man, he was pissed. This has been nothing like that.
I went back and looked at the DR vs. BN thread for the first time in three months, and it looked better and more civil than I remembered. I admitted that I was feeling down about it, perhaps for selfish reasons. Some of my buddies decided not to participate, and I had hoped that me and JK could have had a few laughs about it afterwards.
"The one time you and Cheryl visited last year, you were admittedly off your feed - I think you would agree you were not a very happy person. I didn't shun you for being surly, I came to visit to try to brighten your mood."
"To assert that people don't want to participate due to me really fails basic common sense"
"I have never stifled honest debate, but I don't suffer fools very well."
I isolated these quotes from your last post.
I told you I was unhappy that day, which had nothing to do with the golf course. I was not unhappy when studying and writing about the two courses. I was excited about it, and had the additional task of separating my mood that day from a dispassionate analysis, which was a challenge.
No need to question my common sense or foolhardiness. That's just dumb. Are you crazy? You must be nuts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_kwXNVCaxY
Thank you, John.
You are a friend and are no fool. You bring great meat to this fine table.
I agree with you that the tread in question was good and worthwhile, and civil until the hijackers arrived. You did good and, in my opinion, should be proud of it.
-
Very cool that we've both found out nirvana in different ways.
Thanks, Jim. That is a good way to put it, "nirvana"...that is what it feels like when I'm out there. I'm sure you feel the same about your club. That's what it is all about to me.
John...
I'm happy to discuss 10 with you and Red and White. One of the issues with long threads that go over days and days, is that people don't always have the time in their busy days to go in-depth on each and every hole...at the precise time when it is being discussed online.
I am happy to discuss now...if you'd like. I will be logging in and out over the weekend...but if you can be patient with me, I'll return when I can to continue the discussion.
My main reason for picking White 10 was the simple fact that every single time I play the hole my entire group smiles, laughs, really watches the tee shots, where they land, where they roll to, and hoot, holler, and laugh until the ball is in the hole. Especially fun times are when we have to putt up and over the ridge and skirt the bunker to get on the right putting line. Long story short, it is always fun...and great for match play.
NOW...would I like that type of a hole on my local home club? Perhaps not...too odd. Scores are too unpredictable. It might become frustrating...I don't know. But I do know that I love playing it when I go to Dismal.
10 Red is more classically good. The tee shot has interest. What line do you want to take? What club should you hit? All the while, the tactics you want to employ on your subsequent shots need to be kept in mind too. It is tough if you get out of position on that hole, as blindness can creep into play and putting up a good score can be tricky. AND missing that green can bring in some real short game challenges.
In my mind, 10 White is simply pure fun...smile, laugh, fun. 10 Red is simply a good golf hole. Strategic, tactical golf hole that you must execute on.
Edit...sidenote, Jim, I have a lot of respect for you as well. I've been told you are in the latest Links Magazine for your efforts with the 100 Hole Hike. Kudos!
-
First of all, I'm here to build great golf courses, not to win prizes for routings.
Tom, I agree. You might have done a great job designing a golf course for the site, my only quibble was you claiming it was one of your best routings. Surely a better routing would have achieved all that you did, AND start and finish at the same point?
I knew not everyone would agree, but I didn't expect a reaction as strong as yours.
Sorry, but the thread did ask for frank discussion. :)
-
I spent about 10-15 minutes putting on the 10th green while my partner was tending to some personal stomach issues at the turn. It did seem like you could negotiate the middle bunker well enough if you were in the front and the pin was in the back. A tough two- putt for sure but nothing too extreme.
Chris talked about changes to the back half of the green? Does that mean filling in some of the back bowl to remove some of the height difference between front and back?
-
David Elvins:
What does "cheating" mean?
David Moriarty:
Again, I haven't seen Dismal, but would agree with your observation that one way, ski slope architecture would not be a positive development for golf. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that Jim Urbina himself might agree with you.
But neither would whatever we might call the Sheep Ranch.........except that it is really cool for a "one off".
It that sense one or two "one way, ski slopes" courses might also be cool.
I don't want to travel to see the same thing all over again. I want to travel to see something that is both good and unique.
-
Chris, since you admitted that a very small portion of your membership are GCA nerds, did you have any challenges educating or convincing some members to go with Doak for the second course (or even the need to build a second course at all)? I'm sure some fraction had to be relatively narrow minded like me, and since they probably joined due to an affinity to the Nicklaus course, would've preferred more of the same.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45086.0.html
Hi Jim,
As you will recall, we have ample space (rooms and clubhouse) and a second course was always in the plan at Dismal from the beginning. That said, the economy made the idea more than questionable for a time. The key was to establish trust with a then whipsawed membership and stabilize the club financially which was done pretty fast in the first year. I won't suggest that was easy. It also begins with realizing you have a problem, plan a realistic strategy to solve it, and communicate with the members so they know what you plan to do. I believe you can solve most problems if you tackle them with truth...if you lose that, you lose the game. A lot of phone calls. Trust is the key and bullshit never works. One good thing is the club never slashed the golf course budget...that is fatal.
as to the why? Like any business, we need volume or yield. Not much different than a manufacturing plant...running at less than breakeven capacity is a drag. For us, with the scale of the property, we believed a cool second course would add both volume, members, and extend stays. When I was at Sand Hills, there were times where I got sick of playing the same great course. Two courses solved that problem.
I don't think we did much convincing. Probably similar to you and John at Ballyneal, the guys really wanted the club to work. I won't go into that sad saga but will say I really respect your love for that place. We selected Tom and he us, we put the second course to the membership for a vote, and the ballot passed with quite a cushion. That really speaks volumes about the members of Dismal River...voting to build a new course in the middle of the worst possible industry conditions with failure all around. On of the most memorable moments occurred on an all hands conference call...one of my favorite members said the following in jest: "Well, hell, if we're going to go down, we may as well go down in flames". That comment alone probably converted several "on the fencers".
Another funny story from last year. A member and good friend from Vail arrived mid July for his first visit of the season. I greeted him at the door and the first thing he said is: "I can't believe you're still here! We all figured you'd be gone by now". I won't share the two word response i gave him, but you can probably guess.
Now, I also made a huge mistake that put the entire project in jeopardy. After the assessment, I (naively) expected everyone to pay. Some didn't, and more than a few paid slowly out of necessity. I really should have planned for that. With the project already underway, I had to go back to the same good folks (now excited) and tell them truthfully that I whiffed. The result was a second ballot for a second traunch to fill the hole, using a creative structure, and that vote was overwhemingly positive. As mentioned earlier, Tom also stepped in to assist. That could be why the members are so passionate - they got to watch a new course be created from scratch! It's also why Tom Doak is both friend and hero.
Regardless what some here may think of me and the sheer joy I find in golf, something very special and quite uncommon happened at Dismal River. Something positive. In this economy, and this industry, that really is cool.
-
Tim,
Sheep Ranch is a very cool "one off," but I don't quite understand why you would suggest it might not be a positive development for golf? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you? Even if I agreed with SR was negative for gca (and I don't think I do) I think Sheep Ranch is distinguishable. For one thing, I don't think that there is much chance that the Sheep Ranch formula is going to catch on for a host of reasons, one of which is that it might be a difficult concept to make profitable (although I think it might be possible with in a very unique situation.)
This idea of one way, ski slope golf is of more concern, though, because it seems to be a pretty logical progression in the "advancement" of cart golf, doesn't it? Good uphill holes are hard to design, and many golfers don't like them much anyway, so why not just toss them in the dustbin? Play downhill! Its more fun! No constraints. Find the best land for each hole regardless of location. As Tom said, they'll be in a cart after the end of the round anyway. So why sweat it? And while I doubt it would work out that way, an argument could be made that playing downhill would make it an easier walk for those who cared to (provided they had a cart stationed at the end.) Golf as a downhill thrill ride. What could go wrong?
In short, I think that Jim Urbina might have been onto something, at least if he was looking for the next possible trend in golf. The first cart ball mountain course was probably seemed like a pretty cool "one off" too. But the trend caught on, and this trend could be catching on, too. We could be witnessing the beginning of the next trend in cart golf. If it seems like the great Tom Doak is on board, who wouldn't be?
Imagine a property like Rock Creek only with both nines running down hill, and maybe a chairlift in between, along the scenic creek One could ride up, and go left or right, just like off a ski lift. Play down one nine, then ride up and play down the other. Mechanized walking golf, with no or few pesky uphill holes. The hundred hole hike would be a breeze.
-
David,
You have definitely put more thought into to it than I. As for Sheep Ranch, I think it is really cool, but just can't imagine it going beyond a "one off". Maybe that is what I mean more than being good or bad for golf architecture.
Regarding the ski slope idea, I don't like it generally speaking. It certainly doesn't sound like a good way to encourage walking, so that is a big strike against it in my book.
Is Dismal really a ski slope course?
-
Neither course at Dismal is anything like a ski slope.
I loved both courses, and I think the new (Doak) course could end up being considered world class once she grows in. Today, she's only "amazing" :)
I'd also say that Jack's (original) course just doesn't get old. It's exciting and a blast to play.
-
Dan, I don't mean to imply that either Dismal course (or any other course) is anything like a ski slope. Ideally ski slopes have thousands of feet of vertical, and I don't think that would work well in golf. I used the phrase one way, ski slope for Jim Urbina's idea because downhill skiing is (generally) a one way, downhill sport, and it sounds like the course he was envisioning was that way as well. Obviously the "downhill" would have to be much less severe on a ski slope.
Regarding DR, I was under the impression that after the first handful of holes, the course was pretty much all downhill. Is that not the case?
-
Is Dismal really a ski slope course?
I haven't been there, but it doesn't sound like it. I was referring to the concept and thinking of Tom's description of the terrain mentioned in the Urbina story. (ADDED: Also, I was thinking of the terrain Rock Creek.) But from the descriptions, it does sound like a key component of the DR course is that much of it plays downhill, and the fact that the ends don't meet allows the golfer to avoid having to play back uphill at the end.
I don't like the one way, ski slope idea either, at least not in theory. I'm not commenting on DR's routing, because i haven't seen it.
David,
I have been to Rock Creek and can't quite visualize a ski slope design. Anyway, some people love the place, but it is not my favorite of Tom's courses. I find the venue a bit too much sensory overload. Much prefer a place like St Andrews Beach which is much more focused on the golf course.
-
Nah - there's plenty of uphill there throughout both layouts' routing.
-
I admit I am writing this with a helmet on but....
If Tom said that he put the best 18 holes on the ground, why would anyone care that the course does not end where it starts? We are not talking about your local GC where you play 18, have lunch with the boys and head home. You are in the sand hills, you take carts to your cabin, you don't go home for days. Why the consternation on where you finish?
-
I haven't been there
because i haven't seen it.
I'm calling "Bullshit" here. Perhaps your comments would have a little more merit if you had if fact, been to the course(s).
(http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/matt-kate-650x420.jpg)
-
Not only has he never seen it, he makes it clear he will never visit. Yet, he's like a pit bull on a steak when it comes to any thread that mentions DR. That seems pretty damn strange to me. I can think of only one reason why he continues to participate in DR threads.
-
Not only has he never seen it, he makes it clear he will never visit. Yet, he's like a pit bull on a steak when it comes to any thread that mentions DR. That seems pretty damn strange to me. I can think of only one reason why he continues to participate in DR threads.
.
-
Don,
I have often wondered about people commenting on course they haven't seen. The first time I went to Dismal, Chris gave us a tour of the course while it was growing in. To be honest, I had no idea what I was looking at. I know Tom Doak gave Sand Hills a 10 in the CG guide during grown in. Question is, do you think that you have to be involved in many building projects to be able to judge a course without seeing it finished? I know it is a bit off topic, bit wondering what you thought?
-
Is Dismal really a ski slope course?
I haven't been there, but it doesn't sound like it. I was referring to the concept and thinking of Tom's description of the terrain mentioned in the Urbina story. (ADDED: Also, I was thinking of the terrain Rock Creek.) But from the descriptions, it does sound like a key component of the DR course is that much of it plays downhill, and the fact that the ends don't meet allows the golfer to avoid having to play back uphill at the end.
I don't like the one way, ski slope idea either, at least not in theory. I'm not commenting on DR's routing, because i haven't seen it.
To the first point, the terrain at Dismal is not that steep, but it's somewhere between 200 and 250 feet from the highest point of the course to the lowest, which is significant. Actually, the first place I saw a routing like this was at Boyne Mountain in Michigan, where they have two 18-hole courses that start on top of the mountain (after a long cart ride up) and finish at the lodge at the bottom.
To David's horror, probably, I did have a routing like this in the works at Rock Creek. It didn't start all the way up the hill, but it would have started from a point on the entrance road, and finished down at the lodge; I envisioned players being shuttled to the first tee. However, when the client started talking in terms of people taking golf carts up to the start, we started looking for a way to start the course down at the lodge, too, and make one big loop of it. I was a bit skeptical we could do it at first, because the total elevation change there is 300 feet, but Eric Iverson found a great starting sequence I hadn't considered, and when we walked it all it seemed workable. In fact, it's a great course to walk.
And so is Dismal. The one thing we're still missing is a little lean-to and a cooler full of beer down by the river behind #18 green, where you can hang out until somebody comes and fetches you ... as long as the deer flies aren't out in force.
-
I know Tom Doak gave Sand Hills a 10 in the CG guide during grown in.
Actually, I gave it a 9. I wouldn't have given it a 10 before I'd played it a couple of times, but I do have a pretty fair sense of how good a course will be if I walk it in the dirt.
Most people have no clue what they are looking at while a course is in construction; they just can't make the mental switch from dirt to grass, and everything looks farther than it is. It takes a while to get comfortable on construction sites.
-
Nice to see that the period for frank commentary by anyone and everyone is coming to an end . . . Is this what you guys had in mind all along with this silly thread?
Bruce Wellman,
I haven't said anything specific about either course, so why would I have to have seen it?
PPallotta was ten pages into a detailed critique and match play of the two courses, and he's never seen either one. I don't recall you calling "bullshit" there. Is it only those whose opinions you don't like who aren't allowed to mention the course?
Don, Surely you understand why I have no desire to visit Dismal, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the courses? I'd love to hear the reason you think I participate in these threads. I'll bet it has nothing to do with why I really do.
-
Sorry to miss quote you, I won't edit it because I will live with my mistake. I appreciate your comments though, it just seemed so difficult to visualize what was almost there, but not quite yet.
-
It's Wellmon.
-
David, to answer the question you pose to Keith, from my POV, it is because you have no desire to go see it in person. No desire to actually see what Tom saw that motivated him to do what he did. You can dismiss that from afar, but this is not an urban course, and what Tom did works at DR, but may not work everywhere.
That, IMO, is the key to design, not some sort of rules you think should be applied as you sit over your keyboard.
That willingness to think differently in a different environment is what makes courses great.
Do you really want golf courses to look like football fields?
And for the life of me, I can't grasp how you can possibly insinuate that it doesn't work, or honor the walking golfer, when you have zero motivation to put your feet on the ground.
-
David,
I can only comment on my own thought, and experiences. The Sand Hills are a very expansive place that make great distances seem small. The guests at Dismal river takes carts to both course whether they are walking the course or not, and it seems like they have unlimited property. All these factors make the experience out there unique. In addition, most guests are at Dismal for a few days and will be playing their second 18 at The Nicklaus course. To me, all these factors mean that not returning to the first tee with the 18th green is not that big a deal.
Now that we are discussing the merits of it, why do you think I it is a big deal?
I will go ahead and admit that I may be biased. My favorite course is Shinnecock, and the 18th green is further and possibly more down hill from the first than Dismal.
-
David M, I must have missed it, but why do you have no intention or desire to visit DR? Honest question, no snark intended.
-
So if we just build another clubhouse between the 18th green and 1st tee we can end this argument? Sadly that would greatly diminish the view from the fire pit. I wouldn't want it if it were a gift.
-
I admit I am writing this with a helmet on but....
If Tom said that he put the best 18 holes on the ground, why would anyone care that the course does not end where it starts? We are not talking about your local GC where you play 18, have lunch with the boys and head home. You are in the sand hills, you take carts to your cabin, you don't go home for days. Why the consternation on where you finish?
Keith,
I don't care what happens at Dismal, specifically, or who walks or rides where. I do care about what happens with golf course architecture generally, and when one of the leading designers builds an "open-jaw" course in the Sand Hills, then that is worth exploring. And it is also worth exploring how applicable the justification will be at other courses, because as soon as the next guy wants to do something similar, they will surely say "Well, Tom Doak did it at Dismal Red."
The lady doth protest too much. So now, David, you are protecting all of golf course architecture generally, must be quite a burden. I've walked from the club house to the first tee of the Red, from the 18th back to the 1st, and from the 18th back to the clubhouse. Every one of those walks is lovely. I don't get at all why the self-appointed defenders of the purity of walking in golf somehow don't get that a walk to and from the first tee might actually be ...pure. Think just a bit before blathering further.
-
I don't get at all why the self-appointed defenders of the purity of walking in golf somehow don't get that a walk to and from the first tee might actually be ...pure.
Case closed.
-
Tom Doak,
Boyne should install a chairlift for carts, and then they'd be on to something.
I am not quite sure I'd call it "horror" but I was pretty surprised when I first heard about the scratched idea of a remote start at Rock Creek. That was back when the course was being constructed. I was very glad that you and Eric were able to work out a traditional routing, and I think the course benefited. It seems the exact same concerns about carts would exist at Dismal, and as you've explained you didn't really have a choice at Dismal. But the issue of putting butts in carts that you acknowledged at Rock Creek remains at Dismal whether you had a choice to do something different or not, doesn't it?
To be fair about Rock Creek, it is easy for me to say it was the right decision, because when I first saw it the routing was already roughly in place. I am not sure what I would have thought about the site if I was looking at raw ground. And I agree it is a good walking course, and one that was well worth the effort to work out. I don't know exactly where you would have started, but the first section of the course - that part that you presumably would have been left out - is tremendous, and Rock Creek (and the scratched routing) is one reason why I think this topic is so interesting to me.
If you had decided to go with the "open-jaw" routing at RC, do you think it would have been as good a course? Do you think your decision to close the loop has made it more of a walking course for the members, as opposed to what it would have been if RC had been putting them in carts and sending them out to the first tee?
-
I admit I am writing this with a helmet on but....
If Tom said that he put the best 18 holes on the ground, why would anyone care that the course does not end where it starts? We are not talking about your local GC where you play 18, have lunch with the boys and head home. You are in the sand hills, you take carts to your cabin, you don't go home for days. Why the consternation on where you finish?
Keith,
I don't care what happens at Dismal, specifically, or who walks or rides where. I do care about what happens with golf course architecture generally, and when one of the leading designers builds an "open-jaw" course in the Sand Hills, then that is worth exploring. And it is also worth exploring how applicable the justification will be at other courses, because as soon as the next guy wants to do something similar, they will surely say "Well, Tom Doak did it at Dismal Red."
The lady doth protest too much. So now, David, you are protecting all of golf course architecture generally, must be quite a burden. I've walked from the club house to the first tee of the Red, from the 18th back to the 1st, and from the 18th back to the clubhouse. Every one of those walks is lovely. I don't get at all why the self-appointed defenders of the purity of walking in golf somehow don't get that a walk to and from the first tee might actually be ...pure. Think just a bit before blathering further.
Chris,
I don't think it is fair to criticize David or anyone else for being concerned about "golf course architecture generally". There is nothing wrong with that.
Whether a particular course or feature is good or bad for "golf course architecture generally" is a big part of what we discuss. Wasn't it also part of Mackenzie's writing on the subject?
-
Tim,
How is and 18yh hole returning 400 yards (guessing) from the first tee bad for architecture generally?
-
Chris,
I don't think it is fair to criticize David or anyone else for being concerned about "golf course architecture generally". There is nothing wrong with that.
Whether a particular course or feature is good or bad for "golf course architecture generally" is a big part of what we discuss. Wasn't it also part of Mackenzie's writing on the subject?
Criticize? Au contraire, I was sympathizing! Such burdens! The shoulder getting lower and lower to the ground! Making it harder to walk! to or from the first tee! In a beautiful place! On a beautiful day!
-
Tim,
How is and 18yh hole returning 400 yards (guessing) from the first tee bad for architecture generally?
Keith,
I am not arguing that specific example. What I am saying is that if someone cares to there is nothing wrong with that, even if they haven't seen the specific course under discussion.
Keep in mind that most courses we discuss here haven't been seen by most GCA members. People who have seen a course can provide insight about a course from their first hand experience. People who haven't seen a course can still participate, but I think it is usually best in two forms:
1) asking questions, 2) making comments about golf course architecture generally.
Do you see that differently?
-
I think some of you guys need to take a step back out of my face. I haven't criticized your damn course. I am talking about a general routing issue. Grow up.
-
Is it an unusual sensation playing a hole you know to be the 18th yet there is no clubhouse or infrastructure either nearby or in fact framing the hole?
Off the top of my head, I cant personally recall ever playing an 18th without the clubhouse featuring in part of the hole in terms of its location. To me, it has the impact of making the finishing hole feel defined in terms of being the end of your round.
Does playing a hole that is the 18th only in number give that same impact as a climax to the round or does it somehow seem like stopping randomly in the middle of a round?
-
Tim,
I completely agree with you. I think asking questions is always the best way to learn. I don't think you need to have seen or played a course to want to learn about it. I would like to learn why it is being questioned as a big deal? What are your specific objections to this type of layout?
-
Is it an unusual sensation playing a hole you know to be the 18th yet there is no clubhouse or infrastructure either nearby or in fact framing the hole?
Off the top of my head, I cant personally recall ever playing an 18th without the clubhouse featuring in part of the hole in terms of its location. To me, it has the impact of making the finishing hole feel defined in terms of being the end of your round.
Does playing a hole that is the 18th only in number give that same impact as a climax to the round or does it somehow seem like stopping randomly in the middle of a round?
Grant,
The clubhouse is a backdrop to the 18th green. Once you finally reach the river and finish there is no question that you are done.
-
I think some of you guys need to take a step back out of my face. I haven't criticized your damn course. I am talking about a general routing issue. Grow up.
How is stating that the open jawed routing of Dismal is a threat to all future architecture not a criticism of the course? The fact remains that if we just built another clubhouse in the valley it would no longer be open jawed.
Is an open jawed routing less than ideal? That is a simple question. Yes or no? If yes then you are criticizing the course. I just want you to stop lying.
Btw. Congrats on coining the term open jawed. I would have been proud of that myself back in the day. It is discreetly insulting on so many levels.
-
I do agree with David that the topic is fair game for discussion. As far as I know, 99.9% of golf courses and all of the top golf courses end roughly when they start. It says a lot about Tom to a) go across the road and b) go against the grain in order to build the best golf course possible. Would Tiger have had the stones to do that with his first design had he gotten the job?
It probably could start a trend of at least considering an open jaw routing when the site doesn't allow for something more traditional. I think I rather have the maximum number of quality golf holes.
-
Tim,
I completely agree with you. I think asking questions is always the best way to learn. I don't think you need to have seen or played a course to want to learn about it. I would like to learn why it is being questioned as a big deal? What are your specific objections to this type of layout?
Keith,
I guess I am a fan of classic type layouts like the original course at Stonewall. There is an intimacy to it - 1st tee by pro shop, 18th green not far from the bar! - that I like.
But, appreciating the world of golf architecture is supposed to be a journey that takes you to different venues where you play different courses. So, the sand hills type courses probably shouldn't try to mimic Main Line Philadelphia courses: Dismal should not try to be Merion. If it did, what would be the point of going there?
-
Jim,
The 18th green at Victoria National is more than 400 yds from the 18th green to the 1st tee. The clubhouse in between discounts the distance.
How many of your hundred hole hikers take carts between each 18? Who doesn't like to sit down for a few minutes between rounds and settle bets or wait on friends. Even a security guard can use a chair now and then.
-
Off the top of my head, I cant personally recall ever playing an 18th without the clubhouse featuring in part of the hole in terms of its location.
Harbour Town does not finish at the clubhouse.,
-
Tim, Jim,
I agree. I think the sand hills present a lot of unique factors. We have the architect on the site saying that he is confident he got the best 18 holes. I don't see a problem with this type routing.
-
Jim,
The 18th green at Victoria National is more than 400 yds from the 18th green to the 1st tee. The clubhouse in between discounts the distance.
How many of your hundred hole hikers take carts between each 18? Who doesn't like to sit down for a few minutes between rounds and settle bets or wait on friends. Even a security guard can use a chair now and then.
JK,
It's a similar story at Ballyneal, though I haven't measured the exact distance. I'm often carrying two bags up that hill after losing my match, our typical stakes.
Yes, HHHers (including me) often get a lift back to the house in between rounds. We allow for one lift per round.
I thought Doak coined open-jaw, at least the first time I saw it mentioned.
-
How is stating that the open jawed routing of Dismal is a threat to all future architecture not a criticism of the course? The fact remains that if we just built another clubhouse in the valley it would no longer be open jawed.
Is an open jawed routing less than ideal? That is a simple question. Yes or no? If yes then you are criticizing the course. I just want you to stop lying.
Btw. Congrats on coining the term open jawed. I would have been proud of that myself back in the day. It is discreetly insulting on so many levels.
The reason I put the term "open-jawed" in quotes was because it was a quote. I think it is Tom Doak's term, not mine. Reply #16. I switched to using it because I figured people would get testy if I used my own. Predictably, you got testy, anyway.
As for the rest of your post, I think Tom Doak already addressed whether or not an "open-jawed" routing is ideal both in regards to Dismal River and in regards to Rock Creek. Are you going to take him to task for criticizing your course, too?
This is exactly the type of bizarre over-sensitivity that makes these discussions impossible with you guys. Even the simplest most basic observation is taken as some mortal criticism.
David,
I have spent the last two days golfing only to get home and find you with dozens of posts concerning Dismal River, most edited. Yet you claim that you have never criticized either course. Would you agree with me that if we built a clubhouse between the 18th green and the 1st tee the routing would no longer be flawed in your opinion. If not than why?
-
John K:
I am not sure it makes sense to say criticism of a single feature is a criticism of the course.
Many people observed the green on #13 at Dooks is kind of crazy. I might say that too, but you sure as hell won't hear me criticize the course.
The place is heaven. Anyone who doesn't like it can go to hell!
-
John K:
I am not sure it makes sense to say criticism of a single feature is a criticism of the course.
Yes Tim but what if you say it multiple times for days on end?
-
Tim, Jim,
I agree. I think the sand hills present a lot of unique factors. We have the architect on the site saying that he is confident he got the best 18 holes. I don't see a problem with this type routing.
Keith,
There is no problem with this type of routing. Tom says he is satisfied that he [paraphrasing] got the best 18 holes he could while minimizing green to tee walks. I'm sure most would prefer he produce the best 18 holes even if that means having the course end somewhere other than where it starts over some lesser holes and a shared start/end point.
I think David's point, and I understand what he's saying, is that it is hard to argue the routing is great (or at least comparable to other great routings) since the need to start and end at the same place / clubhouse has been removed. This must often be a limiting factor so by removing this limitation it doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison.
Do all great courses start and end at the clubhouse? No. Crystal Downs' 18th hole must be 400 yards and one hell of an uphill walk to the 1st tee / golf shop. But I've also read that is a criticism of the course.
-
Mark,
When did returning to the first tee become a requirement? Shinnecock was built a few years before Dismal, and it does not return to the first tee.
I guess Tom said it was not ideal. I don't have to agree with him, I think getting the best 18 holes is ideal, and I personally don't see an overriding need to return to number 1.
-
John K:
I am not sure it makes sense to say criticism of a single feature is a criticism of the course.
Yes Tim but what if you say it multiple times for days on end?
John,
I haven't followed every Dismal thread, but generally would say the distance from 18 green back to the clubhouse is a fair point to note yet not dwell on.
On the other hand, suppose someone feels a generally undesirable golf architecture feature has been proliferating (e.g., island greens), it would be quite fair and make sense to start a thread and spell out why that feature is bad and should usually be avoided.
The crazy Dooks green isn't showing up on many new courses, so it can be charming in its place and not an undesirable trend in golf architecture.
Likewise, the walk or ride back to the Dismal clubhouse might be enjoyable given the setting and that perspective might be shared by people familiar with the course.
-
David Elvins:
What does "cheating" mean?
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the question, I am struggling to keep up with the pace of the thread.
I think cheating means breaking or disregarding the rules.
In the context of routing a golf course, I think that there has for a long time been a number of 'rules'.
-A course consists of 18 holes,
-Each hole starts near where the last one finishes,
-the course returns to where it started.
A great architect shows his skill by creating a course that features a variety of holes with different lengths, playing characteristics and green sites. It's no easy task to do this within the physical confines of a site and adhering to the rules above.
The architect can no doubt break the rules above if he thinks it suits the site. He could design a 16 hole course, he could accept that carts would be used and use this to ignore the principle that each hole should start near where the last one finished. or he can justify not starting where he finished if the clubhouse is detached from the course.
But if he does any of these, I do not think it can be considered a great routing, because he is not operating within the rules and constraints that most comparable courses have done. Compared to these routing efforts, its cheating.
-
FWIW (little), Open Jaw is a term borrowed from the travel industry. If you have a round trip ticket where you don't come back to the same city from which you departed (or vice versa), they call it open jaw. Seems to be well-used in this context.
Anyway, I am curious...for those critical of this type of routing especially...hypothetically, if every other aspect of a particular course were at/near ideal for you (100 out of 100), how much would you 'deduct' mentally for not returning to the clubhouse? Is it negligible (1-3 pts), meaningful (5-10 pts), or even stronger?
I am not trying to turn this into a rating for a particular course, but rather just get a sense of the degree to which this matters to you. I love a great, walkable routing as much as the next guy (here), but I can't see this even registering on my radar, especially if the course I just played was top notch.
-
The other piece of this discussion goes back a bunch of years, to a conversation Jim Urbina and I had while driving through New Mexico, on our way to Apache Stronghold. We were on a road down a very long and steep valley, and Jim mentioned that it would be cool to build a golf course along a site like that, starting at one end and playing all the way to the far end, since it was clearly too steep to provide room for holes out and back. He "trademarked" a name for his concept which I won't reveal. Anyway, I thought it was a great idea; I would love to play a course like that, whereas apparently you would rule it out of
Out-and-out (TM)?
-
I have spent the last two days golfing only to get home and find you with dozens of posts concerning Dismal River, most edited. Yet you claim that you have never criticized either course. Would you agree with me that if we built a clubhouse between the 18th green and the 1st tee the routing would no longer be flawed in your opinion. If not than why?
Kavanaugh,
As for your question, I don't believe I have ever said or implied your course was "flawed." That is your strange take on my discussion of a general issue, but I don't buy into your stretched logic about how a general comment automatically translates to a specific criticism. Tom Doak tells me he provided the best routing he could given the limitations, and I have no reason to doubt him. I couldn't speculate on what impact building a clubhouse would have. I haven't been there.
As for the rest of your post, I think it is pretty pathetic that you are scouring my posts looking for a criticism of your course, hoping to trip me up. And I love your innuendo about the edits, as if I have gone back and rewritten history. If you look at the time of the edits, you'd see that they all take place almost immediately after I post. I am not a good proof reader, and I sometimes clean them up. (I did immediately delete some profanity in a post to Don yesterday, written in response to his profanity to me. Sorry for you, though, there was no criticism of your course.
-
Mark,
When did returning to the first tee become a requirement? Shinnecock was built a few years before Dismal, and it does not return to the first tee.
I guess Tom said it was not ideal. I don't have to agree with him, I think getting the best 18 holes is ideal, and I personally don't see an overriding need to return to number 1.
Keith, most classic courses start and end at a fixed point -- the clubhouse. Remove the need to start and end at that point and, I'm guessing (I've never routed a golf course!), routing the course with great holes and shorter transitions becomes easier.
I agree, I'd prefer the best 18 holes. I'm just trying to say I understand what David is saying.
Let's just keep in mind that we're talking about this mythical job of evaluating routings. I think we've both agreed that such a thing is above our intelligence level. I'm just hoping Huckaby will explain it to me one day.
-
David Elvins,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You have explained your point quite well.
But, wow, "cheating" seems a bit harsh. It is long forgotten, but in its day Tom Fazio's Wild Dunes was considered something of a landmark course. The 18th green does not return to the clubhouse. It remains by the ocean, a routing decision I never heard anyone criticize and had the pleasure to experience many times.
I haven't been to Dismal but it sounds like Tom Doak did what Tom Fazio did at Wild Dunes.
I am ok with that even if it isn't "ideal".
-
Yes Tim but what if you say it multiple times for days on end?
Don't make things up Kavanaugh. You've been searching my posts for evidence of criticism of your course, so you know this isn't true.
You guys are a kick. You ask questions you don't want answered, and then yell and scream when they are answered. You start threads demanding I participate and brow-beating me for not participating, then when I do you brow beat me for that, too. You claim you want frank discussion, but then when you get some it is back to the overly-defensive nonsense.
David,
You have known me for years and read thousands of my posts. I have never been more calm than tonight. I am sorry that I don't buy into your logic that you have never criticized either course. And sorry, I don't read your edited posts, I just note that they have been edited.
I honestly don't see the harm in you criticizing Dismal. You must love the place considering it gives you the best opportunities for discussing the general principals you find so dear.
-
I think this is really sad, when did we all become children fighting over crayons? If you don't want to talk about Dismal then ignore the thread. If you don't want to see what a poster has to say then don't read it. Dismal is a great and unique place with an atmosphere different than most other places. With all the CJ bashing I'd love to have someone tell me they've ever met Chris and he's been anything less than a joy to be around.
-
David Elvins:
What does "cheating" mean?
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the question, I am struggling to keep up with the pace of the thread.
I think cheating means breaking or disregarding the rules.
In the context of routing a golf course, I think that there has for a long time been a number of 'rules'.
-A course consists of 18 holes,
-Each hole starts near where the last one finishes,
-the course returns to where it started.
A great architect shows his skill by creating a course that features a variety of holes with different lengths, playing characteristics and green sites. It's no easy task to do this within the physical confines of a site and adhering to the rules above.
The architect can no doubt break the rules above if he thinks it suits the site. He could design a 16 hole course, he could accept that carts would be used and use this to ignore the principle that each hole should start near where the last one finished. or he can justify not starting where he finished if the clubhouse is detached from the course.
But if he does any of these, I do not think it can be considered a great routing, because he is not operating within the rules and constraints that most comparable courses have done. Compared to these routing efforts, its cheating.
David, what you call rules I would call traditions. They have generally/mostly been true, but not always. CPC e.g. features at least one long green to tee walk (15 to 16), and maybe more. Barnbougle as I understand it has a long walk. Highland Links has a walk of several hundred yards (450 to 500?) at one point.
All considered among the best designs/courses in the world. All greatly admired for their routing.
They aren't entirely unique, either. Looks like the 1st tee at NGLA is a couple hundred yards from the clubhouse... and the 18th green sits a good distance away as well. When the course opened, the 1st tee was 300 yards or so from what acted as the clubhouse.
Cheating is not counting all your shots... or handling a football into the nets (ala Maradona's Hand of God 'goal', though still genius). Not following a tradition -- that itself is not universal -- is cheating?
-
I think this is really sad, when did we all become children fighting over crayons? If you don't want to talk about Dismal then ignore the thread. If you don't want to see what a poster has to say then don't read it. Dismal is a great and unique place with an atmosphere different than most other places. With all the CJ bashing I'd love to have someone tell me they've ever met Chris and he's been anything less than a joy to be around.
You think it is sad. I wish I had never heard of Dismal River. Everyday it's the same story, I f-ing hate the place. It's my fault for admitting in a public forum that I loved something. David has latched on to my weakness and drilled me into submission. Honestly, I deserve it for all the times I did the same to others in my own sorry and jaded way. I had it coming.
-
I think this is really sad, when did we all become children fighting over crayons? If you don't want to talk about Dismal then ignore the thread. If you don't want to see what a poster has to say then don't read it. Dismal is a great and unique place with an atmosphere different than most other places. With all the CJ bashing I'd love to have someone tell me they've ever met Chris and he's been anything less than a joy to be around.
You think it is sad. I wish I had never heard of Dismal River. Everyday it's the same story, I f-ing hate the place. It's my fault for admitting in a public forum that I loved something. David has latched on to my weakness and drilled me into submission. Honestly, I deserve it for all the times I did the same to others in my own sorry and jaded way. I had it coming.
It takes a strong man to admit that, I admire you my friend.
-
this is a sad thread unfortunately...online banter can be sad no doubt, personal interaction is where it's at
can't wait for my family to get home from the airport
I think that DR is great and CJ is a great guy, and I have not actually met him, LOL...it is for sure the most remote place I've been for golf and look forward to going back
I prefer walking, DR is the last round I rode, and I like Red better than White by far...same with wine...
I wish the courses were closer to the clubhouse, yet that does add something different while also losing something I prefer
I wonder how many different people have actually been there? It's also interesting that DR is at elevation...3300 feet.
-
David, to answer the question you pose to Keith, from my POV, it is because you have no desire to go see it in person. No desire to actually see what Tom saw that motivated him to do what he did. You can dismiss that from afar, but this is not an urban course, and what Tom did works at DR, but may not work everywhere.
My question to Keith was about the way you guys have behaved when this issue has come up in the past. While I understand what you are saying regarding me not seeing the course, and why that would be frustrating from your perspective, your explanation in no way justifies the way your buddies have behaved regarding this issue. So what if I asked some questions about a course I haven't seen? Some of the questions I asked were because I haven't seen it! Others of the questions have nothing to do with whether I have seen it or not!
Do I need to see NGLA to know that it is an out-and-back routing? I don't think so. Do I need to see NGLA to wonder about the impact of that out-and-back routing on other golf courses of the era, and later? I don't think I do. Do I need to see it to explore whether there was a conscious emulation of TOC? Nope. Is it untoward of me to dare to generally discuss the impact of an out-and-back routing on aspects of the golfer's enjoyment of the game? Of course not. Likewise, there is no reason I shouldn't explore this issue here. Both have significance to gca generally.
I readily accept Tom's reasoning for routing it the way he did. I am not second guessing his judgment. I am not criticizing his course. I am sure that it is great. Yes, seeing the course would probably help me understand why Tom did what he did, and it is my loss for not seeing it. But I have questions and interests, nonetheless. And they aren't dependent upon me seeing it.
As for me supposedly insinuating that the course doesn't work, I've done no such thing.
-
I can only comment on my own thought, and experiences. The Sand Hills are a very expansive place that make great distances seem small. The guests at Dismal river takes carts to both course whether they are walking the course or not, and it seems like they have unlimited property. All these factors make the experience out there unique. In addition, most guests are at Dismal for a few days and will be playing their second 18 at The Nicklaus course. To me, all these factors mean that not returning to the first tee with the 18th green is not that big a deal.
Now that we are discussing the merits of it, why do you think I it is a big deal?
I appreciate your description, Keith, and understand something about relative spacing in expansive spaces. It makes sense why Dismal uses carts to get around, and I am not second guessing Tom's routing decision. As I thought I wrote above to you, I don't think either of these things are a "big deal" so far as your course is concerned. But I do think it matters when considering Tom's total body of work and his evolution as a designer, and when evaluating the routing, as David Elvins has mentioned. Whether it is a "big deal" so far as gca is concerned, time will well I guess. At the very least it is an interesting topic to explore. For me at least.
I will go ahead and admit that I may be biased. My favorite course is Shinnecock, and the 18th green is further and possibly more down hill from the first than Dismal.
I don't know about the elevation change, but I think you may be mistaken about the distances.
-
David, what you call rules I would call traditions. They have generally/mostly been true, but not always. CPC e.g. features at least one long green to tee walk (15 to 16), and maybe more. Barnbougle as I understand it has a long walk. Highland Links has a walk of several hundred yards (450 to 500?) at one point.
Hi Jim,
The long walk at Cypress Point is about 160 yards, the longest walk at Barnbougle about 110 (7 green to 8 tee). The walk from 18 green to 1 tee at Dismal is about 800 yards. I do not think the comparison is reasonable.
They aren't entirely unique, either. Looks like the 1st tee at NGLA is a couple hundred yards from the clubhouse... and the 18th green sits a good distance away as well.
The first tee is next to the 18th green at The national. They are less than 150 yardsfrom the clubhouse. Again, I don't think it is a reasonable comparison.
Cheating is not counting all your shots... or handling a football into the nets (ala Maradona's Hand of God 'goal', though still genius). Not following a tradition -- that itself is not universal -- is cheating?
I see where you are coming from, but when it comes to evaluating routings, I think the 'editing' counts.
Take Sand Hills for example. Coore and Crenshaw famously stated that they 'found 130 holes' during the routing process. Surely a large part of the genius of the design process at Sand Hills was to edit these 130 holes down to 18 complimentary holes that started and finished in the same place? That's what routing genius often is. Editing. If Coore and Crenshaw had ended up building a 23 hole golf course that ended 3 miles from where it started, that is sloppy editing, and an easy way out. Sure it may have had more great holes, and sure, there are no official 'rules' that must be followed, but the best of the best are the ones that take on the challenge to not break the rules/traditions, because this the hardest thing to do.
-
David,
What about the walk from 11 green to 12 tee at Crystal Downs? Have you played Diamante?
-
What about the walk from 11 green to 12 tee at Crystal Downs?
Google Earth shows it to be a walk of 200 yards. Worthy of discussion but not comparable to the 800 yard walk at Dismal, IMO.
-
David, your rule (the one I was referring to) reads: "Each hole starts near where the last one finishes".
I don't consider 150 yards as 'near.' i.e. I think the examples we've given violate your rule. Actually, from the sounds of things DRR meets that criterion quite well: no long walks between holes.
If you stick to your guns about the closeness of holes, do you think Highlands Links cheats?
Comparisons to Sand Hills may be stacked against DR. DR already had an existing course to build around. On top of that, it had an existing clubhouse and private lots. IIRC, Tom said those lots take up the best land for holes he might build near the clubhouse.
Did Sand Hills face any of those problems?
ETA: I just read in Ran's profile of Highlands Links that the distance between the 12th green and 13th tee is 480 yards. Even so, Ran says "Stanley Thompson‘s routing is a marvel as the variety of settings without loss of continuity or character is unique in all of golf."
-
David E,
If all designers kept in the established box of rules/traditions does that not stifle innovation. If we want all new golf courses to look like the old ones then by all means stick to the rules. In most other fields of endeavor thinking outside the box and innovating is considered a good thing. If a better set of holes results from an open jaw and some distance to the clubhouse, that is a good thing to me.
My 36 hole home course at Bond Head has one course 850 yards from the clubhouse through a tunnel under a county road. It never occurred to me that my feelings about the merits or demerits of the course should in any way be influenced by how far it is from the clubhouse. The course stands on its own.
-
David, your rule (the one I was referring to) reads: "Each hole starts near where the last one finishes".
I don't consider 150 yards as 'near.' i.e. I think the examples we've given violate your rule. Actually, from the sounds of things DRR meets that criterion quite well: no long walks between holes.
Good point, Jim. I suppose it is a matter of degrees.
If you stick to your guns about the closeness of holes, do you think Highlands Links cheats?
I haven't been to Highland Links but in the past 12 years I have noted 2 occasions where Ran has been wrong in his judgement. It is possible he is wrong again.
-
David E,
If all designers kept in the established box of rules/traditions does that not stifle innovation.
If this website has done one thing it is prove that innovation in golf course design is bad. We like our golf courses to look and play like those built 100 years ago, thanks.
If a better set of holes results from an open jaw and some distance to the clubhouse, that is a good thing to me.
Golf courses are more than a set of holes, though. The great courses have a sum greater than their parts in many ways. I think a small part of that is the course taking you on a coherent journey and part of that is finishing where you begins. l like the feeling of almost being finished as we get closer and closer to the clubhouse over the last few holes.
The courses have played that do not finish nearthe club house have been abig let downtome. Likewise I don't like the way that Lost Farm returns to the clubhouse at the 15th green and then plays out to a 3 hole loop to finish. Again disjointed from a perfectionist point of view.
(PS. The irony is that if I ever built my dream golf course, it would not finish where it began. It would be innovative.)
-
David Elvins' comments are not hostile or irrational. It is okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course. When obstacles, either avoidable or unavoidable, cause a course characteristic to fall short of those ideals it seems plenty fair to note and take into account that weakness.
On a thread about frank commentary, having everyone argue with him about his point seems telling. All things being otherwise completely equal wouldn't we always chose to have short green to tee walks and have the course finish where it starts?
I have not seen a perfect course and I think compromises must always be made given the limitations of a project. The final outcome of a project may be the best outcome possible given the limitations, but it still would be even better if the circumstances did not demand those compromises.
Bart
-
Bart, I generally agree that coming back to the clubhouse is better. But if you don't route it like that, are you cheating? That's where I disagree with David.
Tom had good reasons not to bring the 18th at DR back home. He produced a much better course. Especially in a place like the remote Sand Hills, that seems more important to me than blindly adhering to a tradition that will only result in an inferior product.
-
I think the culture/reason for being of a club is central to this question.
To me, there's no doubt that a Philly parkland course should start and end near the clubhouse. The course I play finishes about 20' below the clubhouse porch, and it's great fun to see people "coming home". (Rees Jones' Broad Run in metro Philly finishes about a mile from the clubhouse, and I abhor its "open jaw" routing)
But DR has a completely different but equally great vibe. I think Jaka said it well when he mentioned the distant view of 18 from the DR clubhouse porch. One of the coolest things I've ever seen on a golf course was the trail of golf carts with their headlights on coming home after the 5th Major playoff last year. It was a scene out of "Field of Dreams".
I'm suggesting that the huge vistas in the Sandhills lend themselves perfectly to this type of routing. Plus, the culture of DR fits it perfectly too. Methinks you'll never see a debutante ball at DR! :)
-
Is the distance really 800 yards as David implies because I thought I had seen posts from multiple people knowledgeable about the course that it was "a short par 4" away from the 1st tee. I assume that meant 300 to 350 yards. 800 yards is only a short par 4 at The Judge.
-
It's actually 640 yards according to Google Earth, or a bit over 700 if you follow the path.
I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it. I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.
And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great. But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the purposes of debate.
Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course." Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else. I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.
* And yes, I know that Alister MacKenzie once made a list of 13 ideals for golf course architecture; but he wrote years later that he wished he'd never done so, because some people got so locked into his "rules" that they could not accept better plans that were in conflict with one of the rules [such as having two loops of nine holes].
-
David,
I am not a member of Dismal, and therefore it is not "my" course. I know that adds little, but I wanted to clear it up.
As for the relative distances with DR and Shinnecock. Tom just mentioned the distance at DR, I do not know how to use Google Earth, but maybe someone can tell us what it is at Shinnecock? Seems like it would be close.
-
As for the relative distances with DR and Shinnecock. Tom just mentioned the distance at DR, I do not know how to use Google Earth, but maybe someone can tell us what it is at Shinnecock? Seems like it would be close.
It's only 160 yards from 18 green to 1 tee at Shinnecock, though pretty steeply uphill, of course.
You are falling into the trap these guys have set that there is a limit on how far it should be. I have walked the golf course multiple times, and I think it's a joy to walk. It starts in the most convenient place relative to the clubhouse, and ends in the most beautiful spot on the property -- just like Pebble Beach. Why should I listen to a couple of guys who have never been there, about a rule they just invented to judge this course? This is not a discussion about the golf course. It's a discussion about their new rule, and I've said my piece about that.
-
Tom, , is that directly across the 9 tee to the US open tee? It seems much longer when you walk it.
In any event, it seems my comparison has been invalidated, but I still do not see a problem with ending DR away from 1 tee. the sand hills are unique and the routing can be as well IMO.
-
It's actually 640 yards according to Google Earth, or a bit over 700 if you follow the path.
I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it. I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.
And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great. But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the purposes of debate.
Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course." Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else. I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.
* And yes, I know that Alister MacKenzie once made a list of 13 ideals for golf course architecture; but he wrote years later that he wished he'd never done so, because some people got so locked into his "rules" that they could not accept better plans that were in conflict with one of the rules [such as having two loops of nine holes].
Tom, I cannot judge (nor ever will I be able to judge) whether a routing is the best possible use of the land given the restrictions that the architect faced when making the routing. How could I ever know everything that an architect had to take into consideration when he made his choices for the routing? Only he/she (or members of his/her team) could know all that went into those decisions. I, and most others, simply have to judge by what we see is the final product. Even you can't know all the things that went into the routing decisions of the courses built 80 years ago, but you can comment on how the routing works or doesn't. All of those of us on the outside can simply see if the routing produces a course that makes for a great final result. We are all judging the final result against our preferences/biases/ and standards (some personal and some consensus). Those personal and consensus notions shape our thinking about what makes an IDEAL routing (variety, smooth transitions, thoughts about pacing, starting and ending points, etc).
In all honesty, if two courses had 18 identical holes with identical strategies and land forms, identical pacing, identical length, identical walks between holes... if one of those courses finished close to where it started and one finished 680 yards away, which would you say had the better routing?
That's all I was trying to say.
Sorry that you have a problem with these thoughts.
Bart
-
David Elvins' comments are not hostile or irrational. It is okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course. When obstacles, either avoidable or unavoidable, cause a course characteristic to fall short of those ideals it seems plenty fair to note and take into account that weakness.
On a thread about frank commentary, having everyone argue with him about his point seems telling. All things being otherwise completely equal wouldn't we always chose to have short green to tee walks and have the course finish where it starts?
I have not seen a perfect course and I think compromises must always be made given the limitations of a project. The final outcome of a project may be the best outcome possible given the limitations, but it still would be even better if the circumstances did not demand those compromises.
Bart
well said Bart
the arguing and authoritativeness given the absolute uniqueness of each and every golf course is boring and a sign of insecurity
guiding principles are a good thing and when deviated from you may be innovative while at the same time become unpopular
the Sand Hills of Nebraska are so vast that anything could happen there, but there is no one there and the continuing PR here will help get them there at least once
how about those flies?
-
Honestly, I deserve it for all the times I did the same to others in my own sorry and jaded way. I had it coming.
It takes a strong man to admit that, I admire you my friend.
+1
BTW I'm sure no one's paying attention but the discussion on this page is quite good. Stick to your guns, David. I say that as one who comes down more on the side of "we don't need no stinkin' rules" -- except if you remove all rules then you remove constraints by definition, and when you remove constraints you're at the mercy of designers and developers to show restraint, and many can't / won't do that. There's a reason for the term, "the exception that proves the rule."
Note: edited for format.
-
It's actually 640 yards according to Google Earth, or a bit over 700 if you follow the path.
I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it. I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.
And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great. But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the purposes of debate.
Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course." Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else. I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.
* And yes, I know that Alister MacKenzie once made a list of 13 ideals for golf course architecture; but he wrote years later that he wished he'd never done so, because some people got so locked into his "rules" that they could not accept better plans that were in conflict with one of the rules [such as having two loops of nine holes].
Tom, I cannot judge (nor ever will I be able to judge) whether a routing is the best possible use of the land given the restrictions that the architect faced when making the routing. How could I ever know everything that an architect had to take into consideration when he made his choices for the routing? Only he/she (or members of his/her team) could know all that went into those decisions. I, and most others, simply have to judge by what we see is the final product. Even you can't know all the things that went into the routing decisions of the courses built 80 years ago, but you can comment on how the routing works or doesn't. All of those of us on the outside can simply see if the routing produces a course that makes for a great final result. We are all judging the final result against our preferences/biases/ and standards (some personal and some consensus). Those personal and consensus notions shape our thinking about what makes an IDEAL routing (variety, smooth transitions, thoughts about pacing, starting and ending points, etc).
In all honesty, if two courses had 18 identical holes with identical strategies and land forms, identical pacing, identical length, identical walks between holes... if one of those courses finished close to where it started and one finished 680 yards away, which would you say had the better routing?
That's all I was trying to say.
Sorry that you have a problem with these thoughts.
Bart
Bart,
I am enjoying this thread and the variety of contributions.
In nature, all things are never completely equal, so your premise is hypothetically sound yet impossible in practice.
Suppose that we folllowed the (now new) rule that some hold hard, we would have missed some great holes. We would have compromised great, for an arbitrary reason. That's dumbing this down to me...dilution.
Try this exercise for me:
The vast majority of Universities do not express open displays of faith. Notre Dame does. Does that make Notre Dame inferior?
The vast majority Universities don't have Chapels in each dorm and Mass each day. Notre Dame does. Does that make Notre Dame inferior?
The vast majority Universities don't have Religious living in dorms. Notre Dame does. Does that make Notre Dame inferior?
The vast majority of Universities don't really expect athletes to work academically. Notre Dame does. Does that make Notre Dame inferior?
The vast majority of Universities less rules on conduct outside the classroom than Notre Dame does. Does that make Notre Dame inferior?
Notre Dame is not a secular place, all would agree it is different than the norm. Yet, it has the #1 undergrad business school in the nation.
All things being equal, should Notre Dame do what the vast majority does? (I vote no)
Does Notre Dame apologise for what it is? (No, they don't)
Are there people who disagree with Notre Dame for it's Mission and they manner it is delivered? (Yes, I believe there are)
Does Notre Dame change due to people who object to the way they do it? (Thankfully, no)
A golf course has 9 or 18 holes. Like a class, or a major, each hole has a beginning and an end. Your score is your grade.
At Dismal River, Tom had a unique (maybe once in a lifetime) opportunity and choice. Find and embrace the best 18 holes (maybe the best 18 hole set anywhere), or compromise and conform to what arbitrarily fit that which everyone else does, and probably have 18 lesser holes. He chose the best 18 holes, and I fully supported him. As good as the holes are, how could we not? For me, it never makes sense to have less than the best routing. Tom also did this true to his own values including making his course very walkable.
My own son chose Notre Dame (from a list of what most would call the finest schools in the nation) for he believed Notre Dame fit what he wanted, and Notre Dame was that for him because of what it is.
If some believe a routing should or must start and finish, that's ok. In itself, that will require a compromise from excellence.
I often wonder how many good courses would be great, or great otherworldly, if they didn't compromise for something completely arbitrary.
-
I was going to start a new thread about "rules" but since this is the hot thread, I'll post it here.
For just about as long as I've been posting here, I've been against "rules" when applied to golf maintenance, construction, or design. I think all these rules have done more to harm the game than anything else. They've contributed greatly to why it costs so much to build and maintain our courses and they have stifled innovation when we need it most in our game.
David E says all green to tee walks should be short (that's not exactly what he said but I'm not going back to quote him), But when he is countered with this walk or that walk at great courses, he argues you can't compare it to DR, even though the walk from the 18th grn to 1st tee is long at many courses. I believe the rule is wrong because there are some longer walks in golf and they work because they don't FEEL long. No one is complaining about the walk at Cypress Point because you can feel the anticipation about what is coming and it is a beautiful walk. It works, and it breaks David's rule, but it works. I know it works because I've walked it. If I was some hard fast rule guy and only judged based on a computer image, I might protest that it is a poor routing because of the long walk.
David says there should be 18 holes. besides the obvious fact that there are many 9 hole golf courses in the world, what exactly is a hole? Are we talking about the cup in the green? A separate tee, fwy and green? What if it is double greens and shared fairways? Are those holes? What if I build a private club that does few rounds and I design a green that is played from two different directions to the same hole in the green. If you look at that on google earth you might call it gimmiky or goofy, but what if when you play it you see it works? Then what? What if it FEELS right? Does your rule still matter.
My beef with David M not wanting to see DR, and then comment on the merits of the course, is because he will never know if DR Red FEELS right. He will always be analytical in his approach and always say, it is worthy of discussion, but I'll never experience it. Do you read sheet music or listen to music? Do you read scripts or watch plays and movies? While I agree that sheet music and scripts are worthy of study, they are only part of the act, and I'd say a small part. So all this google earth study and rules don't mean jack squat if you have no desire to feel the turf under your feet, the wind in your face and watch your ball bounce along the ground. You might as well just study golf in a simulator.
-
Chris - I don't think most courses esnding at the same point is completely arbitrary.
In my opinion, most (perhaps not all) of the people carrying this discussion forward are doing do in genuine interest and not to criticize the course.
I think what people are trying to get at is simply was the routing exercise made easier by not having the constraints of other courses and it seems to be to be a pretty obvious yes. That isn't at all intended to discount the quality of the course or the holes that Tom designed at Dismal.
And I don't intend it all as an insult but I agree with others that it is difficult to compare the quality of the routing ( not the course) to his other greats because of this freedom.
I would have loved to have seen what would have come from such freedom at Bandon with Pacific Dunes or maybe even abandon Trails. Trails is a better comparison because I am not a fan of the finish and have to think something even better would have been possible had that course been able to not start climbing hills after 15.
That being said, if I put myself in Tom's shoes I can also appreciate why this conversation could be taken as frustrating and insulting. I hope he understands, that at least from some of us, that's not the intent.
Edit for addition - I didn't change any of the previous parts of the post...
PS - I do get why this works at Dismal more than it might work at other places so I appreciate all the comments there and I have no problem with it. I'm more interested to see if this highly regarded course inspires any type of trend in this direction with destination courses going forward.
-
Tim,
Did you know Mike broke some rules at Kingsley?
Ask just about anyone in golf design and it is golf architecture 101 that says short par 4 = small green, and long par 4 = big green.
What the hell was he thinking with 13 & 15? He must have been confused that day because he got it backwards.
-
I'd also say that Jack's (original) course just doesn't get old. It's exciting and a blast to play.
Dan, To call the white, Jack's original course, isn't accurate in my mind. If nobody recalls, He walked off the inaugural round with the epic quote " We've got make some changes out there". I'm sorry I won't chronicle all of the changes again, but suffice to say, the original course was not fun.
Jim Colton, As Chris mentioned, the original 13th green was 40 yards farther than the current. I've tried and tried to visualize where it was exactly, and I've come to the conclusion that it's indiscernible. The reason MUST be that they destroyed the massive dune that the green was saddled in. Also, recall that the green wasn't the issue, it was the fairway. But I'll tell you what, if you did play an approach from that fairway, it was likely one of the most heroic shot demands I've ever seen. Clearly too much for the average baller, but exhilaratingly heroic, nonetheless.
I have not finished all the posts on this thread, but the early on insertion that this was some world class routing caught my eye. Sure the final 10 holes are epic, but I recall hearing, the front side was basically similar to the routings others had submitted.
I have to play the red a few more times, but I'm concerned about the run up to one of the greens on the back.(unless you use a putter from 105y, Mac) Number escapes me but i'm 90% sure #16. The tiny area on the front right is the only possible place for my mind's eye to play a shot that bounces in. I don't mind the exactitude question, but I'm concerned that the green's depth may not be deep enough to hold the shot MY mind's eye sees. Especially in a south wind. Hopefully, the meld will be perfect and my concerns will be alleviated.
-
Tim,
Did you know Mike broke some rules at Kingsley?
Ask just about anyone in golf design and it is golf architecture 101 that says short par 4 = small green, and long par 4 = big green.
What the hell was he thinking with 13 & 15? He must have been confused that day because he got it backwards.
Don - Yes. Thanks for that reminder. A lot of people hate 2 and 9 too. As a member of an often controversial design I get it which is why as I have tried to post I have no issue with Tom's decisions at Dismal. I think frustrations about Moriarty's responses and approach is starting to rub over to some of us that aren't here to start a war which is unfortunate.
-
Tim, I am not frustrated with you at all. But golf is better when Mike DeVries breaks rules. That was my point.
If Tom Doak doesn't route what he did at DR, there is no DR Red. While that would make some happy, I think DR Red is good for golf for a lot of reasons.
I feel the same way about Kingsley.
But if we follow the formulaic rules preached by some here, these courses are much different, or do not get built.
-
But does that mean it is off limits for discussion? It shouldn't.
-
Chris - I don't think most courses esnding at the same point is completely arbitrary.
In my opinion, most (perhaps not all) of the people carrying this discussion forward are doing do in genuine interest and not to criticize the course.
I think what people are trying to get at is simply was the routing exercise made easier by not having the constraints of other courses and it seems to be to be a pretty obvious yes. That isn't at all intended to discount the quality of the course or the holes that Tom designed at Dismal.
And I don't intend it all as an insult but I agree with others that it is difficult to compare the quality of the routing ( not the course) to his other greats because of this freedom.
I would have loved to have seen what would have come from such freedom at Bandon with Pacific Dunes or maybe even abandon Trails. Trails is a better comparison because I am not a fan of the finish and have to think something even better would have been possible had that course been able to not start climbing hills after 15.
That being said, if I put myself in Tom's shoes I can also appreciate why this conversation could be taken as frustrating and insulting. I hope he understands, that at least from some of us, that's not the intent.
Edit for addition - I didn't change any of the previous parts of the post...
PS - I do get why this works at Dismal more than it might work at other places so I appreciate all the comments there and I have no problem with it. I'm more interested to see if this highly regarded course inspires any type of trend in this direction with destination courses going forward.
Tim,
I am enjoying both the thread and opinions expressed. I don't mind at all criticism, as long as it isn't personal. I started the thread to foster frank and open discussion, as somebody complained it was lacking.
I can't agree with you that a start and finish in the same place isn't arbitrary, and I also believe it certainly does require compromise by the architect. Mind you, I don't think that thought is in any way wrong, but having the freedom to find the best possible holes does have merit of you want to find the exceptional.
A agree with you 100% it may be difficult to compare, but so what? That only matters if comparison was a goal, and it wasn't for us. It's difficult to compare the quality of my IPhone with the old rotary dialer we had growing up. It's difficult to compare the quality of an old hickory driver with the latest titanium models.
I can't speak for Tom, but I'd bet he isn't bothered at all.
Tom's course isn't "normal". Neither was Steve Jobs. I hope people will keep an open mind until they see it, and before making preconceived judgements just because it may be different.
In any event, we love it and, in the end, that's all that matters.
-
Tim, My intention whenever I have brought this up was to start not a war but a conversation.
Don I don't understand why DR wouldn't exist except for the "open-jaw " routing. I understand why the course couldn't start near the clubhouse, but the way Chris has described it the open jaw routing was purely a matter of their preference. Could you explain?
-
But does that mean it is off limits for discussion? It shouldn't.
It is not off limits at all, but what if I say, I don't like the 15th at Kingsley because the green is small and because of that I'm never going to play it. Now, how much more is there to discuss? I don't like small greens on long 4s, thus they are bad, thus I'll never go play a course that has small greens on long 4s.
Are you suggesting that is study?
-
I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it.
I can't remember the exact words I used but they were definitely not complimentary. The sooner 18a becomes a practice green and 13a becomes part of the 3rd course, the better, imo. They detract from the course, imo.
I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.
And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great. But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the debate.
Tom, I have tried to clarify my comments several times, I am not suggesting that Dismal is a terrible course, or even that the routing solution is not the best solution for the property. I am only suggesting that removing the constraint of starting where you finish makes the routing process so easy that it precludes the course from being discussed as one of the world's great routing achievements.
Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course." Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else. I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.
Tom,
How many cartball course get a Doak 10? Or even a Doak 9? It's silly to suggest that you do not have rules and ideals, listed or not.
[/quote]
-
Tobacco Road certainly gets dinged for its distance between 14 and 15.
-
Tim, My intention whenever I have brought this up was to start not a war but a conversation.
Don I don't understand why DR wouldn't exist except for the "open-jaw " routing. I understand why the course couldn't start near the clubhouse, but the way Chris has described it the open jaw routing was purely a matter of their preference. Could you explain?
The reason I am so impressed with the routing is because the course could be built so economically, and maintained practically. Tom will probably say it was all about the golf, but he also knew there was no extra $$$.
Thus he routed a course that required little earth work, very little drainage because he never messed with what was there, and he took advantage of the best pieces of land.
He routed what I consider a great course and he did it in a way that meant we could build it for the resources available. Remember, no one was lending any money for golf course construction during this time and the members of DR paid as we went. There is no debt on this course, so there is a very good chance it will be there for some time.
I know some will say, why should I care about any of that? To that I answer, if Tom doesn't do what he did, the course doesn't exists. That is my belief and I believe he pulled it off beautifully and if that means I'm a butt boy or a shill for DR, then believe whatever you want. I know I call it like I see it and I didn't just see it, I lived it.
-
Tom D - re your discussion with Bart about "ideals", my take is that there are indeed such ideals, and that we can and should discuss/debate courses in those terms. Here's why:
As an architect one can study long and hard (what? the principles of great architecture) and then one can put all one's study into practice, on the ground in the form of a golf courses (aiming to do what? to manifest those principles as best one can) and then one can slowly become famous and have his/her courses ranked highly by the collective/consensus opinion (that high praise engendered by what? by a consistently successful manifestation of those principles) and then one can sit back and talk about those courses and that praise (explaining it how? by referencing one's desire to promote and adhere to those same classic, enduring principles of great golf course architecture).
Now, how could we shorten down this narrative? I think it's by simply saying: Here's an architect who knows what he's doing, one who creates great (i.e.ideal) golf courses. So to me, it's undeniable: of course there is a consensus about ideals. And so, when some golfer/gca fan suggests that a course/hole misses that mark or varies from that ideal, and architect can in my view legitimately say "You're wrong, I don't think it does and so I disagree" or "Yes it probably does veer from the ideal, but I think in this instance it works"; but he can only with much less legitimacy say "There is no such thing as an ideal". Why do I think that's a less legitimate response? Because that same architect has based his entire career on the belief in such ideals!
By the way: I think I know about and appreciate deeply the notion that art can successfully break the rules; Moby Dick and King Lear are both magnificent creations, deeply affecting works of art -- and they are both in their own ways "screwy", straying far from ideal structures or content/explication. But, arguing that they succeed brilliantly in spite of their departure from the "ideal" is a lot different than arguing that there are no ideals at all.
Peter
-
Adam Clayman - When I said "original", I was thinking "first course on site". I shouldn't have used the term "original" - you're right.
-
But does that mean it is off limits for discussion? It shouldn't.
It is not off limits at all, but what if I say, I don't like the 15th at Kingsley because the green is small and because of that I'm never going to play it. Now, how much more is there to discuss? I don't like small greens on long 4s, thus they are bad, thus I'll never go play a course that has small greens on long 4s.
Are you suggesting that is study?
Don - No I am not suggesting any such thing nor do I think the majority of those interested are saying or implying such a thing about Dismal.
As I said I am interested to see if it becomes more of a trend in the destination golf space. Finding the best 18 holes has merits. It wouldn't work as well in a walking only no cart environment like Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal but it doesn't stop me from wondering what types of modification might have been made to improve the holes at those sites if it was a possibility. Sounds like based on Tom's response that it wouldn't have made much of a difference ar those locations which is why it is even more interesting that it made such a difference here and impressive that he was able to identify it and use it as a strength here.
-
While not a golf architecture specific book, or even landscape architecture focused, 101 Things I learned in Architecture School by Matthew Frederick is a most insightful book. The book has many "lessons" that work for vertical or golf architecture. At the beginning of the book, the Author's note reads:
Certainties for architecture students are few. The architecture curriculum is a perplexing and unruly beast, involving long hours, dense texts, and frequently obtuse instruction. If the lessons of architecture are fascinating (and they are), they are also fraught with so many exceptions and caveats that students can easily wonder if there is anything concrete to learn about architecture at all.
The nebulousness of architectural instruction is largely necessary. Architecture is, after all, a creative field, and it is understandably difficult for instructors of design to concretize lesson plans out of fear of imposing unnecessary limits on the creative process. The resulting open-endedness provides students a ride down many fascinating new avenues, but often with a feeling that architecture is built on quicksand rather than on solid earth.
This book aims to firm up the foundation of the architecture studio by providing rallying points upon which the design process may thrive. The following lessons in design, drawing, creative process, and presentation first came to me as barely discernible glimmers through the fog of my own education. But in the years I have spent since as a practitioner and educator, they have become surely brighter and clearer. And the questions they address have remained the central questions of architecture education: my own students show me again and again that the questions and confusions of architecture school are near universal.
I invite you to leave this book open on the desktop as you work in the studio, to keep in your coat pocket to read on public transit, and to peruse randomly when in need of a jump-start in solving an architectural design problem. Whatever you do with the lessons that follow, be that grateful I am not around to point out the innumerable exceptions and caveats to each of them.
Matthew Frederick, Architect August 2007
Hobbyists think there are hard fast rules that must be followed, practitioners know there are exceptions to every rule or idea.
-
I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it.
I can't remember the exact words I used but they were definitely not complimentary. The sooner 18a becomes a practice green and 13a becomes part of the 3rd course, the better, imo. They detract from the course, imo.
[/quote]
I don't know if David has said it, but I'll say it. I hated that they built 13a and 18a. If they were happy with the 18 holes they built, and they required some longer walks to make it work, then so be it. Just don't built these stupid extra holes that needlessly disrupt the flow of the round.
-
Thanks Don. That's very interesting. Im not sure your description is at all consistent with Chris's repeated description of how this routing represents the best collection of golf holes (maybe anywhere) because the holes were chosen free of the tradional constraints.
-
Thanks Don. That's very interesting. Im not sure your description is at all consistent with Chris's repeated description of how this routing represents the best collection of golf holes (maybe anywhere) because the holes were chosen free of the tradional constraints.
The above shows that this is not a discussion, it is a flame war. Every post includes an insult.
-
Thanks Don. That's very interesting. Im not sure your description is at all consistent with Chris's repeated description of how this routing represents the best collection of golf holes (maybe anywhere) because the holes were chosen free of the tradional constraints.
I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and you revert to this?
-
John, I had no intent to flame anyone. The points don't seem at all consistent to me. Chris has expressed a perspective on routing that I think goes to the heart of this issue, and I think it worth exploring. Don has offered a different explanation that to me heads things in a completely different direction.
-
I'm confused. Isn't that what Chris just said?
-
From Chris's recent post 172:
At Dismal River, Tom had a unique (maybe once in a lifetime) opportunity and choice. Find and embrace the best 18 holes (maybe the best 18 hole set anywhere), or compromise and conform to what arbitrarily fit that which everyone else does, and probably have 18 lesser holes. He chose the best 18 holes, and I fully supported him. As good as the holes are, how could we not? For me, it never makes sense to have less than the best routing. Tom also did this true to his own values including making his course very walkable.
-
Disclaimers:
1. I have yet to make it to Dismal (everyone knows I only fly private to the Sand Hills 8)).
2. Oddsmakers say the chances of me setting aside my preconceptions and preferring the White to the Red are about as good as the Cubs winning the World Series this year (Currently 60-1 in Vegas and that's only because so many schmucks play it every year).
4. While Don's input about economics of build and maintenance is excellent, and perhaps even groundbreaking, it should be arms-length from a critical analysis of the finished product.
3. I'm loathe to make any preconceived judgements about the club prior to visiting except to say that Blue Horseshoe says the Firepit burns brighter at Kingsley. ;D
As far as "rules" about returning loops go, imposing requirements from clubs where 30 guys are milling around the bar watching matches come in at 18 while all the ladies who lunch are looking down approvingly at their hubbies finishing up the club matches whilst picking at their poached salmon at a suburban club with trees planted all around the perimeter to block out the view of the Piggly Wiggly or the Interstate to a destination club in the Sand Hills is akin to saying that I should employ the same course management strategy and lines as Josh Tarble when visiting (fyi- Josh hits each of his clubs about 40% farther than I do).
P.S. free high-end microbrew to the first guy who finds a longer run-on sentence on the site...
-
David, what you don't get, and you'll never get because this is more about an argument for you then study, is Tom did both.
That is why it is a genius routing.
It is not about trading good golf for ease of construction, or spending more then you have to connect the dots, it is about solving the routing puzzle with a solution that did both. Build great golf that can be built and maintained for practical expense.
Your biases will never let that sink in, and it is too bad because it is worthy of study, for those who actually wish to be a student.
And I have zero belief that you have any desire to actually learn a damn thing. And I should know better because I've seen you in action for years.
The last word is yours.
-
I was fortunate to play Red this summer - in fact, I played it twice and I want to see how others felt about #18 as I found it incredibly difficult. That is not to say that I thought it was a bad hole - by no means did I find that to be the case but it certainly was tough. My handicap is less than 10 and I found the rest of the course very playable but I am not especially long and I just didn't feel that I could hit it on that green in 2. The tee shot was hard to place and even if I hit a good tee shot the second shot was so long that I could not hit and hold that green and I didn't see any option to run the ball onto the green. Was I missing something or is it simply a 3 shot hole for all but the very long hitters?
-
Don,
Can you talk a little about some specifics decisions that were made that helped the maintenance?
-
I have a question for anyone that has played both (especially Tom D.):
How much further is the walk from 18 green to 1 tee than Crystal Downs? I can safely say they aren't close and the walk isn't easy...and in no way did I come off the course saying "I wish the 18th was closer to 1"
p.s. Jud, I think a better comparison would be like me trying to play a bump and run 4wood from 60 yards :)
-
Who is flaming whom here, Don? .
I didn't say it was about trading good holes for ease of construction. I'm just trying to make sense of your statement that, without this particular routing the course wouldn't exist, and reconcile that with Chris's statements that Tom had free reign to choose the very best regardless of traditional constraints. The way you put it, it sounds like Tom had the no real choice. Do it this way, or not at all.
I suppose one could reconcile these two ideas but I am having trouble understanding how, exactly, unless the very best routing also happened to be the only one that was doable financially. That seems unrealistic, doesn't it?
Anyway, you seem incapable of discussing it without resorting to insults and attacks, so there probably isn't much point in continuing down this line.
-
I was fortunate to play Red this summer - in fact, I played it twice and I want to see how others felt about #18 as I found it incredibly difficult. That is not to say that I thought it was a bad hole - by no means did I find that to be the case but it certainly was tough. My handicap is less than 10 and I found the rest of the course very playable but I am not especially long and I just didn't feel that I could hit it on that green in 2. The tee shot was hard to place and even if I hit a good tee shot the second shot was so long that I could not hit and hold that green and I didn't see any option to run the ball onto the green. Was I missing something or is it simply a 3 shot hole for all but the very long hitters?
Hi Jerry,
Did you play the back tees? If so, it's a pretty stout hole. Tom provided some shorter tees on the hole and they may have been a better choice. That is one reason we don't set the course with customary tee markers.
The 18th green doesn't have a run up per se, but there is a large expanse left of the green from which you can easily chip or use a putter.
I recall that you have played at Sand Hills. What tee do you utilize on 18 there? I can hit it pretty far and have often had trouble reaching that green - I miss it more than half the time.
CJ
-
Who is flaming whom here, Don? .
I didn't say it was about trading good holes for ease of construction. I'm just trying to make sense of your statement that, without this particular routing the course wouldn't exist, and reconcile that with Chris's statements that Tom had free reign to choose the very best regardless of traditional constraints. The way you put it, it sounds like Tom had the no real choice. Do it this way, or not at all.
I suppose one could reconcile these two ideas but I am having trouble understanding how, exactly, unless the very best routing also happened to be the only one that was doable financially. That seems unrealistic, doesn't it?
Anyway, you seem incapable of discussing it without resorting to insults and attacks, so there probably isn't much point in continuing down this line.
It is only unrealistic to you and others who do not believe it possible.
-
David, Tom asked me directly if it was important to me if the course finished where it started. My answer was no, and that I wanted the best 18 holes possible. The result of that conversation may test some convention here, but it was easily the right choice to make.
Don is also correct, and there is no conflict at all. We were fortunate that the routing also made perfect sense from an irrigation and maintenance perspective given, in part, that we already a well that fit perfectly.
I suppose we couild have moved a ton of material and made something work, but that would have not been kind nor honor the natural landscape. Keep in mind, 14 or so greens took less than an hour to shape. The bulldozer moved dirt on only a few holes.
All - The walk back to #1 is indeed long, so we don't walk it. That's why we have carts for that purpose. Candidly, while it may be sacred to some, I find no importance in walking from 18 green to 1 tee, or 18 green to clubhouse at all.
We also plan to have a halfway house on the bench between 9 green and 18 green. We are stuck a bit on the type of structure and are actually thinking about placing it underground. Can't explain it better without one seeing it, but we are very sensitive about a building in the view scape.
-
Honestly Don, I am not sure I think it possible or not.
I do believe that, given quality land, architects would generally design much better golf holes if they were severely financially constrained, both short term in construction and long term in terms of maintenance. This is because I think that nature often creates the types of quirk, subtlety, and interest that man has trouble replicating. While Tom is much better at hiding his hand than most, he is also excellent at finding golf holes as they exist in nature.
So it is not too much of a stretch at all for me to believe that the most cost effective routing could also be close to the best, or even the very best. IMO, golf would be much better off if architects thought in these terms.
But to say that the most cost efficient routing also happens to be the best is a far different thing than saying this routing is not only the best, it is also the only possible way to get the course built, which is what you suggested. This suggests severe financial constraints on the choices available to Tom, and doesn't really seem to reconcile with Chris's statements about how Tom had free choice of the large parcel, and could have chosen anything he wanted.
To try and understand your point, are you really saying that if Tom had insisted on making ends meet, that a course could not have been built?
-
David M:
I share your view that it is perfectly reasonable to inquire about the concept of finding the best 18 holes regardless of rules or traditional constraints. That is a legitimate subject for study.
Thinking about the tone of this thread where I struggle is identifying the best way to have "concept" discussions.
Of course, it is natural to raise "concept" or "rules" questions in a thread about a course that departs from conventional thinking. If we were discussing the TPC or PGA West, it seems perfectly natural for someone to argue "island greens are bad for golf architecture". It would probably also be natural for someone to offer the rebuttal that "the TPC was built to host a professional tournament".
However, this thread (and others) may demonstrate that "concept" or "rules" discussions may be best as separate threads where multiple examples are cited to illustrate whatever point the author is trying to make.
Face it. Many of us have emotional ties to certain venues and it probably is pretty rare that someone has a close tie to a course and can truly handle criticism.
I can. But, I have an ulterior motive. No course is more dear to me than the Cashen at Ballybunion, the subject of harsh criticism from the very beginning, often from Ballybunion members themselves. Yet, I love the criticism. It kept people off the course and only added to the epic feel of the place when I was out there all alone.
Anyway, again, "concept" discussions might be best as separate threads to generate meaningful golf architecture discussion that we all learn from.
-
Honestly Don, I am not sure I think it possible or not.
I do believe that, given quality land, architects would generally design much better golf holes if they were severely financially constrained, both short term in construction and long term in terms of maintenance. This is because I think that nature often creates the types of quirk, subtlety, and interest that man has trouble replicating. While Tom is much better at hiding his hand than most, he is also excellent at finding golf holes as they exist in nature.
So it is not too much of a stretch at all for me to believe that the most cost effective routing could also be close to the best, or even the very best. IMO, golf would be much better off if architects thought in these terms.
But to say that the most cost efficient routing also happens to be the best is a far different thing than saying this routing is not only the best, it is also the only possible way to get the course built, which is what you suggested. This suggests severe financial constraints on the choices available to Tom, and doesn't really seem to reconcile with Chris's statements about how Tom had free choice of the large parcel, and could have chosen anything he wanted.
To try and understand your point, are you really saying that if Tom had insisted on making ends meet, that a course could not have been built?
David,
I don't think things clear are enough for you. In steps, the budget for the new course was developed after the routing but before the funding. We all agreed in advance that we wanted to do something different, and build as efficiently as possible. That goal was achieved aside from some mistakes by me mentioned previously that created some constraints. We were also building during a very scary time, so I suppose we tested more than a bit of convention.
I don't want you to have the notion that we would have done much, if anything, different with 2x or more in capital for I don't believe that to be the case. Building in sand is very cost effective, and the dollars didn't dictate the routing...the routing dictated the dollars. The result was a very natural course which fit well into the environment...as good as I've ever seen.
With an existing course already here, Don found an opportunity to do some innovative things wrt irrigation that have worked very well. It took a bit of "pluck" as it challenged conventional thought, but good minds made it work.
CJ
-
Chris: I don't play the back tees at SH and we weren't on the back tees at DR. I don't remember how long 18 at DR is but I just felt that I had to play more left off the tee than I wanted and then the second shot was really long.
-
Can't explain it better without one seeing it, but we are very sensitive about a building in the view scape.
OMG you're...anti shade?!
-
Can't explain it better without one seeing it, but we are very sensitive about a building in the view scape.
OMG you're...anti shade?!
;D
-
Chris: I don't play the back tees at SH and we weren't on the back tees at DR. I don't remember how long 18 at DR is but I just felt that I had to play more left off the tee than I wanted and then the second shot was really long.
Jerry,
Interesting...I can't offer and explantion as the 18th is roughly 370 yard from the middle tees.
CJ
-
Jerry...
Did you play in the 5th Major last year? If so, I believe we played some back tees...at least on the last few holes. The next time I went out to Dismal, I played the middle tees. 17 and 18 played differently...easier. And for my game, that is much needed. Perhaps that explains things. I have played Sand Hills from the middle and back tees. Back tees there are not fun for me...middle tees are a hoot.
-
Tim,
Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way. Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris, I understand and appreciate your response, but it still seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.
To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?. If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?
-
Adam...
Your comment about the current version of the White Course is of pretty high importance, I think.
I never got to see the original version of the course, which was highly panned as being too penal. In fact, I'm not sure what version of the course I saw first. But even over the last few years, the course continues to morph. I do find it enjoyable to play, very much so, but I believe each round of "tweaks" makes it more enjoyable.
HOWEVER, it appears the Red is/was ready to go right from the start. Even in its preview year, it seems to be well received. I personally have found Tom, and his crew's, attention to detail to be very impressive.
I believe that this aspect of the design, construction...and its impact on maintenance...is a clear area of distinction between the two courses...and the design team's success.
As a golfer/player, my first concern is if the course I'm playing is fun...both are in my book. One just, apparently, took longer to get there...while the other was that way right from the jump. As a professional in the golf design and/or construction business, I can imagine that the time it takes to get a course into "fun" playing conditions is a big deal. I see that clearly now.
-
Tim,
Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way. Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris, I understand and appreciate your response, but it still seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.
To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?. If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?
David,
I don't know. It is hard for people to discuss a course they are close to. Very hard. One time I even had someone send me a private message asking me why I even tried to do that with a course I was close to - Sand Ridge (near Cleveland).
I think you can only do it if you have a genuine love for golf architecture and even then it is still very hard.
So, a thread that offers three examples of a concept rather than just one course probably makes it easier to keep the conversation focused on the concept rather than a critique of a specific course.
Sand Ridge, by the way, offers several opportunities to discuss concepts (how does environmental issues impact routing? Is blue grass good for the game? Should long walks between holes be avoided? Are subtle greens better than bold contours? Etc.).
But, if the thread doesn't have the right tone, it probably won't be of much value.
-
I never got to see the original version of the course, which was highly panned as being too penal. In fact, I'm not sure what version of the course I saw first. But even over the last few years, the course continues to morph. I do find it enjoyable to play, very much so, but I believe each round of "tweaks" makes it more enjoyable.
I believe Jack has tweaked, or tinkered with, 3 courses on a regular basis. Cabo, DRW, and Muirfield Village. Pretty sure he has greatly improved each one. That makes me think if he spent more time on the courses his firm designs and builds, they could turn out better as well.
-
Tim,
Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way. Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris, I understand and appreciate your response, but it still seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.
To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?. If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?
Yes David Doak could have built a shitty course, he has done it before. The truth of the matter is that we trusted Doak to build the best course up to his ability. In that sense he built the only course he could.
-
Yes David Doak could have built a shitty course, he has done it before. The truth of the matter is that we trusted Doak to build the best course up to his ability. In that sense he built the only course he could.
John:
My brother's name is David Doak and he kindly asks that you re-phrase your statement. :)
-
Tim,
Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way. Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris, I understand and appreciate your response, but it still seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.
To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?. If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?
David,
The answer is probably, but it would have meant inferior holes that the ones we have, and probably a different cadence in the routing itself.
The decision was made to find the best 18 holes possible, routed together. That's what happened and there nothing more to report on the routing.
In the end, I think Tom was happy, the members are happy, and I am happy.
-
Yes David Doak could have built a shitty course, he has done it before. The truth of the matter is that we trusted Doak to build the best course up to his ability. In that sense he built the only course he could.
John:
My brother's name is David Doak and he kindly asks that you re-phrase your statement. :)
If we had hired Tiger and he shot me a smiley face this would have been the greatest day in my life.
-
Tim,
Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way. Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
David,
I believe you have been treated more than fair here, and I have done nothing more than answer questions in a friendly manner, and haven't attacked your motives at all. You claim to want to discuss architecure and that's good by me. Keep it at that and you'll be fine.
That said, I'm afraid we have beaten the poor routing horse beyond death. I think all involved have answered questions and further probing probably isn't needed. After a while, otherwise gracious people begin to feel they are being deposed.
-
Tim, interesting idea about the three courses, but I am not sure we've come up with three comparable examples of open jawed courses on world class sites.
----------------------------------------------
Chris, some of your friends haven't been so courteous.
Regardless, I wasn't aware that the DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion was subject to your whims, but if you you are done discussing DR, I'm fine with that. It is really not necessary, though, for you take a parting shot on your way out. If it wasn't so difficult to get answers to the simplest questions then it might not feel so much like a deposition to those being asked. As for me, most of my questions remain unanswered.
As for your answer to my question above, thanks. That's what I figured. I was just confused (and am still confused) by Don's claim that a course wouldn't have been built but for the open jawed routing.
David,
Nor, David, have you been courteous to them and me.
I'm happy to discuss the courses and the club and foster frank and open discussion. The only thing I said was I think we have exhausted the routing answers. I have nothing more to add, and you don't need to twist what I said.
I also hope you realize that "getting answers" requires people who "know" to take their time to give them. It is pretty rare that any such questions get answered at all by the people involved, so I would suggest you treat them with the respect for doing it. Without them, this becomes nothing more than a echo chamber.
-
Tim, interesting idea about the three courses, but I am not sure we've come up with three comparable examples of open jawed courses on world class sites.
----------------------------------------------
Chris, some of your friends haven't been so courteous.
Regardless, I wasn't aware that the DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion was subject to your whims, but if you you are done discussing DR, I'm fine with that. It is really not necessary, though, for you take a parting shot on your way out. If it wasn't so difficult to get answers to the simplest questions then it might not feel so much like I deposition to those being asked. As for me, most of my questions remain unanswered.
As for your answer to my question above, thanks. That's what I figured. I was just confused (and am still confused) by Don's claim that a course wouldn't have been built but for the open jawed routing.
David,
I don't think three courses are necessary to discuss a concept. For example, the TPC would be sufficient to discuss island greens. But, offering three examples probably helps GolfClubAtlas discussions by avoiding too much focus on a particular course that people here may have close ties to. If nothing else, it increases the chances of people here actually having first hand experience at one of the sites under discussion.
That, if nothing else, has to help. Makes it easier for more people to participate and contribute.
Earlier in the discussion Don Mahaffey said something like he didn't believe in rules. David Elvins, IMO, went to the opposite extreme suggesting the DR routing was cheating.
I disagree with both. Even if, as Tom Doak suggested, Alister Mackenzie himself later said he had some regret publishing his famous 13 rules, I think his rules mostly made a lot of sense. So, IMO, the generally accepted rules are things the architect and entire project team should think about.
But, the rules aren't cast in stone. The specifics of the site have to be considered. Other factors may also be important: Don makes a point about maintenance costs. That's quite valid, IMO.
Chris Johnston is probably right. The routing issue - at least the question of start and finish - might well have been exhausted in terms of interesting discussion. We will probably need to see a few more "build the best holes" courses before we can discuss the concept more objectively.
-
David,
One key factor with DR-Red is that there were no logistical requirements for the 18th green to be close to the 1st tee. If you accept the fact that they had spatial freedom, I suggest that it just didn't make any difference. And still doesn't.
In my opinion, routing holes down along the river made DR-Red unique, both from a playing and from a sensory perspective. Seeing the "horseshoes" get closer and closer as your golf journey progresses really the riverside holes a sense of drama that may have been impossible otherwise.
PS - If I recall correctly, the 18th green at Sand Hills is about a mile from the clubhouse. And lord knows, Sand Hills is one of the best courses in the world.
Figure 1. Big Horseshoe from the earliest days of construction:
(http://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pneUxiOMZ0SKvF80b21xUFzrVbsMJGHFrX4uPe-jAKJIfB4Ft5CTArY7N2JRaXBdABVhe4jyzz1s/Dismal%20River%20-%20Doak%20-%20Hole%2018%20-%20b%20-%20Fairway%20to%20Green.JPG)
-
In my opinion, routing holes down along the river made DR-Red unique, both from a playing and from a sensory perspective. Seeing the "horseshoes" get closer and closer as your golf journey progresses really the riverside holes a sense of drama that may have been impossible otherwise.
+1 and maybe sometime we can discuss the context for this particular routing. A bunch of the greatest courses are in a 'box' (TOC, Seminole, Merion, Lytham) and a part of their routing genius no doubt is dealing with the clear and hard edges of the 'box'. The sand hills are the absolute opposite of a box (there's no hotel, town, houses, sea) -- as others have mentioned above it is a huge, brawny, open, empty and seemingly endless landscape. I don't see why we can't let the architect, in this and perhaps a few other instances, actually let the course be open to that context in a way other than just 'views'. It really isn't clear to me to in this case it's not a bug but a feature.
-
I do agree with David that the topic is fair game for discussion. As far as I know, 99.9% of golf courses and all of the top golf courses end roughly when they start. It says a lot about Tom to a) go across the road and b) go against the grain in order to build the best golf course possible. Would Tiger have had the stones to do that with his first design had he gotten the job?
It probably could start a trend of at least considering an open jaw routing when the site doesn't allow for something more traditional. I think I rather have the maximum number of quality golf holes.
Diamante is the 52nd best course in the world according to Golf Magazine and 55th best in the world according to Golf Digest. As I recall, they shuttle you to the first tee, between nines and up from the 18th green. I'm certainly not here to defend Tom, Don or Dismal, but lets not make it seem as if this is the first highly rated course on the planet that employed an "open-jawed" routing. I would think that having 18 contiguous holes with short green to tee walks is more important to the tradition of the walking game than having a long walk or cart ride within the 18 holes. Granted, as more of these type of courses are built, get highly rated and are financially successful, more of these type of courses will be built. Therefore, it is certainly a valid talking point for a bunch of naval gazers like ourselves. Hell, at Bandon they shuttle you all over creation, including up a long steep hill during the round at Trails, but just because each course has it's own "clubhouse" they're traditional?
-
HarbourTown
Diamanté
Crystal Downs
Dismal Red
Pretty good company.
-
While not a golf architecture specific book, or even landscape architecture focused, 101 Things I learned in Architecture School by Matthew Frederick is a most insightful book. The book has many "lessons" that work for vertical or golf architecture. At the beginning of the book, the Author's note reads:
Certainties for architecture students are few. The architecture curriculum is a perplexing and unruly beast, involving long hours, dense texts, and frequently obtuse instruction. If the lessons of architecture are fascinating (and they are), they are also fraught with so many exceptions and caveats that students can easily wonder if there is anything concrete to learn about architecture at all.
The nebulousness of architectural instruction is largely necessary. Architecture is, after all, a creative field, and it is understandably difficult for instructors of design to concretize lesson plans out of fear of imposing unnecessary limits on the creative process. The resulting open-endedness provides students a ride down many fascinating new avenues, but often with a feeling that architecture is built on quicksand rather than on solid earth.
This book aims to firm up the foundation of the architecture studio by providing rallying points upon which the design process may thrive. The following lessons in design, drawing, creative process, and presentation first came to me as barely discernible glimmers through the fog of my own education. But in the years I have spent since as a practitioner and educator, they have become surely brighter and clearer. And the questions they address have remained the central questions of architecture education: my own students show me again and again that the questions and confusions of architecture school are near universal.
I invite you to leave this book open on the desktop as you work in the studio, to keep in your coat pocket to read on public transit, and to peruse randomly when in need of a jump-start in solving an architectural design problem. Whatever you do with the lessons that follow, be that grateful I am not around to point out the innumerable exceptions and caveats to each of them.
Matthew Frederick, Architect August 2007
Hobbyists think there are hard fast rules that must be followed, practitioners know there are exceptions to every rule or idea.
Don,
Guidelines are not necessarily rules, and we all know that.
More people just need to get to DR and experience it.
There is no doubt there are certain principles in architecture to have a structure succeed against fire, gravity, weather, usage... you cannot disagree with that.
I am always learning, but do not learn well from beat downs etc... I love implementing new technologies and meeting great new people everyday.
I really don't understand why you say everything is subjective and innovative without respect to some rules/guidelines...
Please provide a couple guidelines you think are important. Also, there is no doubt that adaptation and applied logistics make everything work.
In fact I think Logistics could be a skill that should be coveted.
If I was CJ I may have done it differently given the parameters at DR, but he is happy and everyone involved is happy with the RED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM&feature=kp
-
HarbourTown
Diamanté
Crystal Downs
Dismal Red
Pretty good company.
Streamsong Red
-
HarbourTown
Diamanté
Crystal Downs
Dismal Red
Pretty good company.
Streamsong Red
Kiawah Ocean
-
Doesn't Kinloch have a "hog hole" par 3 between 18 and the clubhouse as Olde Farm?
Brights Creek does. Forest Creek does.
-
So does Forest Dunes.
-
Going to the game tomorrow Sparty?
-
Diamante is the 52nd best course in the world according to Golf Magazine and 55th best in the world according to Golf Digest. As I recall, they shuttle you to the first tee, between nines and up from the 18th green.
[/quote]
Jud, that's 1/3 accurate. Diamante starts and finishes right at the clubhouse--there is, however, a transfer between the nines for which many would want to hop in a cart. (Kapalua Plantation is like this, as well.)
Mark me down as an admirer of the routing for Dismal Red. The "open-jawed" routing stuff is pretty irrelevant to me. It probably wouldn't work most places, but it works for this club, in this location. The whole point of hauling your clubs out to the middle of Nebraska is to explore the Sandhills, and the Doak course covers a huge amount of cool/diverse ground. It's also an easy and highly enjoyable course to walk, which is a box that weaker routings are often unable to check off.
-
Earlier in the discussion Don Mahaffey said something like he didn't believe in rules. David Elvins, IMO, went to the opposite extreme suggesting the DR routing was cheating.
. . .
Tim, I think it important to keep in mind the context of David Elvins' comments regarding his rules. He was speaking about whether the routing at Dismal River was great in comparison to other great routings. I won't speak to the routing at Dismal River, but I think that generally his point has merit if we keep in mind that context.
Let's say we were are track geeks and we want to compare world class milers based on their times, but since no one runs the mile anymore we have them all go out and time themselves. All the runners but one mark off a traditional quarter mile track, run four laps, and submit their times. The last guy times himself in a straight line, running downhill and downwind. Wouldn't it be unfair and unreasonable to compare the last guy on equal terms with the rest? The last runner might be the best miler of them all, but we cannot reasonably compare him to the others because he wasn't subject to the same limitations as the rest of them. Likewise, when a course designer chooses to disregard proximity between holes and/or when he chooses not to make ends meet, he is isn't subjecting his design to the same limitations as have long applied to golf courses.
But, the rules aren't cast in stone. The specifics of the site have to be considered. Other factors may also be important: Don makes a point about maintenance costs. That's quite valid, IMO.
I agree that there are many factors which might lead a designer to discard or stretch the time tested, traditional constraints. And so doing might result in an extremely enjoyable golf course that perfectly meets the needs of the members, customers, and clients. Sometimes he might even stretch the constraints (starting on the high side of the clubhouse and finishing on the low side, for example) without breaking them, and might even be credited for so doing (see the long walk thread, for example.) Nonetheless, if he does completely discard one or more of these traditional constraints, it wouldn't really make sense to try compare his routing to the great traditional routings, would it?
-
David M:
I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.
Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.
It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.
The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.
Why did RTJ fire all his bullets right at the start at Spyglass Hill? Did that make sense? Was it the best option? I really don't know.
What about Merion? Lots has been written here about the course and many aspects of its development, but I don't recall a good routing discussion. Ditto for NGLA. Ditto for Royal Melbourne. And, how did Crump and his gang of supporters put things together at Pine Valley?
Again, I haven't a clue.
We have a long way to go to improve and it would be really cool if we did. I like greens and bunkers, but isn't routing really the most interesting part of the art form we all here love?
-
Tim, I agree. Tom wasn't trying to win a routing contest. But David Elvins was trying to evaluate a routing in comparison to the great routings. The traditional constraints matter in that context, don't they?
As for the rest, I agree that routing is the most interesting part, and the least understood by laypersons like me. That is another reason why issues like this one interests me.
-
David,
I find it interesting that your tagline is a quote by the late MacWood that touts letting go of legends and finding truth. I would ask you this, are you willing to let go of traditional constraints and let the golf course's "truth" at DR Red take you where it will?
-
David M,
I can't imagine a student of architecture not being interested in routing, but it largely remains a mystery because, to my knowledge, so little documentation exists on what was going on in the architect's mind when routing decisions were made.
There is only one golf course in the world where I was close enough to the design and construction process to have a clue: Sand Ridge. About 25 routings were done and, to be candid, several were much more appealing than what was finally implemented. Environmental issues (close to a third of the property is wetlands) really drove much of the decision making.
That gets us to a point this DG has addressed before: when we evaluate routing, are we really talking about the architect's performance? Or are we necessarily limited to just making observations about what we see in the final product?
Often the two perspectives get confused. Maybe that has been true with Dismal River, I'm not sure.
David Elvin's use of the word "cheated" implies to me he was making an "architect's performance" assessment and to me that requires inside knowledge for which we would have to rely on project participants. At least that is what observing things at Sand Ridge taught me.
Again, I am an old school guy who likes the traditional rules, but maybe getting hung up on that at Dismal River wouldn't have made sense.
-
Ben, If I played Dismal River Red I am pretty sure I would love it.
I am also pretty sure that after I would still be wondering whether non-returning routings are a positive development in golf course architecture.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Tim,
As routing goes, I thought the amateur routing contest threads a while back were an interesting way to get into the issue. I wasn't following the website at the time, but I went back and look at some of the entries and found it interesting. I am not sure that much detailed discussion came out of it, but it seemed to be a good potential starting point at least.
As for David's use of the word "cheated," I think David defined the term as not following the rules, didn't he? I think it probably means a bit more than that to me, but I don't think I should get into critiquing David's word choice.
-
I agree that there are many factors which might lead a designer to discard or stretch the time tested, traditional constraints. And so doing might result in an extremely enjoyable golf course that perfectly meets the needs of the members, customers, and clients. Sometimes he might even stretch the constraints (starting on the high side of the clubhouse and finishing on the low side, for example) without breaking them, and might even be credited for so doing (see the long walk thread, for example.) Nonetheless, if he does completely discard one or more of these traditional constraints, it wouldn't really make sense to try compare his routing to the great traditional routings, would it?
First of all, one would have to define what a traditional routing is. Is it returning nines, out and back, concentric circular nines? There are several so-called traditional routings.
In general, the routing of the golf course is somewhat transparent to me. I play the golf course, and tend to judge it on its merits of playability and beauty. There are aspects of club and course design which one would like to have, but would you really sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place? Is that a sufficient answer to the question of the day?
So many great courses have non-traditional routings. I know Kinloch well, which essentially has two nine hole courses separated by a levee. Sand Hills, like Dismal River, starts and finishes away from the clubhouse. There are lots of examples. Perhaps it is best to add them to the list of great routing solutions, rather than label them as non-traditional.
Ben Sims and I talked at length tonight about Dismal River's new course: the efficiency in which water is moved around the course, the efficiency in which maintenance machinery is allowed to move around the course, and the minimization of earth movement required to build it. We live in an era of diminishing natural resources. Maybe these considerations trump or even redefine so-called traditional routings.
-
Diamante is the 52nd best course in the world according to Golf Magazine and 55th best in the world according to Golf Digest. As I recall, they shuttle you to the first tee, between nines and up from the 18th green.
Jud, that's 1/3 accurate. Diamante starts and finishes right at the clubhouse--there is, however, a transfer between the nines for which many would want to hop in a cart. (Kapalua Plantation is like this, as well.)
[/quote]
Tom,
You may be right about the first tee; they probably just gave me a lift from the range, but I clearly remember the shuttle from 18 green back up the hill to the house. While one could certainly walk it, I wouldn't characterize it exactly as finishing right at the house.
-
Interesting side note- what do the rules of the 100 Hole Hike say about catching a ride between 18s on the same course?
-
David,
To me, the routing of DR-Red is wonderful because it meets my #1 criteria - it provides great golf, AND a great journey.
-
David M:
I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.
Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.
It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.
The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.
Do you have this one?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471434809/qid=1152908698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6015765-2055130?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
-
David M:
I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.
Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.
It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.
The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.
Do you have this one?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471434809/qid=1152908698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6015765-2055130?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I am (slowly) starting to work on my own book about routing ... a case study of all the courses I've built and how the routing evolved. I think maybe I can sell a few to the members of my courses, and perhaps to people interested in becoming golf architects.
It is a great way to teach my associates and interns how to route a course, just going back through the process I've used. I don't think I could set down many "rules" to how I start to find what I think are potential great holes, and of course I have fewer rules for putting them together than most architects do. [Not caring if par is 72 or something else, and not caring if the routing returns at the 9th green, are the two biggest sources of freedom.]
I used to think I would NEVER build back-to-back par-3 holes on a course, because I could think of so few examples where it added to a great course [really, just at Cypress Point and Pulborough, and none of us will ever see a situation like Cypress Point in our careers]. But when I saw the place where it was the best solution, and really the only solution, I'm glad I was able to rewrite my "rule" and convince Mr. Keiser to overcome his skepticism as well. I've since done it one other time -- as the final change to get 18 pieces to fit together at Rock Creek, but only after Eric Iverson suggested it -- and that course turned out pretty well, too. But I'm still not likely to do it again unless it's absolutely the best solution.
The above is very similar to the thought behind the open-jaw solution to Dismal, and why it's so ludicrous to me that somebody thinks I'm going to ruin golf by breaking convention there. The sky didn't fall because I built back-to-back par-3 holes, and it won't fall because of Dismal's routing, either.
This whole discussion has really been about routing, and that's been the problem ... hardly anyone who participates here can really understand such a discussion.
-
Under the test of time, the golf whole trumps the golf hole... :)
-
I'm intrigued by the evolution of Dismal White, one of my favorite courses. Assuming there's not a separate thread that addresses this, to what extent were the architect or others involved in White's evolution?
-
Under the test of time, the golf whole trumps the golf hole... :)
The whole course is greater than the sum of it's holes, 8)
-
IMO the main value of the golf course architect/designer on bare/virgin ground is to establish the routing
(I still don't see how Jack having first shot at DR figured his routing) :o
am I wrong?
-
I am (slowly) starting to work on my own book about routing ... a case study of all the courses I've built and how the routing evolved. I think maybe I can sell a few to the members of my courses, and perhaps to people interested in becoming golf architects.
It is a great way to teach my associates and interns how to route a course, just going back through the process I've used. I don't think I could set down many "rules" to how I start to find what I think are potential great holes, and of course I have fewer rules for putting them together than most architects do. [Not caring if par is 72 or something else, and not caring if the routing returns at the 9th green, are the two biggest sources of freedom.]
I used to think I would NEVER build back-to-back par-3 holes on a course, because I could think of so few examples where it added to a great course [really, just at Cypress Point and Pulborough, and none of us will ever see a situation like Cypress Point in our careers]. But when I saw the place where it was the best solution, and really the only solution, I'm glad I was able to rewrite my "rule" and convince Mr. Keiser to overcome his skepticism as well. I've since done it one other time -- as the final change to get 18 pieces to fit together at Rock Creek, but only after Eric Iverson suggested it -- and that course turned out pretty well, too. But I'm still not likely to do it again unless it's absolutely the best solution.
The above is very similar to the thought behind the open-jaw solution to Dismal, and why it's so ludicrous to me that somebody thinks I'm going to ruin golf by breaking convention there. The sky didn't fall because I built back-to-back par-3 holes, and it won't fall because of Dismal's routing, either.
This whole discussion has really been about routing, and that's been the problem ... hardly anyone who participates here can really understand such a discussion.
This is just another in a long line of book teases.... ;D
-
I'm intrigued by the evolution of Dismal White, one of my favorite courses. Assuming there's not a separate thread that addresses this, to what extent were the architect or others involved in White's evolution?
Howdy John!
Mr Nicklaus has been heavily involved in the evolution and, understandably, some ideas take time to embrace. From the operators side, ideas are borne from member comments as to playability, curiosity and observation, and very close interaction with (our superintendent) Jagger.
Among a host of list items today are bunkers, as some can be more than a challenge to maintain. This is one place where maintenance may collide with architecture. I don't really like filling bunkers with sand, only to watch them blow out in days or weeks, and filling them again. In this case, we have to ask the designer if the bunker really is important, or if there is a workable alternative.
Next, the White course also has some areas where turf is on rather steep slopes, making it a struggle to achieve the optimal turf conditions we all want. If a mower beats up a fairway or green (e.g. scalping, tire spinning) simply my mowing, and if a change in methodology can't fix it, a change should probably be considered.
The third area is playability. In short, is a hole fair for all types of player? There is one hole in particular that is nearly impossible for a shorter hitter (man or woman) to execute the tee shot to the fairway. That is on my list as we want to accomodate players of most all levels. Quirk is fine if it meets that goal and change must be considered if it doesn't.
As Tom Doak stated elsewhere, after a few years, it may be a good thing to revisit the work to see how it's matured and to see if what was wanted is actually what is there. Usually after some period, things like maintenance issues, grassing, or playability issues become more clear. Then again, Tom is the best I've seen at getting things right from the start. Although I've never asked Tom or Don, I'd bet we would have the same list of things to keep an eye on...wind exposed areas, wear area, bunkers, mowing lines, etc.
I believe it unavoidable that architecture is closely tied to maintenance...simply, they must be together to work.
Hope it helps.
-
BTW - Tom Doak is right. Almost no "Civilian" has an idea what goes into routing a course (myself included).
-
One thing I think so many people here are overlooking is: The Dismal River property is NOT like Sandhills'. Aside from 1 or two places, nobody on the crew was looking just left, or just right of any of the holes and "finding" holes everywhere. There is the par-3 just past 12 green which would have cost a small fortune in pipe to build, along with a 2nd bridge and maybe 1 or two others. The property past #2 and #3 is too steep and a lot of the stuff in the middle of the front 9, doesn't really yield anything better.
CJ - Wear and wind erosion is certainly something to be mindful of, but to me the most important thing is the first 5 yards of transition into the native grasses. Its an ongoing battle and one that few get totally correct, but it makes such a huge difference in the playability.
-
BTW - Tom Doak is right. Almost no "Civilian" has an idea what goes into routing a course (myself included).
Dan,
That is the most unfortunate thing about golf architecture discussion. A good case can be made that routing is the most interesting or important part of golf architecture, but it is the hardest part to discuss in any significant detail.
-
I am (slowly) starting to work on my own book about routing ...
This is just another in a long line of book teases.... ;D
LOL
great marketing
-
BTW - Tom Doak is right. Almost no "Civilian" has an idea what goes into routing a course (myself included).
Dan,
That is the most unfortunate thing about golf architecture discussion. A good case can be made that routing is the most interesting or important part of golf architecture, but it is the hardest part to discuss in any significant detail.
Why is that the case?
-
Hi John. Interesting post above, and one that I think gets to the essence of the matter.
First of all, one would have to define what a traditional routing is. Is it returning nines, out and back, concentric circular nines? There are several so-called traditional routings.
I was working with David Elvins' three rules above: A course consists of 18 holes, each hole starts near where the last one finishes, the course returns to where it started. These seem pretty basic. Of these the one I'd gladly discard is the first, but that rule seems to be the most enduring (with the proviso that 9 holes are allowed but not taken seriously.)
There are aspects of club and course design which one would like to have, but would you really sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place? Is that a sufficient answer to the question of the day?
This question/answer really gets to the heart of the matter for me, but I'd suggest that your question presupposes the answer. I try to let history be my guide on these questions, and so, while your question is a loaded one, I'd still answer, 'yes.'
On sites well suited for golf, history suggests that the best courses manage to finish near where they started. Surely opportunities for great holes were missed along the way. But great golf courses have a coherence and a cohesiveness and a balance that goes beyond the number of great holes.
- Did TOC sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish near the same place?
- Did NGLA?
- Did about every great course built in the past few centuries sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place?
- Is Sand Hills a compromised course because it manages to try and finish somewhere near where it started?
You don't really think it was just serendipitous that almost all of them happened to end up back near the start, do you? Obviously "compromises" were made and great opportunities passed up. We've all heard about how there were 137 million great golf holes at Sand Hills. Would it be a better golf course if C&C had just aimlessly followed the absolute best holes and called it quits when they got to the 18th? Would it be better if this final location happened to be next a nice place for a cooler of beer and a fire pit? I don't think so.
Do you? Really?
Chris Johnston has written numerous times that he often wonders about how many of the old courses would be even better if they didn't have to conform to conventions concerning the proximity of golf holes. I think it an interesting query because, like your question, it presupposes that great golf courses are little more than collections the best golf holes in the area. I don't see it that way, and I don't think the history of gca supports that definition of a great golf course.
____________________________________________________
Tom Doak, While I appreciate your opinion, I am not sure it advances the conversation to engage in hyperbole about anyone's position. I don't think anyone has said that you are "ruining golf," or that "the sky if falling." As you are well aware, your approach at Dismal is a departure from what you term as "convention." For that reason alone I think it worth exploring. And as you acknowledge, it is really a discussion about routing, a subject where you think we are all woefully lacking, so maybe we can learn something. With that in mind, is there any chance you will address my pending questions about Rock Creek?
-
Tom Doak, While I appreciate your opinion, I am not sure it advances the conversation to engage in hyperbole about anyone's position. I don't think anyone has said that you are "ruining golf," or that "the sky if falling." As you are well aware, your approach at Dismal is a departure from what you term as "convention." For that reason alone I think it worth exploring. And as you acknowledge, it is really a discussion about routing, a subject where you think we are all woefully lacking, so maybe we can learn something. With that in mind, is there any chance you will address my pending questions about Rock Creek?
David:
Sure, let's open up even more of my designs to hostile criticism.
On second thought: no, thanks. If this had been a friendly discussion up to this point, I might feel different, but you seem more like a police interrogator on the matter than a cross-examining lawyer: I am in the position of DEFENDING my design, and you haven't considered the possibility that my solution might be BETTER, instead of worse. You have no idea of the answers to any of your questions to John about other courses. You assume they've given up something in the name of finishing near the first tee, and you define that as a virtue. None of those courses had a clubhouse set-up like Dismal or a limitation on what property the architects could use.
Building a course that returned to the first tee would have required giving up on a single hole -- the 18th, which Mac and others have identified as the most iconic hole on the golf course. But there was no way to get back out from that riverside green site with another good hole, in my opinion [and I certainly looked for one]. If you think I should have given it up, that's your opinion, but I don't agree.
I've answered plenty of questions about the design of Dismal River, to almost everyone else's satisfaction, except yours. Since you are a lawyer, I will revert to my Fifth Amendment rights [assuming they still exist in this country] and rest on my design, unless I'm charged with a real crime. And as far as I know, there's no statute about finishing the course near the first tee.
-
Tom, with due respect to your previous books, if you wrote a book explaining your routing of courses, it would be your book that interested me the most. I am keenly aware of my inability to judge a routing. I am also aware that I normally understand what I am learning when there are real life illustration (which is why all my books have pictures in them). In any event, I know JC says you are just teasing us, but I hope not.
-
Hostile criticism? I invite you or anyone to point out where I have ever offered any hostile criticism of any of your courses ever, including Dismal River.
-
Objection, Your Honor. He's Badgering The Witness....
;D ;D ;D
-
Tom, with due respect to your previous books, if you wrote a book explaining your routing of courses, it would be your book that interested me the most. I am keenly aware of my inability to judge a routing. I am also aware that I normally understand what I am learning when there are real life illustration (which is why all my books have pictures in them). In any event, I know JC says you are just teasing us, but I hope not.
Keith,
Tom certainly has no need for people to speak for him, but a while back we did discuss the book project Tom mentioned. My personal opinion is that such a book would address one of the biggest gaps in the field of golf architecture literature, maybe the biggest.
-
At a certain point, when multiple people have mentioned that you seem hostile, wouldn't you take a second to consider whether, maybe, just maybe, they're not all oversensitive? That perhaps it's not just a coincidence that you always seem to have "frank discussions" with oversensitive people?
Or perhaps pause for a second to consider whether it's a bad time to call people out for using hyperbole one post after throwing out the hypothetical of an architect who "aimlessly followed the absolute best holes and called it quits when they got to the 18th? Would it be better if this final location happened to be next a nice place for a cooler of beer and a fire pit?"
Really? Do you really think that's the best time?
-
David - there would have been absolutely no advantage in terms of logistics at DR to have 18 finish near the first tee. None.
Additionally, it provided Doak the ability to go across the road and build some killer holes. Who the heck, apparently other than you, cares if the 18th requires a little walk back on the unpaved/natural road to get back to your cart to bring you back home?
To borrow a line from ESPN's Chris Carter: "Come On, Man!"
-
Tom, with due respect to your previous books, if you wrote a book explaining your routing of courses, it would be your book that interested me the most. I am keenly aware of my inability to judge a routing. I am also aware that I normally understand what I am learning when there are real life illustration (which is why all my books have pictures in them). In any event, I know JC says you are just teasing us, but I hope not.
I dont think he is intentionally teasing us, I just think he has great books in the works but his day job gets in the way (or a medallion toting coffee book does...).
One day when he hangs it up, my guess is we will see a lot of literature being produced and I hope this is one of them. Like you, I can judge the quality and strategy of the holes in the ground and even the routing as completed but cannot read a topo nor determine given the land whether there was a better or different way to route the golf course. I just dont understand routing until after the course is designed.
-
JC, glad to see you are OK and didn't harm yourself! ;D
-
I dont think he is intentionally teasing us, I just think he has great books in the works but his day job gets in the way (or a medallion toting coffee book does...).
One day when he hangs it up, my guess is we will see a lot of literature being produced and I hope this is one of them. Like you, I can judge the quality and strategy of the holes in the ground and even the routing as completed but cannot read a topo nor determine given the land whether there was a better or different way to route the golf course. I just dont understand routing until after the course is designed.
I'm not teasing. I have been trying to work on The Confidential Guide this weekend, and this discussion keeps getting in the way. It's getting there.
The routing book will take a bit longer. I'm going through projects one at a time with my different interns and associates, when they are in the office and don't have something more important to work on. Their task is to understand the project well enough to explain it back to the reader, complete with overlapping routings on the topo map and on an aerial photo of the finished course, so that others may understand the various holes contemplated.
I think students and architects would benefit most from our producing a DVD version of it, with the base topo information for each course included, so they could try their own version(s) before going through mine. However, I'm not certain whether the base topo is proprietary information for my clients, and I'm a bit concerned that if I go that far they'll start building knock-offs of my best work somewhere in China.
-
David Moriarty writes:
I was working with David Elvins' three rules above: A course consists of 18 holes, each hole starts near where the last one finishes, the course returns to where it started. These seem pretty basic. Of these the one I'd gladly discard is the first, but that rule seems to be the most enduring (with the proviso that 9 holes are allowed but not taken seriously.)
On sites well suited for golf, history suggests that the best courses manage to finish near where they started. Surely opportunities for great holes were missed along the way. But great golf courses have a coherence and a cohesiveness and a balance that goes beyond the number of great holes.
- Did TOC sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish near the same place?
- Did NGLA?
- Did about every great course built in the past few centuries sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place?
- Is Sand Hills a compromised course because it manages to try and finish somewhere near where it started?
The answer is "I don't know" to all four questions. Sure, there are a few benefits to starting and finishing in approximately the same place. I think the benefits become less obvious where the start/finish occurs away from the clubhouse.
You don't really think it was just serendipitous that almost all of them happened to end up back near the start, do you? Obviously "compromises" were made and great opportunities passed up. We've all heard about how there were 137 million great golf holes at Sand Hills. Would it be a better golf course if C&C had just aimlessly followed the absolute best holes and called it quits when they got to the 18th?
Compromises are likely (but not necessarily) made to return many, if not most, golf courses to their starting position. But since compromises are likely made, isn't it fair to also suggest that our veteran architect probably made the right decisions at Dismal River, especially given that he decided the best golfing ground was away from the clubhouse?
I'm moving into thread killer mode. It's pretty clear where everybody stands on these issues. We're beating a dead horse.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/KimberleeJean/GIFs/deadhorse.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/KimberleeJean/media/GIFs/deadhorse.gif.html)
-
John Kirk,
I think Tom Doak makes an interesting point: the rule about starting and finishing in roughly the same place does not necessarily mean compromises were made.
The course that immediately comes to mind on this point is Ballybunion, where it appears the rule was followed and did so to provide close proximity to the town (I am referring to the original start, now the 6th hole).
Ballybunion is a small piece of property. It has the aesthetic advantage of sitting by the sea. But, you can't go that far inland to exhaust the good stuff - land with interesting contour.
Whoever did the routing (I am not sure we know who that is) didn't make any compromises that I am aware of.
I think it all goes back to the basic point that routing discussions ultimately come down to a site specific assessment.
I like the rules, but we don't hire an architect to simply follow a rule book, do we?
-
Tim,
I see I made a mistake, being inconsistent about compromises. I intend to say compromises are likely made. For you (and Tom) to say "compromises are not necessarily made" is saying the same thing.
-
David M:
I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.
Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.
It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.
The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.
Do you have this one?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471434809/qid=1152908698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6015765-2055130?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
ordered it, thank you
-
Tim,
I see I made a mistake, being inconsistent about compromises. I intend to say compromises are likely made. For you (and Tom) to say "compromises are not necessarily made" is saying the same thing.
John,
We are near the point of exhaustion on this thread. But, I'd like to mention one other thing in support of rules for routing. It isn't just starting and finishing in roughly the same place that typically makes sense, doing so right close to town was probably also very important in times past. Circa 1930, I doubt anyone in Ballybunion would have appreciated the site of the current #1 tee and #18 green.
Back then, not many people in town had cars and the extra walk would not have been fun, especially in the rain.
So, I guess the discussion has to be both site and time specific!
-
Tim,
I do think that timelessness is an important aspect of great architecture and other things I value greatly...this is not like an iPhone, even though I do value my phone, I value golf much more
thanks
-
It was suggested that I take a look at this discussion and chime in.
I thought I would comment on the idea about the golf course starting in one location and ending in another and as my long time idle growing up as a young kid, radio announcer Paul Harvey’s tag line always said, tell “ the rest of the story”
The trademark name I coined and Tom refers to was called "Base Camp Golf". The idea as Tom described I formulated over a period of time but as he mentions I did talk to him about the idea many years ago. We debated my topic for years and during our traveling days visiting sites and walking different properties I found that some of the most scenic and prettiest properties had inherent situations that needed to be worked out. For example a few sites, one we toured one just north of Beechtree in Baltimore, had a view and land that was unbelievable but I thought had a dilemma, once you got down close to the waters edge with the routing you had to work your way out and back up. Another property in Canada would have had a series of holes that would have made any golf calendar but the problem was once you got to the bottom I believe by a river, you had to come back up and those holes would have been a hike. I tried several routings and the last three holes were the worst; it could have been the first 15-hole golf course. Routings are so hard, people can single out holes they like or dislike and want to change the routing, problem is they forget they may have to fix the other 17 holes along with the one they think is undesirable. We laid out a routing in Cabo San Lucas and another property I looked at in Western Canada may have benefited from the Base Camp golf idea, Apache Stronghold has so many holes sitting out their in the high desert you would never want to come home.
So after thinking about the problem I solved it with a very unusual answer. Start at one location and end at another. When we first toured the site at the Dismal River site with the developers from Denver and way before Jack was hired to do the first course, I saw the same possible dilemma starting to appear on the piece of property we were shown. The dunes were awesome but trying to start and finish in the same place would have been tricky to figure out. I have a photo of the Dismal River site in the snow when we visited years ago before any golf was conceived, the developers drove us up towards the western edge of the property looking east from one of the highest points, I thought in my mind what if you started up here and ended down at the river. That would be interesting but not very mainstream and some would see it as a problem. Not sure if Tom remembers this but I leaned over to him riding in the back seat of the large SUV during our tour and as we finished up heading out of the gate I pointed back with my thumb and said, Base Camp Golf!
I could name a lot of golf courses where the last couple of holes are not the best ones in the routing as they try to work their way back up the hill. I am sure some would see it as a routing fault. One of my favorite golf courses in the world The National Golf Links of America as it sits today, has a finishing hole that is one of the best uphill holes ever conceived.
Tom is right he did use the remote start at Wilderness Valley long before we met but it started and ended in the same place, Base Camp golf was based on starting at one location and ending in another. The golf and the walk would be like a hiking trail and hence the name Base Camp. What family would not want to take a hike?
In my first interview on GCA back in 2002, I posed some topics for discussion on the last page and one of them was Base Camp Golf, Please don’t get caught up in the name, but give the idea some thought, it was just a phrase, just like my corridor golf theme. Put the clubhouse up on a big hill for the view and you potentiallyhave an instant routing problem.
David M
I understand that playing down hill for 18 holes would be repetitive and I appreciate uphill holes as much as the next person but I thought the idea would solve some of the negative discussions that playing up hill brings with it. For that matter I think some of the most creative holes require a slope of at least 6- 8% uphill to stagger features that are the basis of strategic design, the 13th hole at the Valley Club as one example. In the Base Camp idea I would have turned a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition. Wandering aimlessly was never my intent, it was a solution to a dilemma that arose infrequently but never less was a factor in some of the routings. The biggest problem today with many of the Golden Age designs is the uphill holes, many of the classics greens had sloping greens that conformed with the natural terrain but at today's greens speeds require that the greens be unnaturally flattened out. A dilemma in uphill holes.
Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$ we got to get back from whence we came. Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on? At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying. It's just about the convenience.
The best routings as you state followed the standard rule with the idea of returning nines only because golf deemed it so. What if the grand game started out with routings as I have described in Base Camp golf and someone in the modern era thought, wow if we returned at the 18th hole this destination golf would be so much easier. Would it be easier for all the participants on here to understand, All food for thought.
BTW,
Played City Park Nine yesterday in Fort Collins, Colorado with my son and another couple. Great walk, affordable golf, packed with happy golfers of all ages and some of the most fun I have had on a golf course. Care to have a “frank discussion” about this course?
“Now you know the rest of the story, good day”
-
Kevin, I appreciate your post and have considered your point many times, and one will continue to consider it. I've gone back and looked at all my posts in this thread and the last to try and determine what role I have played in all the hostility. I don't have clean hands in the matter. I regret that a post to Mac in the last thread was unnecessarily hostile, for example. I do know my intentions, though, and while I am no angel I have tried to stay on topic and engage in a productive discussion.
I invite you or anyone else to actually go back and look at my posts and others, and actually consider from where the hostility emanates. But please try to do so without first assigning an ill motive to everything I write. Whether you do or or not, I do appreciate your post and understand that at this point, some of this is on me. But I don't think that ought to give everyone who disagrees with me carte blanche to flame me or to mis-portray well meaning posts as attacks. They aren't attacks.
As for your example, I don't understand. I know my intent and didn't mean it as hostile, and I am not even sure why you think it hostile. It wasn't about "an architect." It specifically referred to C&C at Sand Hills. Do you have a problem with the word "aimlessly?" It was meant to convey not aiming for the first tee. Is it the allusion to the fire pit at Dismal? The fire pit at Dismal sounds idyllic, so why would suggesting a similar stopping point for a hypothetical course be considered hostile? I think you are inferring a hostile intent that just isn't there. Regardless, let me try to rephrase it because I think it is an interesting question and it was not meant to be rhetorical, hyperbolic, or hostile.
What if, instead of trying to return to the proximity of the first tee, C&C had instead followed a line of great holes to a remote and idyllic location? Would Sand Hills be a better course?
-
The answer is "I don't know" to all four questions. Sure, there are a few benefits to starting and finishing in approximately the same place. I think the benefits become less obvious where the start/finish occurs away from the clubhouse.
I agree that the benefits become less obvious when we take a clubhouse or clubhouse equivalent out of play. Tom has said this a number of times and I understand it and agree with it, to a point. I also think the benefit becomes less obvious when you accept that people are going to be running around in carts anyway, either when playing or before/after. But of course these things bring up other issues that have been somewhat covered elsewhere. I wonder if at Rock Creek, if the clubhouse had been remote, whether Tom and Eric wouldn't have gone with the open-jawed routing other than going with Eric's routing to make ends meet.
OK, yes, compromises are likely made to return many, if not most, golf courses to their starting position. But since compromises are always made, isn't it fair to also suggest that our veteran architect may have made the right decisions at Dismal River, especially given that he decided the best golfing ground was away from the clubhouse?
Sure it is fair, but I don't think I have ever said Tom made the wrong decisions at Dismal. I am at a loss as to why that is so hard for people to understand this.
I'm moving into thread killer mode. It's pretty clear where everybody stands on these issues. We're beating a dead horse.
Probably a good idea. But here is one key issue we haven't discussed in a productive way, and that is what are these supposed "benefits" of returning to the first hole? I think there are such benefits, and could name some, but I am not entirely convinced that I understand exactly why they are so important. That is one reason I have kept at this issue. I am trying to understand it myself.
-
JC,
Thanks for chiming in. I think the idea of base camp golf has merit, subject to the specific site and build brief. Perhaps solving the returning loop puzzle is more traditional and has a certain level of difficulty due to its constraints. But the constraints are due to clubhouse location and history as much as finding the best ground for golf. I haven't visited Dismal, but frankly this specific topic makes me want to visit more.
David,
I'm not sure if Sand Hills would be better If it were base camp golf (and it's a silly argument without walking another routing) but on the face of it I don't see a big difference between taking a cart out and back from the clubhouse and taking a shuttle from 18 green back to 1 tee, except that it offends some folks' sense of tradition. Frankly the American game of golf often bears little resemblance to the way the game was played in GB&I. This issue, again unique to each particular situation, is conceptually pretty far down the list of affronts to the traditional game IMO.
-
David M:
One of the benefits on old courses had to be it made sense to start and finish close to town. At Ballybunion I suppose they could have built what Jim Urbina calls "Base Camp" golf by incorporating the land on which the Cashen course now sits.
But, I doubt people circa 1930 would have liked the idea. Not many people had cars and it would have been a long walk home, especially in the rain.
-
Jim,
Thanks very much for chiming in. You've perfectly described the sort of course I see as possibly being the next big innovation in golf course design, although we might disagree on whether it necessarily would be positive innovation.
I hope you don't mind if I try to address some of your specific comments later.
____________________________________________________________
JTigerman,
Thanks for answering the question. Part of what I am struggling with is whether or not it is merely my deference to tradition that is shaping my opinion on this matter, or whether there are other more tangible benefits of routing so as to make ends meet. I think that there are, but I'm not sure I could fully articulate all of them. Sometimes it is a little difficult to totally understand the ramifications (good and bad) of moving away from a traditional approach until long after.
_________________________________
Tim,
You've touched on an important component that makes all of this possible. The golf cart. Without a golf cart it is easy to see why they returned to where they started.
Ironically, though, I have to admit that the base camp concept could potentially make walking much easier than it otherwise would be on the same site, provided that transportation to and from was provided at the end. But the more likely scenario is that the golfers would be given carts at the beginning and they deadhead back at the end.
I have joked about chair lifts on such courses a number of times, but in some ways a chair lift might be a good solution. At least it wouldn't put butts in carts prior to the round.
-
David M:
I have played a base camp course, only the golf cart had nothing to do with it. Instead, it was a fine old Chris Craft boat at Coeur d'Alene.
Not a great course, but pretty cool for corporate entertainment.
-
Tom is right he did use the remote start at Wilderness Valley long before we met but it started and ended in the same place, Base Camp golf was based on starting at one location and ending in another.
Jim: Thanks for chiming in. But, you remember Black Forest wrong. The first tee is about 300 yards from the parking lot, and the first two holes are up on top of the ridge ... then you go down to the 3rd tee, and the 18th green finishes up down there. Even if we'd had the land to play back to the clubhouse, which we didn't, I couldn't imagine breaking up the golf course with a very long, uphill cart ride a couple of holes from the end, so we ended in the valley instead.
I figured if they ever had a tournament, it was walkable as it is, and they could put a scoreboard by #18 and then shuttle people back to the clubhouse.
-
no doubt the 18th at CPC is all about getting back to a great clubhouse
Base Camp golf could be like helicopter skiing LOL
-
no doubt the 18th at CPC is all about getting back to a great clubhouse
Base Camp golf could be like helicopter skiing LOL
Why not hell-golf?
Legends Golf Course, South Africa.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4buQApSU1t0&ei=5s84U9emKcjgyQHU_oD4Bg&usg=AFQjCNEj4XqQHQ1ilY5pRUBZecg_TiS-rA&bvm=bv.63808443,d.aWc
-
no doubt the 18th at CPC is all about getting back to a great clubhouse
Base Camp golf could be like helicopter skiing LOL
Why not hell-golf?
Legends Golf Course, South Africa.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4buQApSU1t0&ei=5s84U9emKcjgyQHU_oD4Bg&usg=AFQjCNEj4XqQHQ1ilY5pRUBZecg_TiS-rA&bvm=bv.63808443,d.aWc
See David, it really is a big world. ;)
And, I meant that sincerely.
-
Why not hell-golf?
Last month in New Zealand I just happened to be in Queenstown for the debut of "Over The Top" golf, where they've built a par-3 hole up on the mountain above Lake Wakatipu. The prime minister hit the first few shots, on the Saturday of the New Zealand Open. Sadly, I can't find anywhere near as good a picture as I've got on my camera, but it was SPECTACULAR up there.
-
I don't post a lot here, but I have spent half of my day catching up on this thread and there has been much that I have learned, but the one thing that has become abundantly clear is...
David Moriarty is an a$$.
Also, yes I have played DRR and I loved it and no I am not a member there ;)
-
I don't post a lot here, but I have spent half of my day catching up on this thread and there has been much that I have learned, but the one thing that has become abundantly clear is...
David Moriarty is an a$$.
Also, yes I have played DRR and I loved it and no I am not a member there ;)
That's saying a lot seeing as you're one of the nicest people I think I've met from this site.
-
I don't post a lot here, but I have spent half of my day catching up on this thread and there has been much that I have learned, but the one thing that has become abundantly clear is...
David Moriarty is an a$$.
Also, yes I have played DRR and I loved it and no I am not a member there ;)
That's saying a lot seeing as you're one of the nicest people I think I've met from this site.
Sam,
I have not met Stephen and am quite happy to accept your comment that he is one of the nicest people on the site.
However, I don't think his comment about David is appropriate. We are here to discuss golf architecture, not to make personal attacks.
We are all a little bit guilty and all need to clean that up, IMO.
-
I don't post a lot here, but I have spent half of my day catching up on this thread and there has been much that I have learned, but the one thing that has become abundantly clear is...
David Moriarty is an a$$.
Also, yes I have played DRR and I loved it and no I am not a member there ;)
That's saying a lot seeing as you're one of the nicest people I think I've met from this site.
Sam,
I have not met Stephen and am quite happy to accept your comment that he is one of the nicest people on the site.
However, I don't think his comment about David is appropriate. We are here to discuss golf architecture, not to make personal attacks.
We are all a little bit guilty and all need to clean that up, IMO.
I agree but it seems like certain names pop in the middle of every petty argument on this site, discussion is good, petty in fighting and false accusations are counter productive. The way a good person like Chris Johnston has been dragged through the mud is an embarrassment to this site.
-
I don't post a lot here, but I have spent half of my day catching up on this thread and there has been much that I have learned, but the one thing that has become abundantly clear is...
David Moriarty is an a$$.
Also, yes I have played DRR and I loved it and no I am not a member there ;)
That's saying a lot seeing as you're one of the nicest people I think I've met from this site.
Sam,
I have not met Stephen and am quite happy to accept your comment that he is one of the nicest people on the site.
However, I don't think his comment about David is appropriate. We are here to discuss golf architecture, not to make personal attacks.
We are all a little bit guilty and all need to clean that up, IMO.
I agree but it seems like certain names pop in the middle of every petty argument on this site, discussion is good, petty in fighting and false accusations are counter productive. The way a good person like Chris Johnston has been dragged through the mud is an embarrassment to this site.
Sam and Tim,
I agree with both of your latest posts. I apologize for dropping the level of discourse here.
Stephen
-
Sam,
We probably all need to clean up our act a bit. Way too many personal comments in this thread.
Ran provides a great forum and we should respect that, IMO.
Stephen,
Thanks. No worries.
-
I'm not sure if this adds or detracts to the thread, but here are my thoughts on DR Red immediately after playing in last September:
It is a really unique piece of property and I can't think of another course that I've played that is anything quite like it.
My favorite holes were on the other side of the road -- I can tell why Tom fought hard to cross that road! My favorite stretch is 13-15, with #14 probably being my favorite hole on the property. I liked how 14 & 15 had bold classic design features on a bold modern course. 14 is just really cool in that there were two ways to achieve a non-blind shot into that green -- hit it long left or hit it straight. Fail and you have a blind shot or are hitting out of the native. #15 proved to be a crucial hole in one of our matches -- our group hit 8 balls off the tee; only my partner and I found our original drives. We squared the match there then halved the remaining 3 holes to advance. I can see how it's a pretty vexing hole but I had success just banging a shot way left each round (I played each side 3 times) and hitting a shot up the length of the green.
I found the back 10 holes to be such a thrill to play that it overshadowed the front 8 a bit in my mind. I found myself wishing there was a whole 18 over on that side. I don't think that is a criticism of the opening 8 as much as it speaks volumes to that closing stretch. I'm a sucker for the amorphous blended turf and the front nine is really neat with all of the different options around the greens and possible teeing areas (I'm not sure if they are going to go the BN-route with no tee markers, but I think they definitely should). #4 is probably my favorite hole on that side with two distinct paths to the hole - conservative or aggressive, but requiring the longer hitter to hit a straight ball through the neck if he really wants to get it on or close to the green.
Some other random observations:
- I saw some really good shots hit on #5 (none by me), most of which got hung up on the bank above the green. I'm not sure if that was the intent or if it's just a maintenance issue, but it did seem like the play there is to hit a left-to-right shot hugging the left side of the green, then roll it off that large slope.
- Speaking of left-to-right, there seemed to be more of that here, in contrast to Ballyneal which seems to have more right-to-left shots. It is probably better suited for my game, assuming I had any control of my golf ball.
- It's probably a function of the early maintenance and/or the weather, but the native rough was brutally difficult. I think I found 3 golf balls for every one that I lost, a surprising number given how new the course is. The last day was pretty tough scoring conditions in general -- hopefully it didn't turned anybody off as too tough. The 18th in particularly was very gnarly -- any thoughts on paring that rough back around and above the bunkers left and short of the green?
- I really liked the 12th tee from the left. It appeared that the fairway ridge in the foreground mimicked the large hills in the background. There were some awesome skyline views on the back ten with the impressive mountain of sand serving as the background. Getting down to 16 green is really neat because you fully realize how big those dunes are and how small we are by comparison.
- It's probably no surprise that I tended to prefer the greens with bolder internal contours like #14 to some of the more subtle ones, but there seems to be a good mix of green sites. I saw more than a few putts played 1-2 feet one direction that broke the opposite direction. The subtle greens with more a constant tilt with mild humps and bumps were difficult to read. #18 seemed to have a lot of dips and a small hollows -- not sure if that was a early grow-in thing?
- We played the 496 tee on #13, where you had no choice but to hit atop the hill left of the corner. It is a really cool looking approach shot from up there. I would've like to have seen a more generous landing area up there to help the safe play.
- I found the walk to be very reasonable and manageable. The blended turf probably makes some of the green-to-tee walks seem longer than they actually are, but it's not bad at all if you know where to put your golf bag. Climbing #17 is the only arduous walk on the course.
This was before the DR Red vs Ballyneal boxing match. I did not participate because I don't tend to do hole by hole matches, nor would anyone take my opinion as anything more than biased drivel. But for what little it's worth, I rather group the holes into par 5's, par 3's and short and long par 4's. First of all, I don't think the par 5's are a strength for DR red and would go as far as to say that there isn't one there that I would trade for any of the par 5's at Ballyneal. Call it 10-9 or even 10-8. The short par 4's are a strength at Ballyneal - I think most courses would be 10-9 to it. par 3's are a push and long par 4's are really strong on both courses and could go either direction.
I did play the first 7-8 holes on the White course and the par 3's on the back, and carted the rest as that was all I had time for. It does seem extremely different than the Red course. I can't put my finger on it or explain it very well, other than the Doak course seems so seamlessly connected to the land, whereas the Nicklaus course seems drawn upon it. It's definitely beautiful landscape and I can see how others can enjoy it even if it doesn't quite fit my golf DNA. I'm not sure what holes are people's favorites on the White course but the 17th looked strong in my opinion.
It has been touched on in this thread, and I'm sorry if this is going to ruffle feathers, but in the spirit of frankness and honesty, if we are going to credit Doak for carefully getting it right out of the gates, what does that say about the original original Nicklaus course he gave to the first owners? There may be dozens of potential all world golf courses waiting to be built in the Sand hills regions, but the truth is only a half dozen or so will ever get built. I just wish there was more careful consideration with what went into the ground, as these special opportunities only come so often. While it's true that all of the improvements that have been made have been for the better, my basic premise is that the architect's job is to get as many of these things right as possible upfront. Future changes cost money and more importantly you are limited to what you can do based on some of the original decisions. Erin Hills went through the same thing. I just think an architect has to recognize these issues while it's in the dirt and adjust accordingly. It should be part of the job description.
Anyways, that has always been my mental block with original Dismal River course. I recognize that it's a mental block that likely prevents me fully appreciating what is there now, just like I have a mental block against Erin Hills being considered a great course (though I predict the 2017 US open will be a smash success). That is honestly where I stand on these issues and fully recognize that it's just one mere hobbyist's opinion fully loaded with baggage and barely worth the digibytes it's printed on.
With that, I think it's probably time for me to remove myself from GCA in the hope that it will speed up the path back to more frank and honest discussion. If I ever build a golf course, you are all welcome to come see it and try to rip it to shreds. Thank you to Ran for everything that I've learned over the past 8+ years. I'm sure I will run into many of you in the future, whether at a Hundred Hole Hike event, get together or even a future 5th Major.
Jim
-
well said Jim, sadly
-
Hell, Jim Colton, that was a great post. The kind we need more of, not less.
Hope you stick around.
-
Jim,
My friend, you ruffled no feathers, and I appreciate your candor. I may not agree with everything you said, but have no problem at all with you expressing it. That is what is expected of true friends.
It seems several good people are rethinking participating in the current environment on this site, and I can be counted among them.
When civility is lost and you come under withering personal attack, it takes the fun out of it.
I'm reminded these days of two favored quotes at the moment, both by Edmund Burke.
Realtive to the routing debate..."We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation."
And, relative to life in general..."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Jim, I hope you rethink leaving, for if you do so, it will be our loss.
-
Hell, Jim Colton, that was a great post. The kind we need more of, not less.
Hope you stick around.
Jim,
That was my reaction. Seemed like he put a real effort into the post and was very good for people who haven't been to DR.
-
no doubt the 18th at CPC is all about getting back to a great clubhouse
Base Camp golf could be like helicopter skiing LOL
Why not hell-golf?
Legends Golf Course, South Africa.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4buQApSU1t0&ei=5s84U9emKcjgyQHU_oD4Bg&usg=AFQjCNEj4XqQHQ1ilY5pRUBZecg_TiS-rA&bvm=bv.63808443,d.aWc
Not a great example, as the hole in question is not part of the main course at Legends - it's completely separate and you have to pay a separate fee to play it.
-
Tim, I am not frustrated with you at all. But golf is better when Mike DeVries breaks rules. That was my point.
If Tom Doak doesn't route what he did at DR, there is no DR Red. While that would make some happy, I think DR Red is good for golf for a lot of reasons.
I feel the same way about Kingsley.
But if we follow the formulaic rules preached by some here, these courses are much different, or do not get built.
Don
You have set up a false dichotomy. I don't think Dr B or either David is advocating that Dismal or any course should not have been built because the routing isn't ideal in relation to the house. I think its rather a case of if something isn't ideal, be upfront about it instead of couching the imperfection as inconsequential in pursuit of the best 18 holes. Obviously, many feel their ideal is getting the best 18 holes out of a property. At least David M is saying where does that philosophy lead us if taken 25%, 50% or even 100% to the extreme? If walking golf is considered an ideal, then it follows that time spent not engaged with the game is best if limited. Again, obviously many do not see this premise as an ideal and believe the quality of the holes trumps all else. I come from the school that says hang on, is this really the case or should it be the case? If an archie can't build an interesting hole from less than good terrain then its time to hire a new archie. The exceptions I can envision is when there is only so much money in the pot. First and foremost there has to be 18 holes. I don't agree with this approach, but I can fully understand it. Another exception is making a routing decision which leads to a few longs walks because one or two absolutely stone dead great holes can be included. In both cases (budget and quality holes) its down to the archie's judgement and at Dismal Doak may have got it spot on. In fact, I trust he did get it spot on, but it doesn't mean its ideal for me. I think if Doak can get that spot on, he can figure a way to get back to the house and everybody would think its spot on even if Doak didn't think so. But thats why the archie gets paid the big bucks - making all those calls.
Ciao
-
I thought this comment from Jim Urbina was a gold nugget. A pity that his excellent post did not inspire more replies. I guess there was nothing to argue with.
For that matter I think some of the most creative holes require a slope of at least 6- 8% uphill to stagger features that are the basis of strategic design, the 13th hole at the Valley Club as one example. In the Base Camp idea I would have turned a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition. Wandering aimlessly was never my intent, it was a solution to a dilemma that arose infrequently but never less was a factor in some of the routings. The biggest problem today with many of the Golden Age designs is the uphill holes, many of the classics greens had sloping greens that conformed with the natural terrain but at today's greens speeds require that the greens be unnaturally flattened out. A dilemma in uphill holes.
-
Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$ we got to get back from whence we came. Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on? At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying. It's just about the convenience.
Jim
Interesting you mention those two courses as there is a group of golfers who play an annual match starting at the first at Royal Troon and playing out to the end of the course where they then jump the fence over to Prestwick and play in to Prestwick clubhouse where the have a "refreshing" lunch. Thereafter, those that are still fit play the front half of Prestwick jump the fence and then the back half of Troon.
Also Leven and Lundin Links. How about using the best of both courses, starting at one clubhouse and finishing at the other.
Niall
-
Niall
I was told in the late 70's by a Troon member that there was an annual match that started at Prestwick and did not finish until it ran out of land somewhere in Irvine.
Rich
PS--Vis a vis the topic of this discussion, am I allowed to defer comment until after I have seen and played Dismal in late June?
rfg
-
It has been touched on in this thread, and I'm sorry if this is going to ruffle feathers, but in the spirit of frankness and honesty, if we are going to credit Doak for carefully getting it right out of the gates, what does that say about the original original Nicklaus course he gave to the first owners?
Jim,
After "sleeping on" your post, I have an interesting perspective to add to this question that I'd bet most have never thought about. I call it "Owner Bias".
It is a fact that the original developer, associated with (but not part of) the original owners, told Mr. Nicklaus he wanted an edgy and "Championship" golf course. It is quite possible that, with those instructions, Jack delivered in spades. Yet, it was panned early as too difficult by many. I'm not sure if the original developer was a golfer, or at all interested in architecture at all, and I think that is more common than many may realize.
Enter owner #3 who had a completely different vision, plan, and goal for the club and golf focussed on fun and the experience. While I often wonder if my values are at all right, many changes to the original course are due to those different values. Softening some edges and enhancing playability and maintenance makes nothing but sense through my lens as we only hold one Major (the 5th) each year. The owner influence on what he ultimately wants certainly makes a difference. Overtime, with input from trusted friends, the White will come nearer to those values.
On the Red from the start, I had a good idea they kind of course I wanted and, thankfully, engaged Tom Doak to deliver it. Funny thing, Tom and I didn't have extensive discussions about what was desired, other than my bias towards more "classic" greens. Any perceived "routing controversy" is completely artificial to me, and likely to Tom, but it does make for good conversation. We agreed wanted the best 18 holes possible, above all else, and that goal was achieved.
There are probably hundreds of courses that you and I would would change to meet what we want. ANGC is a pefect example of evolution to values. I respect that you joined a club that fit what you wanted, yet I would definitely change some things there if I became the third owner.
The net effect here is we have two wonderful and different courses. We are lucky.
-
CJ,
Regarding the Base Camp or Heli skiing thoughts, from a skiers standpoint, there is always that thought about getting the best run while still being able to get back to the lift/copter without a hike
In fact some of the best terrain for skiing is sometimes Off Piste or Out of Bounds.
So the concept of routing for the best golf holes could be seen similarly to getting the best runs while skiing in a particular area. 8)
-
I respect that you joined a club that fit what you wanted, yet I would definitely change some things there if I became the third owner.
[/quote]
Chris, I've always enjoyed your company, but c'mon. Don't needle a guy on his way out the door.
-
Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$ we got to get back from whence we came. Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on? At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying. It's just about the convenience.
It probably was just about convenience to the golfers. But from the perspective of the development of gca and standards of quality of the golf courses, I think it matters very much that they eventually had to turn back and return to the same spot they started. It may sound odd, but returning to the same spot led to some semblance of variety and balance.
For example, if they had simply played down the coast they would largely be playing in the same wind the entire time. Turning back meant that for half the round the prevailing wind would effectively be reversed. Likewise, returning to the same spot means that the golfer spent as much time going uphill as downhill.
I know you mentioned that with your base camp idea you would "turn[] a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition," but I am not sure that reducing repetition and creating a balanced course are the same thing. If 14 holes play downhill, you could place the other four to try and reduce repetition, but that wouldn't really be a balanced course, would it?
I guess the flip side is that golfers tend to like golf holes that are downhill and down wind, so why should we care about variety and balance? The trend in golf seems to be away from such concerns.
-
As the current day "Merion" thread, the Dismal River-Ballyneal threads were due to claim their first victim. Sorry it was Jim, but fully understand his thinking. I often question the time that I dedicate to this and other sites when I should be spending more time at work and with the family. In fact, I have been lurking much more of late rather than posting and find that I have enjoyed it much more.
In the end, I wish that many in this Discussion Group would understand one fact - this is fun for 90% of us here. We are not in the industry. We don't have any personal stake in the discussions. We start threads because we think they will be fun to discuss. We post on a thread because it may actually be one of the few threads that we have some knowledge. And most importantly, we don't think we know more than everyone else on the issue.....we just want to discuss something that we really enjoy.
I understand that some on this string make a living in the industry. These folks, like Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, Jeff Brauer, Mike Nuzzo, etc... know more than the rest of us. I thank them for their participation as it does provide interesting discussion and a greater opportunity to appreciate golf course architecture. These people are rarely the problem.
However, there are others on this site who want to believe that they know much more than the rest of us, even though they are not in the industry or have just been involved on a very limited basis with the industry, giving them some sense of self importance. I don't get these people. They regularly take silly discussions on golf courses to the extreme, placing way too much importance on it. I have news for these people - there are a lot of different kinds of courses...a lot of different kinds of routings.....a lot of different kinds of greens and there are few right or wrong answers. Believe it or not, I actually like taking a cart sometimes and I do think that I am still playing golf. In fact, I actually like playing golf at Firestone CC - blasphemy. These people need to develop some perspective. Here is a simple rule - if you are making enemies based on a golf course discussion group, you really need to self examine yourself.
Believe it or not, Eric Smith started the Red v. White thread because he thought it would be fun. He loves both courses and thought it would be fun to discuss both of them hole by hole. It is a shame that some turned something so simple into this.
-
I respect that you joined a club that fit what you wanted, yet I would definitely change some things there if I became the third owner.
Chris, I've always enjoyed your company, but c'mon. Don't needle a guy on his way out the door.
[/quote]
Tom,
There was no intent to needle my friend Jim...at all. I hope you would agree pulling one piece from a comment removes intended context. There was no criticism intended, just that a new owner would probably make changes as is fully his perogative. I would also guess that if Jim became a third owner, he would likely make changes too.
Jim, if I offended you at all, please accept my sincere apology. It wan't my intent to offend.
Too much judgment and contention for my tastes, my friend. I'll likely be joining Jim soon.
Peace.
CJ
-
Chris - I don't think Tom was being judgmental or contentious. I read it the same way and always give you the benefit of the doubt, as I know you to be a good guy.
-
Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$ we got to get back from whence we came. Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on? At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying. It's just about the convenience.
It probably was just about convenience to the golfers. But from the perspective of the development of gca and standards of quality of the golf courses, I think it matters very much that they eventually had to turn back and return to the same spot they started. It may sound odd, but returning to the same spot led to some semblance of variety and balance.
For example, if they had simply played down the coast they would largely be playing in the same wind the entire time. Turning back meant that for half the round the prevailing wind would effectively be reversed. Likewise, returning to the same spot means that the golfer spent as much time going uphill as downhill.
I know you mentioned that with your base camp idea you would "turn[] a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition," but I am not sure that reducing repetition and creating a balanced course are the same thing. If 14 holes play downhill, you could place the other four to try and reduce repetition, but that wouldn't really be a balanced course, would it?
I guess the flip side is that golfers tend to like golf holes that are downhill and down wind, so why should we care about variety and balance? The trend in golf seems to be away from such concerns.
David,
Those are several good points. Here is another: if you take a close look, not every links property could have been extended further in either direction if the objective was to keep building holes in sand dunes.
For some reason nature concentrated the sand in a limited area. Doonbeg in Ireland is a good example.
-
Tim,
That is so true, that once you get to the ocean, you know you are there!
Whereas in CO and NE, you just keep on driving and you wonder how many golf courses could be built there and everywhere.
It really is a different feel.
-
Chris,
Your comment to Jim ignores that alterations to the golf course at his club have been minimal. Has a single hole been significantly altered? Isolating the quote didn't remove context, it just highlighted how misguided that was and how nasty it was to poke at its history of financial issues.
It's impossible, I understand, for someone in your unique position not to spin and spruik every time you post about your investment, and those who know you rightly cut you slack for it and defend you when you're criticised for it, but it continues to grate.
Separately, everything I have heard about Dismal White is that it is the antithesis of a "championship" golf course. That's what appears to make it attractive to those who like it. More spin.
This thread is an absolute car crash (& was always going to be), and it's a shame that out of all the people who posted in it, it's Jim who has decided the best bet is to leave the site.
-
Thanks, Scott! I'll graciously respond to your comment.
I'm as disappointed as you are that Jim left GCA, and I did nothing to drive that decision. Good grief, I complimented him on his critical post and count him as a friend.
I didn't raise the topic of changes, Jim did, and I made no comment about any changes made, minimal or not.
The point of my post was, having thought about (a part of) what Jim wrote, third (new) owners sometimes drive change to comport to their vision. Owners change things all the time, be it course (as already discussed), menu, join fees, rates, and season. That's not spin, young man, it's reality. Do you really find something unnatural about that? I didn't mean to poke at all, I simply said that if I were the third owner, I would make changes as I would then be entitled to do. I'd bet both you would too if you believed the change was for the better. What, exactly, do you find wrong with that?
I suppose it noble to lash out for your friend Jim, yet I merely responded to something he wrote. And Scott, I made no comment to their past financial issues, you did. Nobody is more thrilled than I am that Ballyneal is doing better. It's a great place with some great people, and deserves every success.
From everything you have heard? Seriously? Care to tell us who have you heard everything from? I merely stated what I know to be true about the initial White course and the expectations set at the time...nothing more...and you call that as spin? Do you have any reliable information to counter it? It wasn't spin, it was fact, but please don't let that interrupt your rant.
Your post here seems to show you didn't read my post at all. I also love critical comments from people who have never seen a place, who then accuse people who do have knowledge as somehow being wrong. The thread has has a ton of comment and I have done nothing at all to limit it. Kind of like democracy, things can get bumpy at times, but it sure beats the alternative.
CJ
-
As the current day "Merion" thread, the Dismal River-Ballyneal threads were due to claim their first victim. Sorry it was Jim, but fully understand his thinking. I often question the time that I dedicate to this and other sites when I should be spending more time at work and with the family. In fact, I have been lurking much more of late rather than posting and find that I have enjoyed it much more.
In the end, I wish that many in this Discussion Group would understand one fact - this is fun for 90% of us here. We are not in the industry. We don't have any personal stake in the discussions. We start threads because we think they will be fun to discuss. We post on a thread because it may actually be one of the few threads that we have some knowledge. And most importantly, we don't think we know more than everyone else on the issue.....we just want to discuss something that we really enjoy.
I understand that some on this string make a living in the industry. These folks, like Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, Jeff Brauer, Mike Nuzzo, etc... know more than the rest of us. I thank them for their participation as it does provide interesting discussion and a greater opportunity to appreciate golf course architecture. These people are rarely the problem.
However, there are others on this site who want to believe that they know much more than the rest of us, even though they are not in the industry or have just been involved on a very limited basis with the industry, giving them some sense of self importance. I don't get these people. They regularly take silly discussions on golf courses to the extreme, placing way too much importance on it. I have news for these people - there are a lot of different kinds of courses...a lot of different kinds of routings.....a lot of different kinds of greens and there are few right or wrong answers. Believe it or not, I actually like taking a cart sometimes and I do think that I am still playing golf. In fact, I actually like playing golf at Firestone CC - blasphemy. These people need to develop some perspective. Here is a simple rule - if you are making enemies based on a golf course discussion group, you really need to self examine yourself.
Believe it or not, Eric Smith started the Red v. White thread because he thought it would be fun. He loves both courses and thought it would be fun to discuss both of them hole by hole. It is a shame that some turned something so simple into this.
Well written, Michael. I agree with everything you said.
-
These threads are the antithesis of DR, which is one of the most unabashedly fun places in American golf. And I'm sure that Eric was thinking fun when he started the Red v White thread, but in this environment we are dealing with a dosage-related commodity. And we've been overdosed on Dismal. This degenerated into an internet moot court on the merits and demerits of two courses that the leading "critic" had not ever played! It's like two platoons in opposing foxholes, well out of their shooting range. Eventually, somebody stops wasting bullets.
-
David M
The idea of balance I agree is important but I have another theory on golf that pushes the balance theme to the side. It's called Perfect Yardage.
I am not saying the idea of Base Camp was the answer to all routings, but after visiting a string of properties that others may have forced a conventional routing onto, I thought why keep forcing a round peg into a square hole. I appreciate your in depth analysis of what makes a good routing. Two Loops, Out and Back, The Muirfiield routing and others, I am going to try this some day " Triangle Golf" routing. If I ever get a chance to lay it out I will reach out to you and ask you to walk it with me.
Niall,
I never knew they actually played from Troon to Prestwick, it just made sense to me. Thanks for that info. Us Scottish guys think a like ;D
David E
The game of golf has evolved so much from what it once was. I keep trying to take it back to that.
"Keep it Simple"
-
David M
The idea of balance I agree is important but I have another theory on golf that pushes the balance theme to the side. It's called Perfect Yardage.
I am not saying the idea of Base Camp was the answer to all routings, but after visiting a string of properties that others may have forced a conventional routing onto, I thought why keep forcing a round peg into a square hole. I appreciate your in depth analysis of what makes a good routing. Two Loops, Out and Back, The Muirfiield routing and others, I am going to try this some day " Triangle Golf" routing. If I ever get a chance to lay it out I will reach out to you and ask you to walk it with me.
Anytime, Jim.
I'd love to hear more about "Perfect Yardage" and "Triangle Golf." But you should start a new thread. Your post on your Base Camp concept is too good to get lost in this pile of rubbish, and there is no use burying more of your ideas here.
-
Jim, just a comment on the base camp thinking of an 'out and out' routing.
I recently was asked to give a conceptual layout for a submission by a group in Malaysia for a very hilly site within a proposed residential development adjacent to the ocean. They had already come up with the idea of having a hilltop clubhouse and an oceanside clubhouse and I routed two nine hole loops, each starting out from the hilltop clubhouse and finishing at the oceanside one. When you finished one nine you would take a shuttle back up to the hilltop clubhouse and tee off on the other nine. This avoided the drastically uphill holes that would be needed if you were to get back up from the oceanside. The holes were a combination of downhill, some level, and the odd one slightly uphill - as you mentioned in your comment - to get a nice comfortable balance without the slog of a number of serious uphill holes. The developer did like my idea :-)
-
Neil,
That is fascinating. Would the nines be designed to be walkable, except for the shuttle?
It is just like I suggested the beginning of this thread, except no chairlift. I'm telling you, there is a trend here in the making . . .
In short, I think that Jim Urbina might have been onto something, at least if he was looking for the next possible trend in golf. The first cart ball mountain course was probably seemed like a pretty cool "one off" too. But the trend caught on, and this trend could be catching on, too. We could be witnessing the beginning of the next trend in cart golf. If it seems like the great Tom Doak is on board, who wouldn't be?
Imagine a property like Rock Creek only with both nines running down hill, and maybe a chairlift in between, along the scenic creek One could ride up, and go left or right, just like off a ski lift. Play down one nine, then ride up and play down the other. Mechanized walking golf, with no or few pesky uphill holes. The hundred hole hike would be a breeze.
-
Yes you could walk it I think David but in the tropical heat of Malaysia nearly everyone takes carts.
-
Makes sense Neil. You mentioned a shuttle up so I was wondering. Is the project going forward?
-
Jim, thanks very much for contributing on the routing side of things. I think I can get my head around the triangle concept and, obviously, think it a terrific idea to route a course creatively to take best advantage of what a site offers. As to Base Camp, it is a great idea if it gives you great golf. Even better opens up some great sites for golf.
Neil, the two clubhouse ideas sound interesting as well to avoid a string of uphillers on a steep site. Routings face many challenges and it's pretty cool you thought outside the box on an ocean related site. I'd enjoy seeing this one "in the ground".
-
While I admittedly have no experience routing a golf course, I have played Makalei Golf Course on the Big Island which has an over 1000' elevation change and while certainly not walkable, it is an interesting layout that is playable. (I know it sounds like I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night) Believe it was designed by Dick Nugent & Associates and does a pretty fantastic job with an extremely elevated piece of property. Would this be considered as a great routing for the terrain because they were able to get you back to where you started? Also it appears to be on a relatively small parcel considering the land available. Here is a link to their website.
http://www.makalei.com/course/ (http://www.makalei.com/course/)
The base camp idea might have worked there as the elevation change is significant, and allowed a few easier holes are some are basically straight up the mountain. Between the peacocks, wild turkey (animals) and the views though, it was a pretty cool spot for a reasonable price on the big island.
-
I did play the first 7-8 holes on the White course and the par 3's on the back, and carted the rest as that was all I had time for.
I was reading through this string last night and really got stuck on this quote from Jim Colton. I don't know the reasons for not having time, but I would have hoped with all of the discussion about the White course that you would have found time to play it.
-
I did play the first 7-8 holes on the White course and the par 3's on the back, and carted the rest as that was all I had time for.
I was reading through this string last night and really got stuck on this quote from Jim Colton. I don't know the reasons for not having time, but I would have hoped with all of the discussion about the White course that you would have found time to play it.
Michael:
As Jim is no longer watching this thread (or the site), I will reply to this with a simple question: Why?
I did the same thing he did, on my first visit to Dismal River. We were only there for a little while, and I was hoped to get out and see the course without anyone knowing I was there, because otherwise I'd be compelled to comment and people might not love what I had to say. [And if you want to take me to task for that, remember, that's the same reason Jack Nicklaus did not visit Sand Hills while building Dismal.]
When I went to the trailer outside the clubhouse to ask if we could borrow a cart, I found myself face to face with the second owner, who had just taken over. He was a friend of Dick Youngscap's, so he knew my name, and he insisted on having me borrow his clubs even though we didn't have time to play 18 holes. So, I went out and played the holes that most interested me ... either the ones I thought were cool, or the ones I thought were crazy and wanted to see if they played like they looked.
People often criticize The Confidential Guide on the grounds that I printed opinions of many courses I didn't play, as if I couldn't possibly understand them otherwise. I've seen enough to prove to myself that's not so. Sure, there are things I might miss -- but there are things people miss after ten plays, and more to the point, things that people misunderstand because their one play of a hole was misleading in its immediate result. [Just because you three-putted a green doesn't mean it's severe.]
Anyway, it's not anyone's DUTY to play a course they don't like the looks of. And it doesn't make their opinion worthless, especially if they are asking questions about what they perceived as problems -- as Jim did -- instead of pretending to know the answers.
-
People often criticize The Confidential Guide on the grounds that I printed opinions of many courses I didn't play, as if I couldn't possibly understand them otherwise.
Mostly seeing a course from the 10th tee, more than 20 years ago? ??? Can't imagine what powers you must possess today. ;)
-
Tom:
It's not anyone's DUTY to play a course they don't like the looks of.
Likewise, it is also not anyone's OBLIGATION to comment on a course that they didn't have the "time" for. I doubt that any of the magazine panels accept ratings based on a "drive-by".
-
.
-
Likewise, it is also not anyone's OBLIGATION to comment on a course that they didn't have the "time" for. I doubt that any of the magazine panels accept ratings based on "drive-byes".
What a relief. Pardon me while I retire with the the following language and a bottle of Vaseline Intensive Care...
1. Shot Values
How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?
2. Resistance to Scoring
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?
5. Aesthetics
How well do the scenic values of the course (including landscaping, vegetation, water features and backdrops) add to the pleasure of a round?
-
"However, there are others on this site who want to believe that they know much more than the rest of us, even though they are not in the industry or have just been involved on a very limited basis with the industry, giving them some sense of self importance."
Michael:
You're starting to sound a bit like the folks you were describing in the quote above.
Just an observation,
Sven
-
Sven:
Where have I ever indicated that I know more about golf courses or golf course architecture than anyone? I am a hobbyist. That is it. My opinion on golf courses is worth something.... the $$$$ I spend on golf--- that is about it. My guess is that most on this site know more than me.
But you are probably right. If I had a brain, I would never have commented about Chris Johnston's or Jim Colton's posts....because to each of their camps (which are both quite large and loyal...trust me and my e-mail inbox), they are as infallible as Pope Francis.
So, in sum, I admit that I was an idiot for posting beyond my original post. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain and Abe Lincoln (corrected) :)
-
I am saddened to see such venom on this thread and many other threads on a site that is supposed to be fun.
-
I am saddened to see such venom on this thread and many other threads on a site that is supposed to be fun.
+1
-
I'm just catching up here. I hear DR Red is a sweet course, but has a goofy finish. Anyone have an opinion? ;D
I don't know about everyone else, but it's 60 degrees in New York, and I'm hitting balls in about a half hour. So I'm in a good mood.
Cheers,
Kevin
-
I am saddened to see such venom on this thread and many other threads on a site that is supposed to be fun.
Jim, from an observer (and yeah, an occasional participant) of multiple venomous flame wars on a prominent baseball website, all I can say is "allow me to introduce you to the internet".
My advice to anyone who feels they need to stop posting on a website is.....simply stop posting. You don't need to announce an exit. Trust me, I know it's human nature to want to register your protest for posterity, but nobody wins by making a scene. You'll feel a lot better about yourself when you settle down and (hopefully) decide to reengage.
-
Talk about a big old "who gives a shit" thread. ::)
-
I am saddened to see such venom on this thread and many other threads on a site that is supposed to be fun.
Jim, from an observer (and yeah, an occasional participant) of multiple venomous flame wars on a prominent baseball website, all I can say is "allow me to introduce you to the internet".
My advice to anyone who feels they need to stop posting on a website is.....simply stop posting. You don't need to announce an exit. Trust me, I know it's human nature to want to register your protest for posterity, but nobody wins by making a scene. You'll feel a lot better about yourself when you settle down and (hopefully) decide to reengage.
Bill,
I agree. Nobody needs to announce an exit, but it is recurring pattern on the Internet, not just this website. It would be far better if people just cooled off for a bit.
-
I am saddened to see such venom on this thread and many other threads on a site that is supposed to be fun.
Jim, from an observer (and yeah, an occasional participant) of multiple venomous flame wars on a prominent baseball website, all I can say is "allow me to introduce you to the internet".
My advice to anyone who feels they need to stop posting on a website is.....simply stop posting. You don't need to announce an exit. Trust me, I know it's human nature to want to register your protest for posterity, but nobody wins by making a scene. You'll feel a lot better about yourself when you settle down and (hopefully) decide to reengage.
Bill,
I agree. Nobody needs to announce an exit, but it is recurring pattern on the Internet, not just this website. It would be far better if people just cooled off for a bit.
Yep...and I'm guilty of that too. And to his credit, Don Mahaffey's exit created no drama at all, and that guys really does know the topics in which he participates. :'(
The more fun part is announcing your are staying, as I am right now. :o Way, WAY too much fun here not to stay and contribute. And I won't be in any foxhole, I'll just be right here. ;)
-
One thread three scalps -- WOW !
-
Minimalism. In a different form but it sure feels minimal. In importance, value and gravitas.
-
Mark, we've never met, but I play golf. And I think golf. And I think more golf. Reading this thread, looking for insights to two course I love as so special and unique in our golf world, I'm tempted to quote Rodney King. But I won't. Shit, guys. Go pull your own beards, and stop for just a moment to embrace a walk in the sun with anybody else who might enjoy the same thing.
-
OK, I have been waiting a few days, and now is the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ
-
I guess I missed something. I don't understand why this thread is a train wreck or why folks are dropping like flies. Things seem quite friendly, even the disputes are well controlled. Bizarre.
Ciao
-
I guess I missed something. I don't understand why this thread is a train wreck or why folks are dropping like flies. Things seem quite friendly, even the disputes are well controlled. Bizarre.
Ciao
I had the same thought, but perhaps that's the sad truth. It may have had nothing to do with this particular thread, but was just a self-fulfilling prophecy waiting to unfold. I've found that if people are looking to be offended, they invariably succeed.
-
The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.
-
I guess I missed something. I don't understand why this thread is a train wreck or why folks are dropping like flies. Things seem quite friendly, even the disputes are well controlled. Bizarre.
Ciao
I had the same thought, but perhaps that's the sad truth. It may have had nothing to do with this particular thread, but was just a self-fulfilling prophecy waiting to unfold. I've found that if people are looking to be offended, they invariably succeed.
This was basically a carry over thread that grew out of a prior train wreck that I can't find at the moment. Most of the boil was on the other thread, but I think there's been a long, slow, build up to what happened here.
-
.
Well said. ???
I agree with The Yank. Except for the one post from a late comer to the thread chastising CJ, this has been mostly a civil discussion of relevant issues. No one should be threatened by contrary opinions or different preferences. If we have to couch what we write so carefully as not to possibly offend anyone, F & O discussion is impossible. And if the egos of some DG participants are so fragile that they can't accept that not everyone else sees the world in the same way, maybe it is better that they pick up their ball and play elsewhere. It is a Big World out there, and as far as I know, the freedom of association still exists.
-
So, in sum, I admit that I was an idiot for posting beyond my original post. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain
I always heard this quote attributed to Abe Lincoln. It certainly predates Mark Twain..
Earlier mention...
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/
-
This famous quote from Martin Niemöller is why I don't believe silence is always the best option. If someone tells enough lies, without being questioned, about your course it eventually is accepted as the truth.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
-
This famous quote from Martin Niemöller is why I don't believe silence is always the best option. If someone tells enough lies, without being questioned, about your course it eventually is accepted as the truth.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Kavanaugh, I hear you. We can't have people lying about golf courses on this site...but to compare golf to Socialism and Jewish persecution is going a bit too far.
I'm with Terry...the gravitas of Dismal River and golf courses and opinions and this whole mess is simply not THAT important.
-
That is a great quote that applies to all aspects of life. In a modern sense when we see someone bullying or mistreating another child that is not our own it is easy to dismiss. Same goes for racism, drunk driving or even course bashing. If you do not speak up in all instances you lose credibility when it hits home.
-
The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.
This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.
Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.
Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion. Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest. Either way, I support it and him.
It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact. He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time". With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all. While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present? All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them. Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne. I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.
I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post. Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context. The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.
I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once. I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters. To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing. I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias? Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing. ...Crickets... And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.
To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block". With that, the course in question never had a chance.
Like Jim, I've said my piece.
Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course? We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well. While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.
-
I'm with Terry...the gravitas of Dismal River and golf courses and opinions and this whole mess is simply not THAT important.
++++++
-
Chris, you asked if there is anything more that people want to discuss. YES, I have some more items that I need to get addressed.
Last year, we added the surf and turf to the dinner menu. Excellent addition. HOWEVER, the BBQ Pork Sandwich, with Montgomery Inn BBQ Sauce, was removed from the lunch menu. To put it mildly, I was disappointed in this move. I think it was wrong and I hope that it gets "fixed" this year.
Vehemently,
MRP
-
The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.
This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.
Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.
Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion. Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest. Either way, I support it and him.
It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact. He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time". With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all. While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present? All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them. Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne. I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.
I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post. Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context. The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.
I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once. I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters. To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing. I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias? Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing. ...Crickets... And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.
To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block". With that, the course in question never had a chance.
Like Jim, I've said my piece.
Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course? We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well. While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.
Chris,
Give it a rest.
-
Chris, you asked if there is anything more that people want to discuss. YES, I have some more items that I need to get addressed.
Last year, we added the surf and turf to the dinner menu. Excellent addition. HOWEVER, the BBQ Pork Sandwich, with Montgomery Inn BBQ Sauce, was removed from the lunch menu. To put it mildly, I was disappointed in this move. I think it was wrong and I hope that it gets "fixed" this year.
Vehemently,
MRP
Mac,
There really isn't anything like Montgomery Inn! It was a bit messy (stains) for some people, but I'll take it up with Chef Eric.
CJ
-
The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.
This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.
Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.
Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion. Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest. Either way, I support it and him.
It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact. He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time". With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all. While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present? All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them. Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne. I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.
I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post. Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context. The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.
I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once. I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters. To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing. I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias? Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing. ...Crickets... And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.
To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block". With that, the course in question never had a chance.
Like Jim, I've said my piece.
Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course? We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well. While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.
Chris,
Give it a rest.
Pat,
Thanks for the comment! Please feel free to read other threads.
CJ
-
The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.
This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.
Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.
Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion. Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest. Either way, I support it and him.
It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact. He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time". With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all. While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present? All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them. Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne. I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.
I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post. Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context. The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.
I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once. I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters. To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing. I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias? Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing. ...Crickets... And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.
To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block". With that, the course in question never had a chance.
Like Jim, I've said my piece.
Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course? We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well. While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.
Chris,
Give it a rest.
Pat,
Thanks for the comment! Please feel free to read other threads.
CJ
Please feel free to bog down other golf course architecture forums with your P.R. agenda and stories of pork chops. Most people here don't care and actually want to discuss golf course architecture outside of Dismal River. Believe it or not.
-
Does anyone believe that if Chris was truly interested in P.R. he would be on here knowingly pissing off raters?
-
Does anyone believe that if Chris was truly interested in P.R. he would be on here knowingly pissing off raters?
Chris strikes me as a savvy business person. Whether or not one believes his purpose on this discussion forum is to promote his club, it would be silly to believe that he would actively engage in this discussion forum if he believed the net impact would be negative to his business.
So, I guess my answer to your question is yes.
-
.
-
The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.
This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.
Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.
Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion. Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest. Either way, I support it and him.
It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact. He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time". With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all. While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present? All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them. Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne. I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.
I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post. Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context. The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.
I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once. I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters. To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing. I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias? Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing. ...Crickets... And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.
To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block". With that, the course in question never had a chance.
Like Jim, I've said my piece.
Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course? We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well. While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.
Chris,
Give it a rest.
Pat,
Thanks for the comment! Please feel free to read other threads.
CJ
Please feel free to bog down other golf course architecture forums with your P.R. agenda and stories of pork chops. Most people here don't care and actually want to discuss golf course architecture outside of Dismal River. Believe it or not.
Pat - The solution is pretty basic, don't read or participate on this thread if it bugs you. If you have a topic you want discussed, start a thread.
You don't have to challenge my motives, that's more than insulting. If I was interested in P.R., there are firms than can do it better than me and a lot of places far more effective than here. Rather, I'm here to learn from people who like to talk about architecture and golf, and I happily respond to a wide range of questions about the club and my experience in the industry, even including about the pork chop if asked. I also make comments where I think I may have something to contribut and never barf on, or hijack, a thread others may be enjoying.
"most people don't care"? Really? Pat, you should see my inbox. It would appear some people care very much. Those that do can participate and those that don't can participate on another topic. Pretty simple, actually.
I can believe you may not want to discuss Dismal River, so please, please, feel free. Have a look for yourself, some threads here don't touch on architecture at all, and its all in good fun and topical by well meaning people.
I will tell you this, I don't think I'll be starting a thread anytime soon - It's a pain to have to check it and see otherwise good people turn to ugliness or question the motives of another.
Tim - I don't think anyone is hurting Dismal River here and I'm anything but savvy. If I were savvy, I probably wouldnt have been in the golf business for most of the last 25 years! ;) This is a group of like minded people, even if we don't agree some of the time. I will confess to enjoying other's views, for I find it insightful.
-
Chris Johnston,
One of the things that has intrigued me from this thread was you saying that the Red course was constructed without going in to debt. This sounds outstanding.
How did you achieve this? Should you publish some sort of paper/article/information booklet that other similar clubs could learn from?
-
I've never played either course at DR, but I'm going to be there this summer for the 5th Major (thank you to all who made this possible!) and I couldn't be more excited about it.
I've thoroughly enjoyed the various discussions regarding both courses, but also wanted to share those aspects that I'm most looking forward to (or at least nervously looking forward to):
I can't decide which course I'm looking forward to playing more (though my instinct is the Red), but sometimes thinking about playing the White course scares me. I'm a big hitter (and I wouldn't plan on playing the tips) that's consistently wild, but there are some pictures that show some seriously daunting drives (2 and 14 come to mind). 2 especially makes me already feel a slice working its way up from a flying right elbow - there's a bail-out option for laying up (off the tee) with a mid-iron, right? :)
I can't wait to play the 4th, though, like those who always play the tips because they want 'to get everything they paid for', I won't be able to resist trying to go for the green in 2 - taking on the windmill - regardless of whether or not that's the correct strategic play.
Looking forward to the 5th for the same reason I'm looking forward to playing BT #14 (whenever that happens) - Challenge Accepted.
The greens on the White course look very interesting and more than a little fun - the semi-blind, semi-punchbowl 1st and doughnut 10th look fantastic and I can't wait. The 18th green also looks fascinating, but I thought I saw somewhere around here that it was changing.
In short, the White, to me, looks like a fantastic and fun course that could absolutely kick my butt.
As I said above, I'm probably looking forward a bit more to the Red course (possibly/probably due to my very real fear of the some aspects of the White). I've never played a TD course. The 'highest ranked' course I've played would probably be Rustic Canyon. As such, I'm looking forward to - without any thought yet to the course itself - playing a Doak design for the first time.
'Anatomy' was the first GCA book I read, and the first thing that I remember from that book is that 'undulation is the soul of the game'. In that vein, I can't wait to play 15, 17, and 18, which, according to the pictures I've seen, seem to take that idea and absolutely sprint with it.
The other holes I'm most looking forward to on the Red are 4 and 14. I have a soft spot for short 4s and love the Alps conceit on 14.
I know that there are other great holes on both courses which have gone unmentioned - remember I'm going off pictures alone, not personal experience - but I will reiterate that I can't wait to play these courses. My only criticism is my fear of some of the shots (esp. tee shots) demanded by such courses - however, I also feel like that is merely a rite of passage for someone who's been reared on LA's parkland munis.
I, for one, have loved all the discussions, photo tours, and comments on these courses (as well as all other courses). I hope to continue seeing them continue in the future along with the spirited discussion that invariably rides shotgun.
-
Chris Johnston,
One of the things that has intrigued me from this thread was you saying that the Red course was constructed without going in to debt. This sounds outstanding.
How did you achieve this? Should you publish some sort of paper/article/information booklet that other similar clubs could learn from?
Hi David,
I think I covered it before in this thread, but the answer to the question is the members voted to fund the cost of the new course...pretty amazing given the time frame involved. It's probably a "close cousin" to clubs that may vote to renovate an existing course. And, remember, the land was already there.
Hope it helps.
CJ
p.s. I wouldn't mind publishing something with Tom and Don about the story for I think it has merit. We really did do things right without spending a fortune.
-
Not a book, please God, not a book.
-
Not a book, please God, not a book.
There is a first time for everything...
+1...
-
Forgetting all the nonsense, I always enjoy the Dismal river threads.
A very interesting case study of an emerging trend in course construction-the destination club.
I think it's fantastic that Chris opens up his course and club for discusssion.
It's great that the first course was designed by the greatest player in history and a noted architect.(Nicklaus)
It's gravy that that architect built the post course on a unique piece of Sand Hills land after a collaboration with an architect that was soon to build the second course on the property.(Doak)
Having the comments of Doak, as well as Don Mahaffey's make the threads about Dismal thread fascinating to me on multiple fronts. to include (at least) an interesting, ongoing documentary on architecture, construction, and yes, a business model.
Never been there-never met Chris.
But speaking as one who runs a club not without GCA controversy, I respect the hell out of him for opening up far more than I ever would publicly.
If you don't like Dismal River threads, don't read them.
If people choose to get nasty, don't engage them.
It's very simple
-
I haven't posted on this thread for all the reasons already expressed regarding not enjoying seeing the personal attacks, for no freaking reason!
I really can't say anything more to demonstrate how I feel about the entire matter than Jeff's above. Well said Jeff!
I am looking forward to my new Aussie friend Andy Gray and I making a run at the 5th Major. Thanks Chris for your input, frank and open discussion. I can't think of a better gent in the golf biz.
-
.
-
But Jeff (and RJ),
If all of us adopt that behavior, then where does that leave the discussion? Don't such threads degenerate into cheerleading?
But as CB Macdonald wrote so shall it always be: criticizing a man's course is like going into his family. Not accusing anyone in particular of this, it's more a blanket opinion thrown out for reflection. Why is this so, in the real world and on here?
-
Forgetting all the nonsense, I always enjoy the Dismal river threads.
A very interesting case study of an emerging trend in course construction-the destination club.
I think it's fantastic that Chris opens up his course and club for discusssion.
It's great that the first course was designed by the greatest player in history and a noted architect.(Nicklaus)
It's gravy that that architect built the post course on a unique piece of Sand Hills land after a collaboration with an architect that was soon to build the second course on the property.(Doak)
Having the comments of Doak, as well as Don Mahaffey's make the threads about Dismal thread fascinating to me on multiple fronts. to include (at least) an interesting, ongoing documentary on architecture, construction, and yes, a business model.
Never been there-never met Chris.
But speaking as one who runs a club not without GCA controversy, I respect the hell out of him for opening up far more than I ever would publicly.
If you don't like Dismal River threads, don't read them.
If people choose to get nasty, don't engage them.
It's very simple
Jeff:
Appreciate your post. I think what some have missed is that this thread actually has several interesting golf architecture issues to discuss if we could just filter out the background noise of personal attacks.
-
But Jeff (and RJ),
If all of us adopt that behavior, then where does that leave the discussion? Don't such threads degenerate into cheerleading?
What behavior are you referring to?
This part?
"If you don't like Dismal River threads don't read them"
"If people choose to get nasty, don't engage them"
I don't see where I'm promoting cheerleading.
My favorite writer on this site is Mark Rowlinson. I've never been led astray by any of his reviews, yet I can't think of a nasty word, and barely a negative word he's ever written about any course,yet somehow I haven't stumbled onto any dogtracks by following his recomendations.
I can tell an awful lot by what he doesn't say about a course than I can from many more nasty reviews.
I happen to think people go way overboard with frank and honest commentary, but that's just my minority opinion.
I've always felt you could get more with sugar than spice, and am a big fan of damning with faint praise.
-
Comparing any of us to Mark R is patently unfair to us! Give us a lower bar.
I just meant your first point (about not participating). And of course you're not promoting cheerleading, just wondering if that's where we all end up if only people who like a course (or who support the premise of a thread) participate.
Maybe one way to reconcile our views is just to ask questions. Lots and lots of questions. Perfect for me as I don't have any answers. Let me see if I can do more of that.
-
Mark B:
Hopefully discussion would not just turn into cheerleading.
Think for a second about Pebble Beach. Imagine a debate about whether PB is overrated. Would that discussion have to include personal attacks?
Another example might be nearby Spyglass Hill: did RTJ do a good job routing the golf course? Would that discussion have to include personal attacks?
Now, I realize Dismal isn't Pebble or Spyglass. Project members are alive and are participants in the discussion. But, if we all just imagined how we would debate PB and SH and apply that to the Dismal discussion, shouldn't that cut out personal stuff but also allow for frank commentary?
-
Tim, hmm. So why is it that criticizing a man's course is like going into his family?
-
Tim, hmm. So why is it that criticizing a man's course is like going into his family?
Mark,
I am certainly not saying frank discussion about someone's course is ever easy. But, if we want to increase our chances of success we definitely have to eliminate all the personal stuff.
-
I think I covered it before in this thread, but the answer to the question is the members voted to fund the cost of the new course...pretty amazing given the time frame involved.
Has the running of the club changed between private ownership and the members having equity?
-
I think I covered it before in this thread, but the answer to the question is the members voted to fund the cost of the new course...pretty amazing given the time frame involved.
Has the running of the club changed between private ownership and the members having equity?
Many members had equity before the Red was built. Nothing has changed.
-
Many members had equity before the Red was built. Nothing has changed.
John,
In his feature interview Chris mentioned the club had a 'handful' of owners. I don't know how many members the club has now but I am assuming that if they voted to invest in the second course there are now hundreds of owners. Surely something has changed?
I am interested as to ho other clubs could do something similar. I see far too many clubs getting into debt.
-
Many members had equity before the Red was built. Nothing has changed.
John,
In his feature interview Chris mentioned the club had a 'handful' of owners. I don't know how many members the club has now but I am assuming that if they voted to invest in the second course there are now hundreds of owners. Surely something has changed?
I am interested as to ho other clubs could do something similar.
I will try one more time. I was a member before Chris bought the club, I voted for and contributed towards the building of the Red, I am still a member today. Nothing has changed as far as my responsibilities as a member since before Chris bought the club. When the club has a bad year and loses money I do not get a bill. When the club shows a profit I do not get a check. I pay dues and play golf. Now I simply dream of a day without having to defend why.
-
John,
From what you are saying, am I right to say the members donated money to the ownership group so as to increase the assets of the ownership group and allow them to charge members for use of said assets?
Is this sort if arrangement common in America? It strikes me as a technique that would be hard to transfer to other clubs? Not something that many memberships would vote for? What percentage of members needed to vote in favour?
-
John,
From what you are saying, am I right to say the members donated money to the ownership group so as to increase the assets of the ownership group and allow them to charge members for use of said assets?
Is this sort if arrangement common in America? It strikes me as a technique that would be hard to transfer to other clubs? Not something that many memberships would vote for? What percentage of members needed to vote in favour?
Wow. That is insulting. Maybe not personally insulting but insulting none the less.
-
John,
From what you are saying, am I right to say the members donated money to the ownership group so as to increase the assets of the ownership group and allow them to charge members for use of said assets?
Is this sort if arrangement common in America? It strikes me as a technique that would be hard to transfer to other clubs? Not something that many memberships would vote for? What percentage of members needed to vote in favour?
David,
While I think you would agree the the financial operations of the club are and should remain private, the members voted to fund the course, and they don't pay for the use of the asset created. Also, stated simply, the members who participated received consideration in return for their investment that newer non-participating members don't receive. I don't care to elaborate further as that falls into things proprietary within the family, and between club and its members.
I recall a majority of voting members was required and, as stated earlier, the vote itself was well in excess of that mark.
Hope it helps.
CJ
-
Thanks Chris, as impressive as the course is supposed to be, the economic aspect of the project seems like it's most extraordinary feature.
Understood that Frank and honest discussion can have it's llimits.
-
Thanks Chris, as impressive as the course is supposed to be, the economic aspect of the project seems like it's most extraordinary feature.
Understood that Frank and honest discussion can have it's llimits.
Adding insults 30 mins after the initial post is a new low.
-
Adding insults 30 mins after the initial post is a new low.
Apologies for any misunderstanding John, no insult intended.
-
David Elvins:
One of the nicest golf architecture related books published in recent years was Geoff Shackelford's Cypress Point book.
My understanding is that Cypress Point Club supported Geoff's effort with the understanding that the book focus on the golf course and leave the club out of it.
I wonder if there is a lesson there for discussion of golf courses like Dismal River at Golf Club Atlas. Seems like if we want people involved in projects - owners, architects, superintendents, member, etc. - to participate and offer insight into the golf course architecture, it might be best to take the approach Geoff Shackelford took with his Cypress Point book.
-
Tim,
I love Geoff's book and see where you are coming from but do not agree my original question was out of line. Chris had raised the financial side of the project on many occasions, and unlike CPC, Dismal River does not seek privacy! I have learnt a lot on this site by asking honest and direct questions and we were all invited to join in a frank and open discussion in this thread. Chris was welcome to be as expansive in his answer as he liked
On re-reading, I may have got sucked in by JK. but I suppose everyone does at least once. I do not want to get bogged down in the seedier side of this thread and have already apologised to JK for any potential misunderstanding so will leave it at that and move on.
-
It seems even "the DEFINITIVE frank & open discussion" has its limits. ;D
Congrats, Dave, you got Chris to veer away from waxing lyrical about DR!
Now, about that pork chop...
-
It seems even "the DEFINITIVE frank & open discussion" has its limits. ;D
Congrats, Dave, you got Chris to veer away from waxing lyrical about DR!
Now, about that pork chop...
Scott,
Never miss a chance at a swipe or a dig, huh?. That's your trade in craft, right? If you consider that post in any way a contribution, I'm afraid I disagree. Please leave it there so people can see it...it really does tell alot about you.
As mentioned last night, both members and investors certainly are entitled to some degree of privacy about their affairs, and there is a pretty big difference between talking about a course and a club, and sharing with people who act like 5 year olds (please see your post above) information that really is none of your affair. If there wasn't an expectation of privacy by good people, fact is, I wouldn't mind at all opening the windows for a full review. Dismal River is a positive story in an industry filled with heartache and disaster and, you are correct, the pork chop is a part. Thanks for mentioning it.
Since your agenda is for full disclosure (or more likely, confrontation), why don't you take a moment to share all information about your club. Bonnie Doon, isn't it? And, if you aren't a member of a club, try this exercise....feel free to ask Mike Keiser, Dick Youngscap, or the owner of Rustic Canyon about their own private affairs. Maybe then you can post something smug about the response you receive. Go ahead, give it a try.
David asked some questions about the funding of our new course, and I answered same while recognizing that a large group of members (as at any club) would insist some details (that involve them) be kept in the private realm. Some members are happy to talk about their experience, and others would probably prefer it not be discussed it at all. That's the industry we work in. That you make jokes about that shows a lot. I wonder, was the effort nothing more than trying to find a way to slip me up? Make me or Dismal River look bad? Nicely played!
I've shown I'm more than happy to answer questions in this thread, and certainly have tried. Rather than contribute, you tear down. Rather than share, you assign motive. Rather than celebrate, you look for weakness that isn't even there.
CJ
-
Tim,
I love Geoff's book and see where you are coming from but do not agree my original question was out of line. Chris had raised the financial side of the project on many occasions, and unlike CPC, Dismal River does not seek privacy! I have learnt a lot on this site by asking honest and direct questions and we were all invited to join in a frank and open discussion in this thread. Chris was welcome to be as expansive in his answer as he liked
On re-reading, I may have got sucked in by JK. but I suppose everyone does at least once. I do not want to get bogged down in the seedier side of this thread and have already apologised to JK for any potential misunderstanding so will leave it at that and move on.
David,
Fair enough. Mike Sweeney raised the whole issue of discussing financial matters on another thread. I'm inclined to think that is best.
As for Dismal and financial issues, I know Tom Doak well enough to know he wouldn't advocate frivolously spending money. I was also happy to hear Don Mahaffey's comments about maintenance costs. These are architectural related financial issues and those seem quite appropriate for discussion.
I don't know about discussion of business model issues. Hopefully Mike Sweeney's thread will be a good discussion.
-
In an effort to return this conversation to golf course architecture, I reviewed the prior posts and there seem to be three routing concerns/questions/criticisms (however you want to phrase it) about the Red Course. Here are my thoughts on each, having played the course about half a dozen times.
• Ski Slope Architecture – In post # 91, Tim Weiman poses the following question:
“Tim Weiman - Regarding the ski slope idea, I don't like it generally speaking. It certainly doesn't sound like a good way to encourage walking, so that is a big strike against it in my book.
Is Dismal really a ski slope course?”
Tim, my answer is unequivocally NO. I am defining “ski slope architecture” to mean a course that starts at an elevated point and plays significantly and predominately downhill. I too agree that this wouldn’t be an ideal design philosophy, and I would not want to see it utilized in any great degree. To me it would seem like little more than a gimmick. Any site that would require such an approach due to its drastic nature probable isn’t a site that should be utilized for golf in the first instance.
That said, I can’t see anyone who has played Dismal Red thinking that ski slope architecture is in use there. Yes the course does finish at a lower elevation that it begins, but it is not a significant a difference given the landscape and I certainly don’t feel like I am playing a predominately downhill course. Utilizing a topo map with an areal overlay, it appears the 1st and 9th tees are approximately 3450 ft in elevation and the 18th green is approximately 3340-50 ft. I actually believe the 16th green to be the lowest point on the property (it is down river from the 18th) at 3330-40 ft. That is 110 feet in elevation difference. My best estimate of the 5th tee (what I think is the highest point on the property) to be about 3520 ft for a total elevation change of 190ish ft.
(Tom Doak notes in post #101 that there is a 200-250 ft change in elevation, so maybe my line counting is off. You are welcome to give it a shot yourself. The map I created can supposedly be accessed at http://www.mytopo.com/review.cfm?mytopoid=109045437CB by clicking on the Preview hyperlink under Print Proof. It has 20ft topographical lines, so it does leave something to be desired. What it does reveal is how challenging it is to route a course on a topo.)
More important than the raw numbers, at least to me, is the feel. After you cross the road following the tee shot on the 9th, many of those holes have an uphill component and a downhill component, leaving you asking yourself if the hole was net uphill or downhill. For example, the 10th is overall downhill, but there is a big swale in the middle of the fairway that you walk uphill to get to the green. The 11th is an uphill par three. The 12th is significantly uphill on the tee shot. 13 plays downhill to the green, and 14 and 15 seem fairly level to me. The 16th is a slight downhill par three, followed by a hugely uphill tee shot on the 17th. The 18th plays slightly downhill. Overall, the feel of the golf course is certainly not one of playing significantly downhill and, at least in my mind, does not come close to the “ski slope architecture” concept discussed.
Nest, I see two related concepts in much of the routing debate: First is the notion of starting and ending near the clubhouse. Second is the notion of starting and finishing in the same place. I will address each separately.
• “Proximity to Clubhouse” – It is obviously the norm that most courses start and finish at the clubhouse, for obvious reasons. Exceptions do exist, Lost Dunes for example.
At Dismal, I don’t think proximity to the clubhouse is an issue at all. First, the distance from the clubhouse to the first tees on the White and Red are longer than any other course I am aware of. That much is obvious. But the sandhills is as biggest and grandest environment in terms of scale that I have ever seen. That makes a huge difference. In Manhattan, five miles is journey. In Houston, it’s just down the road. In Mullen, five miles is literally next-door.
The same applies to the first tee. There aren’t many places that it would work, but Nebraska is one of the few places that it does. And here is the thing about that cart ride to the first tee. I love it. When you are at Dismal, you are essentially living in the clubhouse complex. You eat there. You sleep there. Your car’s there. You get drunk and gamble there. It is your home for the duration of your stay. I generally take large groups of guests when I go. I am organizing the day’s matches, making sure people know what the plan is, etc. When I hop in that cart, it is golf time. I love driving past the “Play Like a Champion Today” sign on the way to the White. I love driving down the valley with the Red Course in view. It builds anticipation and is a crescendo of excitement. You know you are about to go do something special. I love it and am glad those few minutes are there. In the same way, I get that feeling when I escape the office and jump in my car to head to the course. I have escaped. My mind begins preparing for the round. Eagerness and excitement build. I have gotten three speeding tickets on the way to the golf course. I have never gotten one on my way home.
I took an informal poll of my 9 guests from last year and asked them how they felt about the Red Course being far from the clubhouse. I basically got some version of the following response: “WTF are you talking about. The Red Course is the one that finishes below the clubhouse, right?”
• “Open Jaw” – Many have questions regarding the decision to end the 18th where it is, and I believe that is fair game for conversation. It isn’t something you see very often.
Tom Doak provided the best explanation of the rationale in Post #16, which was affirmed by Chris Johnson throughout. I don’t have anything to add to the “why” because I am neither the course designer nor the owner.
However, I can share some insight on the feel of the routing. Perhaps this is my own naivety or bias, but the thought that it doesn’t end at the first tee and somehow that is bad would have never entered my mind. When I first read that criticism before I had been out there, I had to go back and look at the routing map. I didn’t notice it. Again, I sent an email poll to the 9 guests I took out there last year and not a single one identified the 18th as being in an unusual location or oddity relative to anything. I got several WTF are you talking about responses as well. If anything, I think it is absolutely in the correct spot for the 18th green below the clubhouse high upon the hill. If anything, it would be the first tee that I would chose to relocate.
I think the same sense of scale is at play here too. Anywhere else, a 700 yard distance to the 1st tee would not work as well. In Mullen, it feels like a short par 4 as someone characterized it, even though it is not. Plus, it feels connected with the 9th hole in the vicinity, so it doesn’t feel as though it is off on its own.
I think routing, like designing an airplane or boat, is largely an exercise in compromise. There is no perfect routing. In reality, the best routing is one that solves a complex set of problems presented by nature, practicality, convention, and at times environmental or other regulations. Here, I think dispensing with convention highlights the genius of the finding the correct answer to the routing question, rather than somehow implying that it was cheating to do so.
Hope this at least returns the discussion on some level to the architecture if nothing else.
Cliff
-
Cliff-
Terrific post; thanks for the information. I've played a number of "Open Jaw" courses where either or both of the 1st tee or the 18th green isn't near the clubhouse, and I've rarely had a negative reaction. In fact, I've played at least four courses recently where this feature didn't take anything away from the experience: Ocean Forest (cart back to clubhouse from 18th green); Sea Island Seaside (neither 1st tee nor 18th green is next to clubhouse); Punta Espada (cart ride to first tee, which sits up on a ridge); and Congressional (18th green is separated from clubhouse by pond so you take a cart back).
-
As I remember the finish at Harbour Town is not too close the clubhouse and/or first tee, perhaps someone more familiar can chime in with just how far.
-
• “Proximity to Clubhouse” – It is obviously the norm that most courses start and finish at the clubhouse, for obvious reasons. Exceptions do exist, Lost Dunes for example.
At Dismal, I don’t think proximity to the clubhouse is an issue at all. First, the distance from the clubhouse to the first tees on the White and Red are longer than any other course I am aware of. That much is obvious. But the sandhills is as biggest and grandest environment in terms of scale that I have ever seen. That makes a huge difference. In Manhattan, five miles is journey. In Houston, it’s just down the road. In Mullen, five miles is literally next-door.
The same applies to the first tee. There aren’t many places that it would work, but Nebraska is one of the few places that it does.
I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to the finer points of building a golf course OR building a clubhouse (or the coarser points for that matter), and I have no doubt that you're sincere in your belief, but this strikes me as a heck of a lot of rationalization. IF having a course start and finish near the clubhouse is a fairly standard design principle (which is an argument I don't really want to wade into), making the case that it's a principle you can suspend in rural environments doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Would you extend this to, for example, green to tee transitions? Would it be OK to build a course where you had to drive a half mile between every hole simply because you were in a very rural area and people are used to driving far?
I've played courses that didn't end where they started, and/or didn't start or end near the clubhouse (take Moreno Valley Ranch in SoCal as an example), and they were fine, so personally it's not something I'm going to get all bent out of shape about, but I think it's OK to say "Look, this isn't ideal, but we had to work around certain constraints and this is the best we could come up with." There's no shame in that. Tom basically says that same thing in #16. But if I tried to explain that away by saying "It's really OK though, because this is Southern California and people are used to driving everywhere anyway" that would be a really bad bit of rationalization. People who have played Dismal (I've not been there myself) seem to think the trade off was worth it. Why not leave it at that? There's no shame in believing that Dismal Red is the best course that could have been built subject to certain constraints that couldn't be avoided.
Anyway, don't take this as a personal attack, because that's not what's intended. I think some of the vitriol on this and prior threads, aside from some obvious clashes of personalities, has been driven by the positions staked out by either side. One side should be able to admit that, though not ideal, it's perfectly acceptable in some instances to have an open-jaw routing, or a start and finish that are far removed from the clubhouse. On the other side, people should be able to realize that, though they may have a great golf course, there are some things about it that make it less than ideal, and will always detract from it a little bit when it comes to the reviews and rankings, whatever those are worth. I don't really think this is an issue that has to have a winner and a loser.
*Moreno Valley Ranch is a perfectly fine 27 holes, but it's a stretch to say that any of the nines start and finish in the same place, or near the clubhouse, except for maybe the first hole of the mountain nine. But everyone there rides, so who cares?
-
.
-
Cliff Walston,
In case it wasn't clear, I have never seen Dismal and couldn't provide any description, "ski slope" related or otherwise.
My comments were merely about the concept itself - honestly I couldn't even give you the name of any course that I have played that fits this description.
-
Tim & Bill, no offense taken. Tim you posed a good question that I was trying to respond to. Not call you out or infer anything negative. I was trying to restore positive architectural discussion. Bill you raise a good point.
But I think you can argue anything taken to an extreme. No I wouldn't try and justify half mile treks to the next tee that way. In fact I would argue the close tee to green walks on the Red excuse the longer restart walk if you will. Half mile green to tee walks are an extreme scenario. Dismal Red isn't extreme in that sense. That is what I was trying to convey.
For a contrary example, this week's tour stop in Houston has an 18th that finishes hundreds of yards away from the clubhouse although it's close to the first tee. No one is running from the 18th to the 1st tee there. You want to get to the clubhouse for a beer. It's a far more egregious example of a routing ending in a spot far from the clubhouse that doesn't work. And for the record I was a member there for almost 10 years so I am casting stones at my own house.
Edit: I got back to my desk and the 18th in Houston is 500 yards from the clubhouse.
-
Chris,
I'll take the point of that post if you can point me to the thread(s) of this type started on this site by Dick Youngscap or Mike Keiser.
As for Bonnie Doon, ask away. There are several threads I have started that you can use to do so, for I am also a shameless self-promoter!
-
Tim & Bill, no offense taken. Tim you posed a good question that I was trying to respond to. Not call you out or infer anything negative. I was trying to restore positive architectural discussion. Bill you raise a good point.
But I think you can argue anything taken to an extreme. No I wouldn't try and justify half mile treks to the next tee that way. In fact I would argue the close tee to green walks on the Red excuse the longer restart walk if you will. Half mile green to tee walks are an extreme scenario. Dismal Red isn't extreme in that sense. That is what I was trying to convey.
For a contrary example, this week's tour stop in Houston has an 18th that finishes hundreds of yards away from the clubhouse although it's close to the first tee. No one is running from the 18th to the 1st tee there. You want to get to the clubhouse for a beer. It's a far more egregious example of a routing ending in a spot far from the clubhouse that doesn't work. And for the record I was a member there for almost 10 years so I am casting stones at my own house.
Edit: I got back to my desk and the 18th in Houston is 500 yards from the clubhouse.
Cliff,
Actually, I think the ski slope idea came up in a discussion between Jim Urbina and Tom Doak, not in any way related to Dismal River. Also, I think Neil Crafter mentioned the potential for a project in Malaysia with two 9 hole segments both playing downhill toward the ocean and a shuttle service to take golfers from 9 to 10. That would be crazy but perhaps for a one off at the site in question not necessarily the wrong thing to do.
Generally speaking I am in favor of the traditional rules. But, each site has to be assessed individually and the best design won't always 100 percent follow all the rules.
-
From what you are saying, am I right to say the members donated money to the ownership group so as to increase the assets of the ownership group and allow them to charge members for use of said assets?
Is this sort if arrangement common in America? It strikes me as a technique that would be hard to transfer to other clubs? Not something that many memberships would vote for? What percentage of members needed to vote in favour?
So David, just to give you a 'clear and honest answer' to each part of your first question:
the members donated money to the ownership group = No
so as to increase the assets of the ownership group = No
and allow them to charge members for use of said assets = No
so, are you right to say = no
Hope that clears that up!
Now, is what happened at Dismal 'common in America'? Yes. It happens at many clubs in America (perhaps more at older clubs in the East where the word 'equity' isn't used) and at those clubs it's usually called an 'assessment'. At some clubs that requires a majority vote, at others a 2/3rds vote. Essentially, the core economic concept at play in most clubs is 'use value' rather than 'financial return': club members vote for an assessment because they believe that they will get use value out of whatever improvements are made, NOT because they will get a financial return (that is return of capital plus some yield). It's important to understand that the vast majority of clubs in America today do not make money (that is their annual expenses are equal to the sum of the dues of their members); so there is no 'profit' available for a financial investor and as such 'improvements' made have little or no financial value. Another way to say that is that most clubs are worth LESS than the land they sit on (that is they are worth the land value for some other purpose --housing, shopping center, etc. -- MINUS the cost of demolishing the course, clubhouse, pool, etc.)
And at a really simple level most of the clubs we admire on this site came about because a group of people got together and chipped into a kitty that no one of them could or wanted to fund all by themselves (PV being the exception of course) i order to get something they would get mutual use value from. And then each year they chip in whatever it takes to keep that thing usable.
-
I stopped reading this thread a while back because I couldn't take it anymore. I can't believe I am about to do this, but here is my two cents.
Golf. Get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible. It is my belief that the essence of golf is what occurs from tee to hole. The best part should be what happens during this time no matter how many times it is repeated (9, 13, 16, 18, 20, whatever). If Tom found the best 18 holes, regardless of the gap back to clubhouse, 1st tee, etc., then I believe he succeeded.
I have never been there so I shouldn't comment on if it TRULY is the best routing, but from what I have heard and seen from pictures, he did a spectacular job.
Just my two cents. Cheers.
Matthew Essig
P.S. Thank you all for the vast amount of info for my studies. This site is so grand there is no word I can think of to encompass just how grand it is. Just because there are major hiccups in the site, I hope the site stays intact. The site is invaluable.
Even though they may never see this, I write this PostScript as a thank you to those who have left the site and those who have taken a hiatus because of the events that have occurred over the past few days. Thanks and good luck to you in the future. Cheers!
-
Mr. Johnston -
Although I have always found frank commentary behind every click on this site, I thank you for carving out this thread.
I recently read in Golfweek that, regarding the Red Course, "You can forget notions of prevailing winds here, which is one reason there's no slope/rating for the scorecard nor fixed handicap index per hole." This seems odd to me. Please know that as an expert golfer I do not truly care about course rating and slope. However, as a state-level director I am invested in institutional conformity, and we should all care about what is published.
In the ensuing discussion, it was suggested that the course is not rated because the rating would be too low, because the community is intimate enough to roll their own course handicaps, and also, "LOL".
Personally, I noticed that the White Course has ten published course ratings and that many other courses with strong and diverse winds are also rated. My suspicion is that the Red Course is either too unopened or too fashionable for a slope and course rating. I would be interested in hearing from you on this matter.
-
Michael,
Please let it go. One of the joys of the long travel to Dismal is knowing that you will not need to keep or post a score. That and the lack of cell phone coverage makes it one of the few places in the world I can truly relax.
I say this as a 2.0 index whose handicap is already quite low enough. When Dismal is caught on a windless perfect day I would agonize over a great round rather than enjoy it. The remainder of my year should not be held hostage by the qualms of Mother Nature. There is no less than a 20 stroke swing dependent on the weather and as you know you are only punished by off the chart low scores. Your system is not sophisticated enough for this type of variance.
-
Mr. Kavanaugh,
I could not agree more. Having had the great pleasure to play Dismal and Sand Hills this summer and Ballyneal I can say all these courses have shown me considerable teeth in some very heavy breezes and some very accessible pins in light winds. All have been like night and day in how much the wind can affect the play. At all three match play is king and under such circumstances a rating is irrelevant.
Enjoy what they offer in terms of atmosphere, golf and competition and you will not feel guilty about rounds not posted.
-
Just finished 2 days of playing at DR with my dad and two friends. Some observations as I know there are numerous threads about DR in the archives.
1. Remote, remote, remote!
2. Don’t take Soddy Road as a first timer at night using your GPS! Causes anxiety for sure.)
3. Loved the cabins and they are building 5 more king rooms
4. Very impressed with the staff, especially with this chap named Kelly from South Africa gave us a great tour of the property.
5. Golf seemed to be almost secondary to all the hunting and fishing they have going there. There is skeet, trap, Euro Pigeon, Pheasant live, competitive shooting ring, 3 fishing ponds, hunting dogs over 100k acres to have hunts from Buffalo (didn’t even know you could hunt Buffalo still) to Dove. Paradise for anyone hunting and fishing.
6. Buddy did the 50 caliber shot at the Buffalo target a mile away with Kelly setting up the scope. Holy shishkabobs was that loud!
7. I thought the food was above average for sure. You expect overpriced in the remote location. However the complimentary breakfast is nice as you can’t go anywhere else.
8. Golf carts are fast without governors on them which helps make the rounds go by faster.
9. Really like the Doak over the Nicklaus as the Doak was in better shape as well.
10. They hired a new greenskeeper who is a lady and apparently works tirelessly.
11. They are building a spa, hunting simulator, expansion of rooms now. They built a pool an hot tub this year as well.
Overall I really enjoyed the property and was considering membership. 10k initiation and 3600 a year dues with 2k of that coming back to you via a credit which was very reasonable. One of my friends who came is a hunting and fishing guy and is going to get his company to join to entertain clients. Impressed and they are on the right track for sure. Staff again was great, which you absolutely need in this location and model.
Last point.... WTF is up with #10 on the White Course, Nicklaus par 3 green?????? Pin was in the back when we played wow out of a nightmare for sure.
-
Thanks Jeff, I think I'll wait for the spa to open.
Niall
-
Jeff how busy was the facility? Having spent two nights there after playing at SH it’s still difficult to believe DR can be a fanancial success in the golfing front, maybe there is enough in hunting to keep the new owners balance sheet in the black. Anyone know if the member investors had any return when the place was sold?
-
Jeff how busy was the facility? Having spent two nights there after playing at SH it’s still difficult to believe DR can be a fanancial success in the golfing front, maybe there is enough in hunting to keep the new owners balance sheet in the black. Anyone know if the member investors had any return when the place was sold?
Mark,. The cabins were full for our stay but the course certainly wasn't. There was some club meeting one night of about 30 guys. The hunting and fishing is pretty nice. My buddy who is a huge outdoorsman says they have everything you could ever want hunting wise.
Course doesn't have tee times just first come first served.
Nicklaus wasn't in good shape but doak certainly was.
-
I’m sorry Eric Smith’s 5th Major will not be at Dismal going forward. It was a great event... and a great opportunity for fellowship with nearly 100 GCA types. I’ll miss it.
Sadly, I’ll probably never visit Nebraska again without the 5th Major as motivation.
-
Sadly, I’ll probably never visit Nebraska again without the 5th Major as motivation.
I beg to differ..