[John_Conley]

I can't believe my ears.  Word on the streets is that some guys played Dismal and said they'd never go back.  (They must not have joined!)

Nicklaus's designs have gotten better and better and the site is just 6 miles as the crow flies from the hallowed ground of Sand Hills.

Can anyone refute or confirm this report?  Maybe these guys are just golf snobs and expected more.

[Craig Sweet]

Maybe they lost too many balls? Maybe they do not like dry, firm and fast conditions? Maybe deep green is their favorite color?Maybe they wear lousy hair pieces and they had issues with the wind?

[Tim Pitner]

I don't have any insight on the course, but I did notice on Dismal River's website that it is described as the club's first course so presumably more are planned.  I don't think I'm mistaken that Nicklaus has never done a course like Dismal River.  Because of that and because of the inevitable comparions to Sand Hills (and perhaps Ballyneal and Prairie Club in the future), it may be difficult for the course to attain a real lofty status.  

[RJ_Daley]

I'm sorry, but this is mere rumormongering, and without basis.  We have seen a very few photos of the work in progress out there.  I have seen things in those photos that give me pause, personally.  But, that is speculation of the worst kind to form critical opinions of the quality of the golf course from photos.  I tried to avoid that when I wandered into raising a point on the expansive waste areas I saw in the photos on certain holes and brought up sand migration and erossion and winter dessication thoughts.  I also saw a number of apparent construction vehicle tracks in the prairie and wondered about the visual long term effects of those, given that tracks like that are evident for a long time on the fragile native cover.  But, I hoped that it didn't come off as pre judging the quality or merits of the golf course.  

But, I'd feel much more comfortable if a person that knows a little on the subject of GCA and construction / design techniques would actually give a full report with photos at an appropriate time after the course is open and operating for a season or two.  

I don't care if it is a struggling up and comer archie, or a big house-big operation GCA firm like Jack's who employ behind-the-scene archies and construction professionals.  They all deserve better than "word on the street" comments.  

Let's be honest and fair about critiques based on accounts of people that have enough ethics to come on here, post their name, and then tell us specifically what is on their minds.  



PS: John, I realise that you asked a fair question of whether anyone can refute or deny those statements.  I'm making a broader point about rumormongering in general.  Let those so called "street critics" come on here and say what they want.  I don't think passing annoymous info is helpful to any of us.

[cary lichtenstein]

This is just not fair to Dismal River and I hope Ran deletes this thread .

Bette and I will be there at the end of this month and I'll post after playing it.

If someone else has played it, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.

[Jason Hines]

I obviously agree with you guys in principle, but don't delete the thread.  I would like to hear from people who have played it.

J.

[Bill Gayne]

RJ and Cary are dead-on. John, go play the course and find out for yourself. Just because four people don't like the course doesn't mean a thing without any specifics. Either post specifics or drop the thread.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Enough of the spin cycle with the "unamed sources" who panned the course.

John -- how do we know how many other Nicklaus courses these "sources" have played? Are they panning the course because of the design or because they got into a snit about what it would cost to join or maybe there beverage of choice wasn't on tap?

Do these spinners have the capacity to discuss the DETAILS of the course and to also offer some perspective on what it lacks versus courses of say a higher grade?

I am really tired of the "I just heard it from so & so" approach. The same thing is happening now with Errin Hills with all the gushing / lovefest before it's been played by a number of people who I do respect.

How bout people wait until there's been some meaningful personal experiences? Truly, this neither serves the team of people who created Dismal River nor those who might continue with all this uninformed commentary.

Nuff said ...

[Jason Hines]

So no one has played DR yet?

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I agree completely, it's stupid to comment on either course without having been there.  I saw both sites before anything was built, and I'm curious what results from them, but to assume that it will turn out great (or not great) because of the site or because of the designer is a waste of time.  Let's just see what happens.

Is Dismal River even open for play yet?  What about Erin Hills, for that matter?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D, et al:

The "official" grand opening for Dismal River is set for August 7. I don't doubt the course may have rounds played on it prior to the time that Jack is personally there.

In regards to Errin Hills I believe I read something that the course will be open towards the end of this month or sometime in August.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I know you know this, but "official" grand openings are often done well after a course opens for play.  The grand openings for Sebonack and Ballyneal are on Aug. 23 and Sept. 9, but we've already heard from several people to play each of them, and they are ready for their close-up.

[Joe Hancock]

Nuff said ...

That fact actually occured after RJ posted.

Joe

[Scott Szabo]

Also keep in mind that the turf is very young, and I doubt that playing conditions are as desired.  Until the turf reaches maturity and plays it should, the golf course may be viewed inferior.

I played Ballyneal in mid-May and I think it is unfair to judge the playability of the course until the turf plays as Tom Doak envisioned it when he designed the course.  The course was very slow and soft, which is completely opposite of how it was intended.

While I have never been to Dismal River, the pictures on the website give the impression that a great deal of dirt was removed to create the massive expanses that are the bunkers.  Sand Hills had minimal dirtwork, with the same at Ballyneal.  The bunkers just don't appear to fit in with the rest of the scenery, as they do at Sand Hills IMO.

It will be interesting to see what people think once the course opens for play and is playing at the desired conditions.

[Ron Farris]

I have not been to Dismal since last fall when it was completely shaped and grassing of the last few holes was taking place.  It is really unfair for people to make judgement about the course without seeing it, let alone playing it.  It looks hard from the back tees and some of the green are severly contoured. A couple of friends of mine toured the place about 3 weeks ago.  While the course was interesting to them the whole complex was a little over-the-top for their taste as they were expecting to see another Sand Hills type operation.  Apparently the bowling alley was too much for them.  

I don't have a photographic memory or a very good memory period, but I came away thinking that the Par 3 holes were very interesting.  Personally I would have been disappointed if the course was more similar to the SH GC or Ballyneal.  Diversity is the spice of life and if you don't like Dismal due to your viewing a construction picture or from rumormongering, well that is too bad.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

The fact that Sand Hills is without a bowling alley could be the decision-maker when it comes to deciding between joining Dismal or Sand Hills!

[ForkaB]

The fact that Sand Hills is without a bowling alley could be the decision-maker when it comes to deciding between joining Dismal or Sand Hills!

Jeff

I hope you aren't being sarcastic.....

A lot of the great old clubs had bowling alleys.  I bowled at Wee Burn before I ever got on their golf course.....

Rich

[Matt_Ward]

Why people feel compelled -- to say something -- anything --about a new course that is being anticipated for a host of reasons is beyond me.

This is the same process journalists are under with this compulsion -- obcession -- in being the first to report. The greater issue is getting direct personal experiences from having played the course -- all the other items people mention are simply making conversation -- ignorant conversation at best mind you.

I plan on being a Dismal River sometime this summer and will report then -- not before.

[JR Potts]

Tom:  Erin Hills opens in August.  And FYI to the rest of you....EH starts taking tee times tomorrow.

[John Kavanaugh]

I can't believe my ears.  Word on the streets is that some guys played Dismal and said they'd never go back.  (They must not have joined!)

Is the question of joining ever an issue...

[Joe Hancock]

I can't believe my ears.  Word on the streets is that some guys played Dismal and said they'd never go back.  (They must not have joined!)

Is the question of joining ever an issue...

And what constitutes freeloading anyway?

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

You know, I generally concur with the comments about reviewing a course, but still have to stand up for John anyway on this one.  

I fail to see how this question is any different than most of the posts on here.  I believe there have been similar questions and comments on many, many other unopened courses.  What if it had been designed by Fazio or other whipping boy here?  Would that pass unnoticed?

Granted, its a poor choice of words, perhaps, second hand info, yes, but its a report from some of his acquaintences interested enough in golf courses that they made an early trip to see an anticipated course, and that a course didn't meet their expectations (with some other nice comments about the gca)  and other comments about their motivations.  

I'm not trying to offend here, but I am not sure why Matt doesn't understand the desire to see new courses and report?  Its what keeps this board going, isn't it?  AI also would want to know what constitutes an opinion he respects.  One that agrees with him?

RJ is is against the review, yet then posts some couched negative comments on the few pictures we have seen here. What is worse?  Reporting a real experience, albeit second hand, or forming opinions based on a half dozen pictures?

[John_Conley]

Thanks Jeff.  I must admit to being puzzled by a "this thread should be deleted" thought when that was brought up.  Why?  If Lakota Canyon can be one of the Top 10 courses in the world and Tommyknockers can blast Pelican Hill, how is a post on this course any different?

As for the "you need to play a course before you have an opinion" crowd - I agree.  These guys played the course.  The very first reply alludes to the difficulty of Dismal.  I think he's right on.  From the report I was given the course is surprisingly difficult.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

How did these guys gain access to the course...Did they play Sand Hills and Ballyneal on the same trip..

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

Let me clarify some elements you seem to have internal confusion with.

Lakota Canyon Ranch was mentioned as a top ten layout by Cary L from a DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in playing there. Ditto, if memory serves, regarding Tommy's comments on Pelican Hill. In both instances -- there was a good bit more meat to the bone on details than what you brought to the forefront. They also attributed their comments to themselves and demonstrated a capacity to handle any feedback / comments others might have had with their reviews.

You have simply lobbed into the mixture sources who have opined on Dismal River with little detail. We do not know the names of these people (if in fact there are any names) -- their overall background in assessing courses -- their overall understand of how Nicklaus design has evolved over time and a host of other important considerations. For all intents and purposes -- the feeling of these "sources" could have been formed because the practice area at Dismal River did not have Pro VI+ balls on the range or their favorite tap beverage was not on hand at the Nebraska site.

We are then led to believe that what these "sources" have to say is meaningful. Really ?

John -- given my respect for you I would think you of all people would know better. Sorry for my mistake.

Jeff B:

I don't believe any course can be accurately assessed through some analysis of photos and the like. This is a cheap man's mechanism because it doesn't have any DIRECT PERSONAL connection. You don't feel the land -- from simply taking pictures -- you get it from actually being there.

The problem is that people have now morphed from the direct playing experience to the photo analysis and now to the "sources" who told you this and that. Clearly, the desire to be "first" is driving this and the tool of GCA allows for people to comment at-will. I find anything less than a direct playing experience to be suspect -- I have less an issue with people who actually walk a given site but in the final analysis, one must actually play the course. It would be no different in providing a review of a restaurant -- you don't know the qualities (lack thereof) of the food until you eat it.

Jeff -- I respect people who do the heavy lifting -- the actually going to a given golf course and then writing from that direct experience. I may disagree with the assessment but I always respect the fact that someone took the time -- the expense and everything else connected with it -- in order to provide their comments.

I would think that as a golf course architect you would want to have your work reviewed by people who do no less because of the considerable time and energy -- let's not forget the people who fronted the $$ for the project -- you have committed to such an effort.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()