How many cubic yards of earth were REALLY moved at Dismal River?

[Jay Flemma]

They tried to run some funky jazz past me that they only moved 15,000 cubic yards of earth to build it, but the sheer scale of the uphill approaches and the valleys indicates to me that they scooped out the lower areas to make it lower and built up the higher areas to make them higher.  plus all the shaping, plus the bunker on 10...

C'mon.  Really.  How many cubic yards of earth does it looked like they moved to you?

While we're at it.  I thought the raison d'etre for building on sandy soil was to encourage the ground game.  There is little to no ground game at Dismal...its all aerial attack.  Sure, it looks pretty and "the conditioning is great" and its a "marvel of engineering" and "the amenities"  including "Dismal River Air" to "fly you eight minutes from the tee box and all that are convenient, but did we really need a gentrified course like that in the sand hills?  Has the invasion begun?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jay,
If you spread that much dirt around to a 6" depth you'd be talking about covering ca. 30 acres. Looking at it another way, it represents spreading dirt to a 7' depth on an area the size of a football field, end zones included.

What's the difference between 'moving dirt' and 'moving dirt around'? Does the former mean picking it up and bringing it to another place, and the latter just pushing it to another place?

 

[Steve Lapper]

They tried to run some funky jazz past me that they only moved 15,000 cubic yards of earth to build it, but the sheer scale of the uphill approaches and the valleys indicates to me that they scooped out the lower areas to make it lower and built up the higher areas to make them higher.  plus all the shaping, plus the bunker on 10...

C'mon.  Really.  How many cubic yards of earth does it looked like they moved to you?

While we're at it.  I thought the raison d'etre for building on sandy soil was to encourage the ground game.  There is little to no ground game at Dismal...its all aerial attack.  Sure, it looks pretty and "the conditioning is great" and its a "marvel of engineering" and "the amenities"  including "Dismal River Air" to "fly you eight minutes from the tee box and all that are convenient, but did we really need a gentrified course like that in the sand hills?  Has the invasion begun?

What's next?  Cupp and Kite out here?

Quite insightful Jay.

The absence of a ground game at Dismal River significantly lowers it's ability to appear in the same sentence as Sand Hills, and it's newest disciple, Ballyneal. While I've not played or seen (in person) DR, I have played both Sand Hills (multiple times) and Ballyneal and find both provide ample opportunity to practice the fun quotient of using the ground to hone in on the hole. Given the regularity and consistency of considerable wind, usually from all directions, no ground game option can punish even the quality player.

Thus, if as you say, the ground game isn't available at DR, it's attractiveness diminishes and it's appeals fades quickly. Perhaps that is why the talk out in the Plains has DR "suffering" a bit for new members.

[PThomas]

if DR doesn't encourage the ground game, does that make it "worse' than SH??

just asking....

[Steve Lapper]

if DR doesn't encourage the ground game, does that make it "worse' than SH??

just asking....

Maybe not "worse" (that is purely qualitative and solely the opinion of each individual)  but certainly less dimensional and not as multi-faceted as Sand Hills..............does it not?

[PThomas]

perhaps Steve...but if it does want the Aerial game - I haven't been there yet - perhaps Jack wanted that as a way to differentiate it from SH???  and maybe that is good, since there already is one SH already, so why we would need a 2nd one?

[Steve Lapper]

perhaps Steve...but if it does want the Aerial game - I haven't been there yet - perhaps Jack wanted that as a way to differentiate it from SH???  and maybe that is good, since there already is one SH already, so why we would need a 2nd one?

Fair enough, but it does seem a bit of a waste & shame (at least to me) to avoid allowance for a ground game when the terrain is so links-like and Dunes-driven.

Let's not forget the fact that the closest Jack got to SH was out the side of his G-IV several thousand feet above.

[Daryl David]

Its been mentioned several times that Jack has never seen nor wanted to see SH.  Does anyone know how many of Jack's associates drove over to see SH while on the project?  Have the ownership groups of SH and DR exchanged ideas?  The supers?  I think the answer to that would tell more than whether Jack was influenced or not by DR's famous neigbor.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think a big part of golf in that environment is about the ground game. I would think it is a major design hickup for the JN group to leave that component out. It  does not make it a poor course but it would keep me from calling it a great course and wanting to be a member given I do not live wihtin 30 miles of the club.

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:  I have not seen Dismal River.  I only know what I heard from Jack and from a couple of his associates, that he left way more things untouched than he normally would, and that most of the earthmoving consisted of digging bunkers and using the fill in the bowls where the greens are located, to soften the bowl aspect a bit.

I have never tried to account for digging bunkers as an earthmoving number.  Sand Hills sure didn't -- they probably took more than the vaunted "2000 cubic yard" figure out of that bunker on #4 alone -- the 2000 yards was a cut on the 12th hole.  And I would guess that the 15,000 cubic yards that Dismal River is touting is for some work in a couple of fairways for visibility's sake.

I don't know what the final number would be at Ballyneal, either -- since the project wasn't paid for by the cubic yard, we didn't keep track.  I know we had to do more than Sand Hills for the sake of visibility, but, as Jack says, what difference does it make as long as you get the best golf holes you can?  I'm curious to know if people can tell which holes required the most work; I think we're pretty good at hiding it.

[McCloskey]

what freakin difference does it make if was 15,000 or 150,000. Do you realize that 15,000 cubic yards of dirt is less than 1 foot of material spread over 10 acres.   That is nothing on a site like DR or SH.

You either like the course or you don't, but don't base your assessment on the amount of dirt moved.   As TD says, I doubt very seriously if you know where it was moved and where it wasn't.

What is this obcession with the "ground game"?   Are you suggesting that players are purposefully running the ball on the ground from 150 yards out rather than trying to fly it on the green?   What does that say about their playing ability?
There are times when conditions demand that shots land short of greens and bounce on, but to suggest that the quality of a course must allow every shot to run on the green on the approach shot is just folly.
Dismal River has plenty of holes that not only allow, but demand the approach shot be played short and bounce on.   #2 is a very good example.

If you don't like DR and you like SH better, that is fine, but it isn't necessary to tear down DR to try to make SH better.
SH isn't close to the golf course DR is, in my opinon.  Much too easy.  But, both are very good golf courses.   Everyone doesn't have the same opinion, but that doesn't make one person wrong and the other right.   Ballyneal may be better than both, but I haven't seen it yet to make an observation.   All the reports seem to be glowing, and no one is counting the dirt quantities on that one.   I wonder why?
   
 

[Jerry Kluger]

Jay: I take it from your question that you feel the course looks and plays manufactured as opposed to a more natural feel and I think there is an explanation for that.  Many of the greens were elevated up into the hills, many had false fronts and most were very contoured and undulated.  These features in combination can make the ground game a difficult proposition.  On the other hand, you were not prohibited from running the ball up onto the greens as I don't remember many holes where the front was sealed off from a running shot.  Also, I did not get the sense that features were created by moving dirt any more so than what was necessary based upon the routing.  If you ran the holes on different lines and angles perhaps you wouldn't feel that as much dirt was moved, but I don't know that it would actually be the case.

[Matt_Ward]

What is this drivel about no ground game at Dismal River.

That's nonsense.

There are holes where the ground game is less of an issue but there are more than a few to provide such an involvement.

Have to second the counterpoint that the silliness of estimating how much dirt is moved or used to create items at any golf course is inane.

Eric Bergstol used 7.5 million cubic yards at Bayonne GC -- does that makes the course less so. Not in my mind.

The finished product is what counts -- how they get there is a wonderful engineering / construction topic but it doesn't deal with the core essential ingredient on how solid the actual finished golf course is.

Jerry K touched upon a number of points I would have made.

This topic is nothing more than the "let's pile on Jack because Dismal River doesn't fit our style of game or eyeballs when playing.

It is contrived and shameless because the quality of holes present is very good -- in fact -- excellent in many spots from the 70+ Nicklaus courses I have personally played.

People need to focus on thew golf product and stop trying to reach for anything to grab onto with the anti-Nicklaus bent.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I've agreed with your main point, above.

But you keep comparing Dismal River to the 70+ other Nicklaus courses you've played, which is silly, because one would assume it's a much different piece of land than any of those.

Is it much better than Sand Hills, as McCloskey says it is?  Personally, I don't know how Jack or anyone else would build better than a 10.

[McCloskey]

Tom Doak

Needless to say, SH isn't ranked a 10 in my and many others opinion.
It is very good, as is DR, just as I am sure BN is also, even though I haven't been there yet.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

My point is a simple one -- the Nicklaus design method has evolved a great ways in the span of the years / courses that I have played concerning the courses in his portfolio. I see that as a positive development.

Tom, it's a no brainer when you say the site is different from the others he has done. No doubt. Frankly, every site a course is on can be claimed to be different than the last. My statement is based upon the usage of design elements that previously Nicklaus would have eschewed.

I see that as a good sign that Jack and his team understand that what was done early on really is not as polished or improved as one sees today.

I tried to provide some context in my reply -- far more than just the silly and assinine drivel about so some sort of correlation between the amount of earth moved and the finished product itself.

I see such an argument as grasping at any straw one can hold onto for the sake of a some ill-conceived point.

I have not said that Dismal River is better than Sand Hills, but I have said that those who are quick to lump it into some sort of trash heap or that it's creation fails for other reasons which are not final course specific elements are clearly showing an outright hostility with little depth behind it that is hole specific.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: You obviously respect and admire what was done at SH and I believe that most people, including myself, would agree with you.  That respect surely carried over in your design of Ballyneal and again, a great course was built and most who love SH will surely love BN.  We had discussed the differences in today's minimalist architects and recognized that there are differences but that is simply a major plus for golf course design. JN takes a different approach but in this case I truly believe that his approach also works.  Perhaps DR is too severe at times but it has some wonderful holes and surely would be exciting and enjoyable to play over and over and isn't that what we all want.  There is no "anti-strategy" as he challenges you to be more aggressive and you are rewarded if you are successful.  I don't believe that we would have ever seen the bunkers and greens at DR had JN not worked with you at Sebonack.  We need to step back and recognize that there is no one set formula for the problem presented.  You recognize that and I sometimes wonder if others do.  

[Steve Lapper]

For the record, I made no argument can rightfully be described as "anti-Jack" or that DR is anything other than a fine and respectable course. I also was careful to avoid the earthmoving issue as I find that matters little in the final product. Whether DR moved less (or more) earth than SH means nothing (Just see my enthusiatic past review of Bayonne). What matter is the final result....is it fun to play, and does it provide a reasonable test of the game?? I suspect it MIGHT be heavily skewed in the direction of the latter.

Shivas:

While you may well be right about the uphill nature of all those holes, I can tell you with absolute confidence, that with a 25+mph wind in your face, the ground option is your 80+ % play to chase par or birdie. Does anyone here think they can deftly hit a full 6 iron 90 yards and expect it to check to a front pin? So the ground game matters and presents options and strategies that help preserve the FUN of the game. I've seen one GCA poster use his putter better from 150yds than 90% of all the other GCA posters with all the rest of their other clubs!!!

McCloskey faults Sand Hills for being "too easy" and questions whether preserving the ground game has any relevance. I've played there, from the double diamonds on windy days with +2 hcps, and watched them shoot in the eighties. Matt, we know, is partial to tough tests. So DR appeals to he and his school of thought. I'm still not sure Matt has even played Sand Hills, recently or in the past...he won't answer. My understanding of those great "Linksland-style" courses throughout the world is that nearly all of them present, reflect and pay homage to option of using the ground's countours to help get the ball from point A-to point B. *

I guess my ultimate point to consider here is that if DR has even less the ground game options of SH (and as I've said, I have yet to play DR), it simply wouldn't appeal to me to become a member or even a frequent guest.


*BTW.....Ballyneal does indeed reflect the ground game and once the grow-in conditions reach maturity, it should exponentially up it's fun factor.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Who cares how much earth they moved at Dismal River. This is the problem, which one needs to learn--exactly what I have about minimilism (if you can call it that) I think some don't understand the premise. You move what you have to move. Sometimes there isn't nothing minimilist about it.

Speaking as an outside observer and admirer of golf course architecture--a student, not an authority, I can count many times I've been on a site and have not seen the amount of earth moved to create a fairway.

PIE #1: Stone Eagle #8, where Tom Doak explained to me the obvious, and how that famed, "Dead Man's Gulch" bunker (My name for it) was once a ravine, only to have been filled in to create fairway. The rest of it became that deep pit, while the other side remains as natural drainage, because that's ravines in nature do.

It took a lot of earth to create that fairway--more then some would ever want to know. Is that Minimilism? ABSOLUTELY! He did what he had to do to create that protion of fairway to get to hole to work.

PIE #2: Riviera #18, does anyone want to guess what that area looked like before it was a golf course? It too was a ravine and if you look closely, VERY closely, you can see where they created the fill.

The entire idea is to manipulate the land to make it fit into place for golf by using the features of that land. Sometimes this might mean eliminating them, or building upon them. How an architect does it is the very way we admire a Keith Jarrett playing piano, vs. Librace or Dudley Moore doing the same. they all have their own unique styles. Ultimately there are only so many virtuosos.

I thought the images of Dismal looked pretty good. Congrats should go to all involved.

[JWL]

Tommy,
I couldn't agree more with your insightful post.

[John Kirk]

1.  What is this obsession with the "ground game"?   Are you suggesting that players are purposefully running the ball on the ground from 150 yards out rather than trying to fly it on the green?   What does that say about their playing ability?

There are times when conditions demand that shots land short of greens and bounce on, but to suggest that the quality of a course must allow every shot to run on the green on the approach shot is just folly.
Dismal River has plenty of holes that not only allow, but demand the approach shot be played short and bounce on.   #2 is a very good example.

2.  If you don't like DR and you like SH better, that is fine, but it isn't necessary to tear down DR to try to make SH better.
SH isn't close to the golf course DR is, in my opinon.  Much too easy.  But, both are very good golf courses.   Everyone doesn't have the same opinion, but that doesn't make one person wrong and the other right.   Ballyneal may be better than both, but I haven't seen it yet to make an observation.   All the reports seem to be glowing, and no one is counting the dirt quantities on that one.   I wonder why?
 

1.  The reason that "the ground game" is of particular interest with the three courses in question is the fact that they are built on sand, and the wind blows there.  I'm a pretty good player, and if it's windy, I may want to run the ball onto the green, to minimize the wind's impact on my shot.  The course needs firm turf and a reasonably wide alley to shoot for, and shouldn't have a steep slope right in front of the green.  Without these conditions it's difficult to do anything but try and fly it all the way there.  It's all about options.

2.  Gee, I thought Sand Hills was pretty hard, and it wasn't very windy when I was there.  The greens are very sloped, and lightning fast.  You really have to have a great touch and a good imagination when you're there.

In my experience Ballyneal is a little easier than Sand Hills.  Judging from second hand reports and a drive through last fall, Dismal River appears to be clearly the most difficult.  It must be the Spyglass Hill equivalent.

[John Foley]

Matt or Jay - it looks like DR has much more elevation change than at Sand Hills. Is this accurate?

McCloskey - How does SH being easy equate to not being a great golf course??

Tom S & Jim L - You guys should be very proud, the course looks amazing. From the pics I love the bold contours on the greens and love putting the windmill in the field of play.

[ed_getka]

McCloskey,
    You must be quite the stick to think SH is easy. What exactly is so easy about it? I presume you will comment on the width of the fairways, and the lack of punishing rough. SH is one of my favorite courses, but I have heard explanations of why some don't think that much of the course that were perfectly acceptable, so I am curious to hear yours.
   I haven't seen DR so I am not attempting to denigrate it in any way.

[JWL]

John

Just for the record, neither Tom nor I had anything to do with Dismal River.   We just attended the Opening and were impressed like everyone else attending.
All the congratulations should be directed to Jack and Chris Cochran, the  Nicklaus Design Associate.

I agree that their efforts were terrific.

[Bob_Huntley]

One of the best, if not the best course built in Scotland in the last fifty years was an old, dreary looking potato field. I cannot guess how much dirt was moved but as far as I am concerned, it matters not. What does matter is that I can get to play Kingsbarns and have the time of my life.

Bob