[JWL]

Jay
As my final post on this subject, let me be clear that I had nothing to do with the project.   I have only been there on the opening day where I walked around with Chris and he kept pointing out, to my disbelief in many situations, where he and Jack left the natural contours, even those found in most of the greens.
I wasn't trying to defend DR or make any comparisons.  the only thing I did was pass along information that I was given concerning the amount of soil moved, since that is what the original post questioned.   I certainly have no reason to believe that CC would give me anything but the facts on the matter, and I certainly do believe what he told me.   Since you have said you don't believe the amount of earth quoted, then you will have to determine what the truth is from some other source.   I personally don't know of anyone closer to the project than CC.

[Dave Bourgeois]

Jay,

I am curious if you looked at some of the pre-construction photos of Dismal River on the website (I'm pretty sure they were available)?  

[Jay Flemma]

No, they shed no light in this question.  Besides, there are on;y eight of them with no time stamp.  Nevertheless, looking at them again, it sure looks to me like 15,000 CY were moved just to build a couple bunkers.

[Dave Bourgeois]

Does that 15K for bunkers count? TD doesn't count that in his figures for earthmoving.  In the end I don't really care, but if you are upset with the marketing statements, and the amount of dirt moved is part of your criteria for being bent, you need to be consistent in your comparison.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim

I don't know if it was your intention to include me in the people that you said were behind the course and "pitching" the course in a certain way.  I am not "pitching" anything.  I just passed on information that I know to be fact and that should have answered the question.

Jim,

It was not.  It was my intention to show that Matt Ward was wrong, which is always a worthy endeavor.

[Jay Flemma]

This has nothing to do with TD.  Nobody at a TD course told me they only moved 15,000 of earth.  I never said anything about a Doak course, (or anybody elses course) so I am not being inconsistent.  This has nothing to do with Doak, other courses and other architects.  This has to do with Dismal River, yet I notice alot of changing the subject and deflecting the issue and evasive answers.  

Except Jim Lipe...at least he came out and gave me his position and was honest when he said he wasnt there during construction and couldn't believe it either when Chris showed him around.  His exact words were "he kept pointing out to my disbelief."  If a guy as good as Lipe expresses surprise like that, it's a legit question from a guy like me...and its certainly a legit question from somebody who is gonna plunk down $100,000...

...or are we just supposed to consider that chump change and let somebody go on the point...

And another thing!  Does anybody else notice a trend here.  "Well, we don't count the bunkers...and we dont count the top layers...and we dont count if we moved it one place, then moved it back..."

Bill Clinton the GCA - "It depends on what your definition of "moved" is.

If that's what the argument comes down to - that you get 15,000 when you just keep shaving away at the definition of "moved" - what a sad commentary that is on the state of marketing in the golf industry.

Of course we have to require truth in marketing and open, accurate accounting on this issue!  People are spending alot of money on their choice of club.  If the real figure is truly 15,000, then team Nicklaus and everybody else should be HAPPY to show in detail where the number comes from and should ENCOURAGE people looking closely at the issue when it comes to all other designers and all other such marketing...after all, that will keep other more unscrupulous people who design like a minimalist in the future from making such claims when in fact, they did not accomplish such a feat

[Dave Bourgeois]

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.

I'm not saying that you are comparing Dismal to any of Doak's courses only that you are at some level upset with the marketing of Dismal River as being "Minimalist".  Your criteria for being minimalist seems to be an amount of dirt moved, so I made a comparison to the quote above in relation to your statements.

I think you would characterize Sand Hills as minimalist, yet Tom feels they moved more dirt on one bunker than was reported on the entire project.  He does not account for moving dirt to expose or create bunkers.  Tom builds courses so I am somewhat inclined to believe him.

 So is Sand Hills minimalist design?  Did C&C misrepresnt the course when they talked about moving 2K cubic yards?  If some of the slopes at Dismal are too severe isn't it possible that they were found that way and he didn't change them (I'm asking)?  Wouldn't that be minimalist to a degree?

[Voytek Wilczak]

Do the DR members really care if 15,000 cubic yards were moved or what "moved" means? As long as the course suits their game and aesthetic sense and it is obvious that relatively little dirt was moved?

Jay - you're picking nits, my man.

Should Liberty National members sue for mis-representation or for a refund of their deposits ($400K-$500K) because the 18th green at Liberty National is in fact NOT LESS THAN 1,000 YARDS FROM THE STATUE OF LIBERTY (the figure that Cupp, Kite, and Fireman repeat in EVERY interview, and the figure they posted on LN website's Factsheet)?

Unless Google Earth and Google maps are wrong, that distance is about 2,300 yards.

Hyperbole, my friend - a time-honored tradition of every marketing campaign.

[Jay Flemma]

You're changing the subject again, Dave.  The question was posed to Dismal River not sand hills.

There is one inescapable truth...Sand hills looks more natural than Dismal River by light years...a reasonable person looking at both sites and handed the figures of 2000-3,000 for SH and 15,000 for Dismal River would have an easier time believing SH than DR.

...and Voytek, it's lso a time honored tradition for businessmen to say "don't piddle on my leg and tell me its raining."

[Jerry Kluger]

Jay: Do you feel that the ground game has to be an obvious option for a course to be considered minimalist?  As Matt pointed out, DR does offer the ground game option on a large number of holes but it is not obvious.  The reason for this I believe is because of the routing and the substantial elevation changes as opposed to the gradual elevation changes at SH and BN.  I agree with you that DR does not give the appearance of what we commonly call minimalism because it just seems so big.  

[Dave Bourgeois]

Jay,

I understand you didn't dig the course, it looked unnatural in your opinion, and you felt there was not much option for playing a ground game.  That's your opinion and that is fine.

You felt mislead by the marketing, and I am only trying to point out that getting hung up on the amount of dirt moved may not be the best criteria for evaluating "minimalism".  I mentioned SH because in one architects opinion they may have moved more than 2000CY on one bunker alone.  If you got to play SH, would you come on and say that C&C said SH was X amount of dirt, but based on my observations it was Y so that's not very minimalist and them saying 2000 CY is misleading?  That's all I'm trying to say, and my poor writing skills probably do not help matters.  

I probably would not have even started this nonsense if you hadn't replied to a post of mine that it looked like they moved 15K CY just for a bunker.  Its moving dirt to expose bunkers comparison that started this part of the discussion.  

Its all quite silly isn't it.  

[Jim Nugent]

Jay, I thought Doak said they moved a fair amount of dirt at Ballyneal.  If so, do you still consider it minimalist?  

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, It is true, and I think he even said he moved all of it. More in some spots, less in others. I defy anyone to point out where it is obvious, though.

That is the misnomer of minimalism, and why it's to broad, and is a poor term to use as a description. Similar to "shot values".

Dismal River would've benefited greatly had they melted some of the severity. IMO.

As I said earlier, Jack's team has taken a step in the right direction, hopefully someday, we will all benefit from any lessons learned.

[Jay Flemma]

Jim, with great respect, you are missing the point.  Doak never said to me, "Jay we only moved x amount of earth" like dismal river did.  When doak moves earth he says so...see rawls course...

[Gene Greco]

That is the misnomer of minimalism, and why it's to broad, and is a poor term to use as a description. Similar to "shot values".

  Indeed,  a great deal of dirt obviously was moved to create Talking Stick from flat land in AZ whereas little was moved at Kapalua Plantation.
  However, Bill Coore has posed the question, "Which course appears to be more 'minimalist'?"

[Jason Blasberg]

My handicap is too high, but I love the game like a tour player.

Jay:

I'm growing more and more concerned about some of the things you say but if you are a weak player it's not surprising to me to hear you think there's no ground game at DR.

Often the ground game requires a deft touch, such as pitching to a certain discrete area and letting the ground do the rest as the only viable option to getting it close or even holding a green.  Jack clearly knows this as evidenced by his success in the Open and I'm sure he passes his experience on to the ground crew on his projects.

I also believe you don't think there are many ground game options at Yale . . . and if that's what you think you do not comprehend the ground game.  While I'm not trying to be rude, weak players often praise the ground game out of necessity not out of any appreciation for it or even knowledge of what it really is.

The ground game is far more complex than the aerial game and requires more, not less skill, to master.

Your blasting of DR has lost all semblence of intelligent criticism and I think you should refocus your thoughts and posts on the merits of design, not just with DR but with all GCA.

I'm not sure what happened to you on your trip to the sand hills but there appears to have been an alien abduction at some point.

Get back to basics and the principles for which this site exists and lose the childish banter.

Jason

[Jay Flemma]

Thanks for the ad hominem attack Jason.  Having never played with me, I marvel at how you are so right...

[Jason Blasberg]

"And in this corner weighing in at  . . . . "

I'd be happy to accept the ground game challenge Jay as soon as you start redisplaying some intelligence in your critiques on GCA.

You're sounding more like a marketing guy with an agenda and less like a gca critic with every post.

Let's do it at Yale and we'll see what the grounds like there.  Seriously, turn your gca ship around and we'll work out a date at Yale and explore the ground game there with a little wager and some pride on the line.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jay,
Congratulations. Your the first particpant of Golf Club Atlas who has ever wanted to settle a stupid, senseless discussion (argument) by way of ego by challenging the person to a pony game contest of I can bump the ball better then you can. I sense a schoolyard-type rumble going on here pretty soon. Should we delete the thread in the interest of peace and harmony?

However, I think it's a healthy way of settling things, albeit a bizarre one. So congrats there too.

Tell you what, each and everyone of you. I'll challenge you all to the same 7 iron/putter challenge! Your all challenged! I'll kill you all! get ready for defeat!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Oh, now I see you have edited the comment. Well there goes that idea out the window! I guess I'll have to defeat all of you on some other day!

[George Pazin]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Jay has said anything worth anyone getting their panties in a bunch. People can disagree all they want, they might even be right and he might be wrong, but I don't see the need for insults about his intelligence and his game.

I sure hope intelligence and game aren't directly correlated....

 

[Tom_Doak]

Is it possible to call a time out here?

Jay, you're welcome to like or not like the way holes are laid out at Dismal River, but to start questioning how much earth was moved you are getting way out of your expertise.  The truth is that most courses do not account for all of the earthmoving which is done, but I would have to believe that Dismal River used "commonly accepted accounting practices" to arrive at their figure.

The fact that they are marketing how little earth was moved to build the course is just another sign that this is the trend of the day.

Jason, the ground game is different things to different people.  For you and Matt it may be fifteen yards of roll at the end of a howitzer-like approach shot (assuming you don't have a 40-mph tailwind, which is not uncommon in the Sand Hills).  But, for others [I always think of my mom] the ground game meant playing the entire golf hole more or less along the ground.  Now you may think that's a totally irrelevant way to judge golf course architecture, but that's your opinion, probably formed because you are too proud of how good you are.  

You may also be more inclined than others to dismiss the days a course becomes "unplayable" due to high winds because you think if you can't play your normal shots, then no one can, so who could expect it to work?  Some architects take that attitude, too, but not the guys who built St. Andrews and other great links overseas.

[Jay Flemma]

Tom, if you and dye and others hadn't spoken out, narrow fairways, tree-lined corridors and target golf would still be the trend of the day.

As for Jason and Tommy...you wanna attack me for the benefit of a third person over an ancient grudge, go ahead...nobody cares.

[Jason Blasberg]

Tommy:

I'll put my mouthpiece and head gear back on the self (well maybe not my mouthpiece   ) . . .

The one club challenge is a great way to play a loop of holes . . . take the one Laura and I do at Cuscowilla, up the par 5 14th, down the par 4 10th, the par 3 11th, par 4 12th and end at the par 4 13th green.  At sunset with a couple of clubs and a couple of cool beverages it's just about pefect.

George:

Re read one of the first DR posts and the comment was made how it essentially degrades the neighborhood . . . that type of comment lacks all intelligence and is the primary reason for my criticism.

Tom D.:

You're right on about the ground game being different for different people.  I also identify as ground game what others may not.  Using green contouring for instance and playing away from the hole to get it close to the hole is a perfect example of ground game to me (the most observed by the public is likely the 16th at ANGC and the Redan and Nader approaches are likely the most obvious examples to the treehouse.  

Take the front left pin at number 10 at Lost Dunes and the back right pin at number 18 (first time around at number 18 I did it by mistake after cursing a pulled approach into the middle right portion of the green I saw the ball working closer and closer to that back right pin).  Using green contours is the best, and most enjoyable way IMO, to work the ball close to the pin.

The middle left pin we played at Yale with Mike S.'s group a couple of months ago was another example of how one can play an approach away from the pin into a green swale (the huge one front right) and work the ball toward the hole even though a more direct option is available.

The most "butt puckering" (to use a Childsism) aerial turned running shot that I've played lately with regularity is the punch wedge I've been playing into the left hand slope of "2 or 20" to get close to back pins there.



While a putt from 30 yards short of the green is always fun . . . I often prefer ground game options that require a combination of a well executed carry, a vivid imagination and a bit of luck thrown in to pull off a shot.

Knock down wedges from under 70 yards into internal green contours or fronting green slopes requires guts, skill, vision and a good bounce or two and are often the most memorable shots for me during the course of a round.  

[Steve Lapper]

Tell you what, each and everyone of you. I'll challenge you all to the same 7 iron/putter challenge! Your all challenged! I'll kill you all! get ready for defeat!

Tommy,

   I'll take Neil Regan and give you 3-1 odds....Number me!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()