Sand Hills vs Dismal River S.A.P.D. #9 pg. 5

[John Kavanaugh]

I will start off with that I was in the Colton camp that the The Speaker's most excellent round must have occurred at Sand Hills.  I was wrong and have learned that I may have been on an island alone singing that tune with Jim.  So, let's assume like conditions with slightly faster greens at Sand Hills and go through a flawed match play analysis of which course is more difficult.

#1  Sand Hills begins with one of the great par 5's in golf.  Dismal begins with what may be no less than the most interesting opener I have ever played.  I feel Dismal #1 is the tougher hole.

Dismal 1 up.  Please note that 1 up only indicates that a hole is more difficult, not better.  Sand Hills #1 is clearly the better hole.

note: Please base your opinions on a 9 handicaps ability to strike the ball.  I understand that par 5's are commonly the lowest handicapped hole.

[Mark Saltzman]

Dismal 1UP, no question.

2 will be an interesting match, curious to hear people's thoughts.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mark,

I would like to do one hole per day.  Could you be a dear and post pictures for me?  It will also be important, as we will see on the discussion of #2, to establish which tees we are playing.  Dismal is the only course where I have been a member that I have never played the back tees.  I do not see them as being vital to this discussion.

[Mark Saltzman]

John,

I did play the back tees at Dismal and can say that they are very difficult and agree they should not be part of the discussion.  I presume the squares on both courses would be appropriate, especially if we are talking about a 9 handicap (though I think each person should make the judgment based on his or her own playing ability).


Sand Hills - Hole 1, Par 5, 530? Yards








Dismal River - Hole 1, Par 4, 410? Yards

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks, the most difficult feature of #1 at Dismal is the large hogs back in the middle of the fairway.  I still remember the first time I played the hole with my brother and a perfect storm of firmness and wind rebounded his tee ball into the two o'clock bunker.  He thought it was unfair, poor baby.  It is not easy, but you need to challenge the left bunkers.

[Eric Smith]

Cool idea, John.  1 at Dizzy Riv is as blood pumping exciting as I can imagine. Like you pointed out, the difficulty of this hole lies in the ability to get your tee shot up onto or over the plateau in order to see the green. Without achieving this early objective, you're pretty much going to be playing for bogey at best. An interesting facet of the hole and it's reputation as being difficult is how much easier it becomes if you can just catch one solidly on the first swing of the day, with a draw preferably if you're right handed and can carry the ball say 250-260 or more, and watch the ball release off of the slope and feed all the way down the bowl on the left hand side of the fairway. From down here it's a flip wedge, maybe a 9 iron at most, into a blind punchbowl of accomplishment that once negotiated, leaves you with a birdie putt and a view looking back that makes you wonder how on earth did i just do that!

[Mac Plumart]

For what it is worth, I find the first two holes at Dismal to be mentally intimidating beyond most anything I've seen.  I really stuggle to hit beyong that hogsback, so rolling back usually happens.  Which leaves a blind shot into the green.  After playing the hole a few times, it is not a big deal as the green is punchbowl-ish and all you have to do is get it close to the green and you'll funnel down.  But the first time (or first few times), you don't know this and WOW this can f**k with your head and confidence.

Pretty much the same on two.  The forced carry from the middle tees isn't too bad...and I'm not a long hitter at all.  But the blind shot in can get in your head.  But once you know how the entire fairway feeds down, the hole becomes easy/easier to handle mentally and physically.

Hole one at Sand Hills is kind of tough due to the long/uphill nature of it, but there is very little mental intimidation (at least that which is on par with Dismal's intimidation).

And hole two at Sand Hills is, perhaps, harder that 2 at Dismal due to the green...perhaps it depends on where the pin is.

But I am getting ahead of myself. 

Hole 1---Dismal River is harder hands down.

[John Kavanaugh]

One of the interesting aspects of this type of match play comparison is implied difficulty.  If for instance you fee the need to start off your round at Sand Hills with a birdie then its first hole may become more difficult.  I will say that it is easier to complete the first at Dismal in four shots than the first at Sand Hills.  This of course will come into play in the discussion of the 4th holes where anything worse than a birdie at Dismal is a failure.

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I think a lot depends on the tees you are playing from.  Dismal River is much longer from the back tees, so it's harder from all the way back.  Sand Hills might be harder if you are playing from the same yardage, but not if you are playing from the "same" tees [first set, second set] as I suspect Dismal is longer from each set-up.  [We've had the same comparison problem for years between Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes ... some people insist one is harder, some argue passionately that it's the other.]

It also depends on which course you play more [sample bias].  In the case that started this discussion, Boehner played more than one round at Dismal but only one at Sand Hills, and we're comparing his best-of-2 or 3 at Dismal to one [with more performance pressure, the day after a career round] at Sand Hills.  I would bet anything that most Sand Hills members would find Dismal harder, and most Dismal members would find Sand Hills harder, because of the same selection bias.  The course where you're more comfortable is the one that's easier, which sometimes says little about the courses themselves OR about the strengths and weaknesses of your particular golf game.

[Mike Benham]

Are all those bunkers natural?  (I'm going to guess no as evidenced by the surrounding non-golf course landscape).  Seems to be a bit many for my eye ...

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

My first round at Sand Hills was a career type round until I discovered I had played the wrong tees.  I think the middle at Dismal match up well with the back at Sand Hills.  There are friends of mine that I will not take such a distance to play Dismal that I would take to Sand Hills because of some of the forced carries. (18 handicapers)  I am looking for you to remedy that problem.

[John Kavanaugh]

Are all those bunkers natural?  (I'm going to guess no as evidenced by the surrounding non-golf course landscape).  Seems to be a bit many for my eye ...

No, but the cart paths are.

[Mac Plumart]

One of the interesting aspects of this type of match play comparison is implied difficulty.  If for instance you fee the need to start off your round at Sand Hills with a birdie then its first hole may become more difficult.  I will say that it is easier to complete the first at Dismal in four shots than the first at Sand Hills.  This of course will come into play in the discussion of the 4th holes where anything worse than a birdie at Dismal is a failure.

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

I'm confused here.  One at Sand Hills is a par 5 and one at Dismal is a par 4.  Does your implied scale mean a birdie is implied at Sand Hills and over par at Dismal?



And, oh yeah, anything more than a birdie on 4 at Dismal is NOT a failure.  I'll take par any day.  (Freakin' show off!!   )

[Jim Colton]

I guessed correctly that it was DR. Matt Schulte was in the SH camp with you.

[Aidan Bradley]

A slightly different view of #1 forward of the middle tee's so you can see the green.

[John Kavanaugh]

One of the interesting aspects of this type of match play comparison is implied difficulty.  If for instance you fee the need to start off your round at Sand Hills with a birdie then its first hole may become more difficult.  I will say that it is easier to complete the first at Dismal in four shots than the first at Sand Hills.  This of course will come into play in the discussion of the 4th holes where anything worse than a birdie at Dismal is a failure.

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

I'm confused here.  One at Sand Hills is a par 5 and one at Dismal is a par 4.  Does your implied scale mean a birdie is implied at Sand Hills and over par at Dismal?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  I think you would agree that in relation to par Dismal is .6 strokes harder than Sand Hills on the first.

[John Kavanaugh]

I guessed correctly that it was DR. Matt Schulte was in the SH camp with you.

I heard a touch of sarcasm in your comment.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Aidan, that explains a lot.

[Tom_Doak]

Are all those bunkers natural?  (I'm going to guess no as evidenced by the surrounding non-golf course landscape).  Seems to be a bit many for my eye ...

Mike B:

Natural, in the sense that there was always sand underneath there, yes.  But I would bet that nearly all of the bunkers in that picture were dug by the architect's crew.

For that matter, nearly all the bunkers at Sand Hills were created, as well.  It's a myth that most of them were already there.  I walked the layout before anything was built, and as far as I can recall, the naturally existing blowouts that were incorporated into the design of the course were off #1 tee, the big one to the left of #4 green, the one short left of #7 green, the big one short and left of #11 green, the bunker in front of #15 green, and the big blowouts up the left side of #18.  There may have been small scrapes in other areas that suggested to start a bunker, but none that really looked like a bunker -- though it's possible I've forgotten one or two.

Even that is a lot more "natural" bunkers than most other courses have.

[Tom_Doak]

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

John:

I would expect a bit more thought on this subject from you.  All you are doing is trying to compute the Course Rating for two courses which, as you have already mentioned and defended, do not have Course Ratings, because so much is dependent on the wind.

[Mac Plumart]

One of the interesting aspects of this type of match play comparison is implied difficulty.  If for instance you fee the need to start off your round at Sand Hills with a birdie then its first hole may become more difficult.  I will say that it is easier to complete the first at Dismal in four shots than the first at Sand Hills.  This of course will come into play in the discussion of the 4th holes where anything worse than a birdie at Dismal is a failure.

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

I'm confused here.  One at Sand Hills is a par 5 and one at Dismal is a par 4.  Does your implied scale mean a birdie is implied at Sand Hills and over par at Dismal?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  I think you would agree that in relation to par Dismal is .6 strokes harder than Sand Hills on the first.

Got it.  And, yes, I agree 1 is harder at Dismal.

[Dan Kelly]

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

John:

I would expect a bit more thought on this subject from you.  All you are doing is trying to compute the Course Rating for two courses which, as you have already mentioned and defended, do not have Course Ratings, because so much is dependent on the wind.

Can't the winds be essentially averaged, to create *long-term* UNOFFICIAL course ratings for those lucky enough to post a whole bunch of scores at either course?

[Tom_Doak]

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

John:

I would expect a bit more thought on this subject from you.  All you are doing is trying to compute the Course Rating for two courses which, as you have already mentioned and defended, do not have Course Ratings, because so much is dependent on the wind.

Can't the winds be essentially averaged, to create *long-term* UNOFFICIAL course ratings for those lucky enough to post a whole bunch of scores at either course?

Dan:

You could rate those golf courses for a 15-MPH wind in a certain direction.  But the rating would be 2-3 shots too high for a calm day, and maybe 4-5 shots too low for a really windy day, and it would probably also be different if the wind blew from the north instead of the west -- some things just don't average out well.  I think they are right just not to have course ratings at all.

If you were going to do it at all, the only fair way would be to establish a DAILY course rating, based on the wind and the set-up.  They used to do that in Australia and I had the impression it worked well.

[John Kavanaugh]

If I were to rank each hole on an implied scale it would go Sand Hills 4.7 with Dismal at a 4.3.

John:

I would expect a bit more thought on this subject from you.  All you are doing is trying to compute the Course Rating for two courses which, as you have already mentioned and defended, do not have Course Ratings, because so much is dependent on the wind.

Tom,

That is an interesting take.  I wish you had not told me that I was forming a course rating. I would like to know what number I would have arrived at without that consideration. It will now be impossible.

More than a number that would lead to a total I was trying to put a number on implied expectation. Just because I expect to birdie a hole does not mean it will happen.  You are correct, I didn't give this enough thought.  In a month or so when this thread is complete I will start another on implied expectation course ratings. Thanks.

[Adam Clayman]

JK, I have a different opinion on which opener is tougher. And, it has nothing to do with what tees you play. Everyone has to play on the green and SH's 1st is likely the biggest butt pucker of any green I have ever played. A bowled green is never more difficult than a promontory.

SH 1 up.

A pretty futile exercise, especially since Ben is quoted as saying they weren't building a hard golf course, but a great one.
 I say it's futile because difficulty is poor criteria.