[Kris Shreiner]

Mark,

I wasn't trying to bust your stones. You point out that brush clearing tweak as a wise move that could really enrich the option of that right side finish of the tee-shot on #15. That is EXACTLY the type of refinement I'm talking about. Every course, even the greatest, come in for some adjustments as the track evolves and play, involving the travails of ALL abilities, reveals where even better golf potential can be teased out of the presentation.

I'll say it again, and after my first actual play of the ground this weekend, will have better reflections on the subject...DC is special!

Cheers,
Kris

[Kyle Harris]

Mark:

You still have to complete the hole to finish the course and post a score. If you're bored with the hole - guess what... it's in your head and has served it's purpose.

It's not the golf architect's job to provide every shot you intend to hit with inspiration. Try new shots, find the way to make it interesting for you.

Risk/reward ratio? What does that even mean?

[Jason Beland]

I too am playing Dormie this weekend, and looking forward to these holes. 

How long does 15 play?

Does 15 remind anyone else of the 10th at Cuscowilla?  Tee shot over a diagonal cross hazard where challenging the right side gives a shorter shot and better angle, while the safer play leaves a longer second but the hill short left of the green allows the option foot land it short and run it onto the green.  The shot from the right is not blind at Cuscowilla, and the green is not as severely sloped.  At Cuscowilla the miss is short which is better than left which leaves a shot from well below the level of the green or In the bunker left.

J

[David_Madison]

15 is an attractive enough hole, but the risk/reward ratio really is terrible. Why risk a 2-shot penalty for what's at best a 1/2 shot reward? Drive left, slop it up over the hill, and 50/50 or better it gets onto the green. And if it doesn't, you still have both a chip or a putt to make your par. It's not as if you are going to make a lot of birdies or even a guaranteed par if you hit the right side of the fairway.

As for dogleg balance, clearly this hole can't offset the six or so holes that swing sharply the other way.

A pretty good course in excellent condition with lots of very good holes. I just don't know that I'd want this set of 18 holes put together in the way they were on this one course.

[David Stewart]

I have played Dormie twice and love both holes.

On 14, even if you can't reach the green with a driver, the question off the tee is how close can I get and still be in the fairway. Therefore, club selection is still critical off the tee as you want to be up the left side but don't want to be in the woods. You want to be as close as possible to that green as it is quite small and falls off hard on the right and back-right.

I don't see the problem with 15. Risk/reward is good golf. It is your call on how much risk you want to take. If that was all water short and right of the fairway would we even be discussing this? I mean how is it any different than your standard cape hole. If you hit in the water, it is a reload. If you hit in the scrub it is a reload. If feel like if that was all water down the right side everyone would be praising the hole for its risk/reward options. It is much better to be long and on the right side of the fairway than on the left side behind the hill, especially if the pin is left.

[Mark Saltzman]

How long does 15 play?

Jason,

About 400 yards from the back tees.  The middle tees were moved up to the tee box with forward set at about 270 (fun hole from here).

15 is an attractive enough hole, but the risk/reward ratio really is terrible. Why risk a 2-shot penalty for what's at best a 1/2 shot reward? Drive left, slop it up over the hill, and 50/50 or better it gets onto the green. And if it doesn't, you still have both a chip or a putt to make your par. It's not as if you are going to make a lot of birdies or even a guaranteed par if you hit the right side of the fairway.

David,

Glad to see at least one other person agrees with me.

On 14, even if you can't reach the green with a driver, the question off the tee is how close can I get and still be in the fairway. Therefore, club selection is still critical off the tee as you want to be up the left side but don't want to be in the woods. You want to be as close as possible to that green as it is quite small and falls off hard on the right and back-right.

Understood.  But, once you've made that determination and given that you can't reach the green, aren't you going to be hitting that less than driver club off the tee every single time you play the hole.  That was my only comment.  Not saying the hole is bad, just repetitive.


I don't see the problem with 15. Risk/reward is good golf. It is your call on how much risk you want to take. If that was all water short and right of the fairway would we even be discussing this? I mean how is it any different than your standard cape hole. If you hit in the water, it is a reload. If you hit in the scrub it is a reload. If feel like if that was all water down the right side everyone would be praising the hole for its risk/reward options. It is much better to be long and on the right side of the fairway than on the left side behind the hill, especially if the pin is left.

Agreed risk/reward is good golf.  But, the reward must be sufficient to take on the risk, especially for the scorecard and pencil types, which is most golfers.   

The reason it's different than a standard cape is the blindness from the left / benefit for being on the right.  On a standard cape, the biggest advantage to cutting the corner is usually a shorter approach.  Here there is more than that ... a chance to see the pin and not be subject to the luck of landing on the hill short of the green.  My complaint is this hole could be great, much better than a standard cape because of these factors.  But, nobody takes on that shot.  It is just too difficult.  Too long a carry and too small a target to hit to.  The only people who hit there (other than a very select few of exceptional golfers) are there by luck.

[Kyle Harris]

Mark/David:

The answer to the question "Why risk a 2-shot penalty for what's best a 1/2 shot reward?" is answered very simply:

When you need to gain that half shot on an opponent or the field.

Why must the reward be sufficient enough to take on the risk?

Aren't there contexts outside of the physical architecture of the hole that make taking on the risk necessary?

This is the 15th hole... a likely hole for the match to be - wait for it - dormie. Wouldn't you go for broke here to gain ANY advantage over your opponent?

[Mark Saltzman]

Kyle,

I did say the hole is better as a matchplay hole than a stroke-play hole.  Agree there.

You are correct that there are times where outside circumstances may be worth the risk, though they are few.

[David_Madison]

Kyle,

In a stroke play event, there's just no logic in taking the risk for such a minimal, nebulous reward. In match play, no way would I ever risk the instant loss of a hole for such a small gain. You can hit it safely anywhere from left edge to the middle of the fairway and still more often than not have a good shot at par. You can still hit the green and make birdie. The effect of the blindness is only at its peak the first time or two you play the hole. Then as long as you know where the pin is it's just another golf shot.

I would consider a shot down the right side if it was the only way to have a shot at the green in two on a par-5. But simply to see the pin when I have a short iron in hand no matter where I am in the fairway, no way. With a perfect view of the cup and PW in hand from 130 yards, you're still not going to make birdie more than one out of three or four times if you are a scratch golfer. Even when blind, that same scratch golfer with the line and distance is still going to hit it in the green and make par or better the vast majority of the time. The further away you are from scratch, the more dangerous the drive to the right and worse the risk/reward ratio becomes.


Mark,

Thanks. If this wasn't a C&C course, I wonder how the discussion would be going. They're my favorite architects and I love their work (Trails is my favorite at Bandon, for instance) but I just can't help but believe that how the course is being looked at is being impacted too greatly by who designed it. It's a good course no doubt. But I'm not seeing whatever it is that has some people extolling it as one of the best courses to come along in years.

[Sam Morrow]

Never played Dormie but it seems like any hole or course that can get this much talk with such a wide range of opinions means that we have a great course and a great hole. Seems like Coore and Crenshaw did their job.

[Mark Saltzman]

Never played Dormie but it seems like any hole or course that can get this much talk with such a wide range of opinions means that we have a great course and a great hole. Seems like Coore and Crenshaw did their job.

Sam,

I think it's the clever and captivating title of the thread.

[Sam Morrow]

Never played Dormie but it seems like any hole or course that can get this much talk with such a wide range of opinions means that we have a great course and a great hole. Seems like Coore and Crenshaw did their job.

Sam,

I think it's the clever and captivating title of the thread.

That's why I made the comment earlier in the thread that I like your stuff, you bring these kinds of threads to the board.

[David Stewart]

On 14, even if you can't reach the green with a driver, the question off the tee is how close can I get and still be in the fairway. Therefore, club selection is still critical off the tee as you want to be up the left side but don't want to be in the woods. You want to be as close as possible to that green as it is quite small and falls off hard on the right and back-right.

Understood.  But, once you've made that determination and given that you can't reach the green, aren't you going to be hitting that less than driver club off the tee every single time you play the hole.  That was my only comment.  Not saying the hole is bad, just repetitive.

So if a person can't get to the green but could still get let's say 40 yards from the green with a drive, they would automatically hit a hybird or other shorter club that would leave them 100 yards or so? I disagree, I would still want to be as close as possible to that green even if I could only hit it 250. I don't think you automatically hit a shorter club just because you can't reach the green with driver.


I don't see the problem with 15. Risk/reward is good golf. It is your call on how much risk you want to take. If that was all water short and right of the fairway would we even be discussing this? I mean how is it any different than your standard cape hole. If you hit in the water, it is a reload. If you hit in the scrub it is a reload. If feel like if that was all water down the right side everyone would be praising the hole for its risk/reward options. It is much better to be long and on the right side of the fairway than on the left side behind the hill, especially if the pin is left.

Agreed risk/reward is good golf.  But, the reward must be sufficient to take on the risk, especially for the scorecard and pencil types, which is most golfers.   

The reason it's different than a standard cape is the blindness from the left / benefit for being on the right.  On a standard cape, the biggest advantage to cutting the corner is usually a shorter approach.  Here there is more than that ... a chance to see the pin and not be subject to the luck of landing on the hill short of the green.  My complaint is this hole could be great, much better than a standard cape because of these factors.  But, nobody takes on that shot.  It is just too difficult.  Too long a carry and too small a target to hit to.  The only people who hit there (other than a very select few of exceptional golfers) are there by luck.

Doesn't this make the risk even more worth it than a standard cape hole because you do gain so much more than just distance? You get a bigger reward than just a standard cape hole. I am about an 8 handicap and I took the shot on both times I played it. Once I made it, once I reloaded. I don't think the target is too small and I don't think too many people get there by luck.

[Mark Saltzman]

David,

I agree with everything you said.

I know how I think and how I play.  Based on what I saw I would always hit less than driver on 14 and not really challenge the left.  On 15 I would never challenge the right.

I just wanted to know if others thought the same way or if they saw the holes differently.  I can only vouch for the way I play golf.

I never said for sure that the risk/reward ratios were off, just that they were off for me.  Hence the "?" in the title of my thread.

I appreciate your viewpoint.

[David Stewart]

Mark,

Just some of the beauty of this game. So many different ways to approach it.

Good thread though. This has been interesting discussion.

[David_Madison]

Doesn't this make the risk even more worth it than a standard cape hole because you do gain so much more than just distance? You get a bigger reward than just a standard cape hole. I am about an 8 handicap and I took the shot on both times I played it. Once I made it, once I reloaded. I don't think the target is too small and I don't think too many people get there by luck.

This is probably a pretty typical result achieved by a decent player taking the risk option. Two over at least on two tries. Same player goes left or center, and an 8-handicapper is likely to make at least one par and not worse than bogey on the other play. I don't see how the risk/reward comes close to balancing out, let alone lie in favor of taking the risk.

[BCowan]

This is a really good thread, just played Dormie for the 2nd time a couple weeks ago.  I'm curious what others think after more plays since this thread was posted.  I think the cant of the fairways removes some of the strategy on 14.  I think better players can use the cant on 15.  I'm curious as to if a containment bunker was used to buffer the gunch if more would go for it.  Maybe it is just great how it is.  I really think 8 is the hole that is more out of place (the green). 

[Carl Rogers]

I have no real problem with 14, it's just too much like the Bandon Trails no. 14.


My beef with 15 is that the long walk around the wetland makes the player forces the player to lose touch with the hole.  One of the reasons why Dormie is a rough walk.  They could not afford a bridge or elevated crosswalk???


On past Dormie threads, Sean A & I have agreed that the par 5's (holes 6, 10 & 17) are the weak points.  However, the Confidential Guide make positive note of the hillside bunker below the 17th green.  The bunker is severely anti-run-up shot.


Why no mention of the tee shot at 18?  Wouldn't it be a lay up for a long hitter?

[BCowan]

I have no real problem with 14, it's just too much like the Bandon Trails no. 14.


My beef with 15 is that the long walk around the wetland makes the player forces the player to lose touch with the hole.  One of the reasons why Dormie is a rough walk.  They could not afford a bridge or elevated crosswalk???


On past Dormie threads, Sean A & I have agreed that the par 5's (holes 6, 10 & 17) are the weak points.  However, the Confidential Guide make positive note of the hillside bunker below the 17th green.  The bunker is severely anti-run-up shot.


Why no mention of the tee shot at 18?  Wouldn't it be a lay up for a long hitter?

Carl,

   I agree with the lack of crosswalk/bridge on 15.  I really disagree with you in regards to the Par 5's.   The 6th hole and the 17th holes are really good imo.  The 10th I'm indifferent about.  Why should a par 5 like 17 need a run up aspect?  The bunker is a true hazard and is to be avoided, there is room between it and the green. 

   

[Sean_A]

The comments on 14 are curious.  The hole strikes me as extremely strategic with the best place to be on the dangerous left side and tons of room right leaving nearly a progressively more difficult shot the further right one goes. While not a terribly exciting or attractive hole (visually it does look a bit weird), I don't understand why its an issue if some golfers choose the layup off the tee much of the time.  For me its certainly tempting to gain the distance advantage with the driver because it can potentially offer me the option of ground or air. 


15 is practically the exact opposite in that it is an extremely penal hole with the long carry. There is no question that for my game going right is not an option.  I have to aim for the bunkers which will not leave a good angle of approach and it will be blind.  That said, if one is confident with the yardage, middle of the green does the job nicely for a relatively simple two putt.  Missing anywhere but short is very troublesome. To me, this is an execution hole pure and simple.  Do what you are told and tickity boo.  Nothing wrong with that sort of hole once in a while.  Like others have said, the big issue which spoils the hole is the walk...and for me, this is the biggest issue with the course...a disjointed design which takes the golfer away from the field of play way too often. 


Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

A pretty good course in excellent condition with lots of very good holes. I just don't know that I'd want this set of 18 holes put together in the way they were on this one course.

The best summation of Dormie Club that I've seen yet.


14 is mediocre. There's a certain crowd that wants to proclaim every par 4 under 320 yards as a stroke of genius, but I don't see it here. Personally I'm with Mark - it's not a very interesting hole for me. Lay it up, pitch it on, move on with life. This nonsense about playing to the left and then hitting a 70 yard bump-and-run is the kind of thing architecture nerds like us do for kicks, but it's not a reasonable way to play the hole in any kind of competition (including a friendly wager) for someone better than a 25 handicap.


I don't think the issue with 15 lies in the severity of the angle at which the hazard crosses or the length of the carry. Instead, I think it's a simple issue of the playing corridor being too narrow. A good drive for me can make it to the first of the two twin bunkers. At that distance, the entire corridor is only about 30 yards wide. For bigger hitters who can get up to the second bunker, the corridor is about 20 yards wide. Anything missing the fairway is either lost or completely hosed. It looks like a strategic and interesting hole from the tee, but in reality it's target golf with highbrow aesthetics and the only place to hit a tee shot is the 40 yard wide oval of fairway between the scrape bunker on the far left of the hole and the first of the two twins. It has the look of a postmodern minimalist strategic marvel, but the playing qualities are straight out of an early '80s Nicklaus design.


That's not to say that either of the holes are bad, but they follow a stretch of very difficult and/or repetitive golf from 8-13, which is full of sloggy holes interrupted only by a pair of uphill par 3s. By the time you finish 13, you're ready for something different and excited for the scoring opportunities promised by 14 and 15. And while they're certainly easier than the holes that came before, the fact that they just aren't all that interesting is a disappointment.

[Matt Albanese]

Firstly, I was very impressed with Dormie Club as a whole. It was a really enjoyable round of golf. I played from the tips. On 14, I hit driver and ended up just right of the green. Hit a delicate little pitch to a couple of feet and made 3. I thought that it was an entertaining short par 4 with one bunker. If you can keep it short and/or left, that is clearly the preferred position. Pitches from the right side can be really tricky if you get too close to the green.


I thought that 15 was the weakest hole on the course. From the tee, I did not see any viable option other than a long iron lay-up short and left of the bunkers. From there, it was an awkward approach shot to an interesting green site. However, the right side seemed extremely penal and the hole seemed very out of character with the rest of the course. The corridor is simply too narrow. I did not see many strategic choices. Two demanding shots in a row must be executed or else. My sour opinion of 15 was tempered by my enjoyment of 17 which I found to be a nice hole.

[Josh Tarble]

A pretty good course in excellent condition with lots of very good holes. I just don't know that I'd want this set of 18 holes put together in the way they were on this one course.

The best summation of Dormie Club that I've seen yet.

These are interesting comments to me.  I have kind of felt the same way on the last two C&C courses I've played.  Both Streamsong Red and Cuscowilla are both excellent courses, I enjoyed them, but there is something about them that makes me not enjoy them as much as I should. 

I think the sequencing of holes has a large part to do with that.  The individual holes themselves are great, but a little something is "off" with the courses as a whole. 

[BCowan]

Kyle,

In a stroke play event, there's just no logic in taking the risk for such a minimal, nebulous reward. In match play, no way would I ever risk the instant loss of a hole for such a small gain. You can hit it safely anywhere from left edge to the middle of the fairway and still more often than not have a good shot at par. You can still hit the green and make birdie. The effect of the blindness is only at its peak the first time or two you play the hole. Then as long as you know where the pin is it's just another golf shot.

I would consider a shot down the right side if it was the only way to have a shot at the green in two on a par-5. But simply to see the pin when I have a short iron in hand no matter where I am in the fairway, no way. With a perfect view of the cup and PW in hand from 130 yards, you're still not going to make birdie more than one out of three or four times if you are a scratch golfer. Even when blind, that same scratch golfer with the line and distance is still going to hit it in the green and make par or better the vast majority of the time. The further away you are from scratch, the more dangerous the drive to the right and worse the risk/reward ratio becomes.


Mark,

Thanks. If this wasn't a C&C course, I wonder how the discussion would be going. They're my favorite architects and I love their work (Trails is my favorite at Bandon, for instance) but I just can't help but believe that how the course is being looked at is being impacted too greatly by who designed it. It's a good course no doubt. But I'm not seeing whatever it is that has some people extolling it as one of the best courses to come along in years.

David,

    I see what you are saying as it relates to GCA.com.  However I disagree slightly with you.  I feel the reason why Dormie is considered as best course to come along in year (which I agree), is I believe most people love it for the land is so good.  It really has great change of elevation and natural features galore.  I just don't think much great stuff has come along in years and I'm not a retail golfer.  I can justify playing Dormie in November and $69 is a very fair fee.  What are some of the best courses to come along in years that one can play for $150 or less?

[Jason Thurman]

If you're going to count shoulder-season rates, then it certainly doesn't compete with the courses at Bandon. A short list of public courses built since 1995 that I would play before I would go back to Dormie Club and can be played for under $150:


The Prairie Club (both courses)
Wild Horse
The Harvester
Rustic Canyon
Arcadia Bluffs
The Trophy Club
Colbert Hills
The Kampen Course


Some of these are architecturally significant to GCA hipsters, and some are just good fun golf courses that I get a kick out of, but I'd be more excited to be standing on the first tee at any of them than Dormie Club. It has most of the ingredients of an excellent course, a beautiful property, and a handful of great holes, but the truth is I just don't enjoy playing it all that much and I'd rather play 6 or 7 courses in the area over it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()