News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #75 on: March 12, 2012, 05:21:34 PM »
Please Chris, Please go point by point the changes at DR Jack that take it from being an average course in a great area to a very good to great corse in a great area. Mountain Lake is a fun course with great architecture. It is the most fun I ever have playing golf to the extent the course itself provides the pleasure. If you or others did things to make it mor efun that is worthy of note too. Please give us the case study.

Tiger, I already have, a million times on this site.  Since I am sick today a feeling sorry for myself, I will do so again.

Here is I think occurred:

Dismal was built a number of years ago.  4-5 really good guys from Colorado hired another fellow to be the project manager.  I think the cost matrix got out of control quickly, and the project manager reportedly alienated most who he came across.  At the same time, Dismal has a very elitist or snooty attitude and that didn't come from the Colorado guys - they are fun and just love golf but weren't hands on.   2-3 superintendents, very good guys.  Caddies from Scotland, and Jamaican kitchen staff were also part of the fun back then.  Hole 6 was shortened early on, by Jack.  It's now a hoot.

Next, 911 happened and the 2008 market crash occurred.  Golf seized up.  Don't underestimate the impact of this here, or anywhere.

The Colorado guys sold the club to 4 Founders, also great guys, who stepped in to complete the club improvements at great personal cost.  They contracted a third party manager.  10 greens were softened and hole 13 was changed. The greens were redone to match to green speeds, not a routing flaw.   3-4 more superintendents in two years.  

We bought it and took it in a different and simple direction.  We simplified and focussed on what made Sand Hills great.  The experience.  I was very surprised that the routing, while edgy and controversial, was splendid reflecting "Jack unplugged", to quote a good friend.  The challenges were obvious, and I buy and turn things around for a living.  We didn't buy the airplane - not what we do. We also discoverd that we were intentionally irrigating the rough.  The irrigation was ruining a wonderful routing and, to me, that is a sin.  Once we stopped providing that which encouraged the rough to grow, the routing "opened up" and penal became playable and real fun.  Ground game abounds and there are no bad holes.  Edgy?  Heck yes.  Bad? Nope.  The routing is epic and fair.  If Tom Doak "perfected what is a routing" at Ballyneal, maybe Jack "reinvented what is a routing" at Dismal.  That's why both courses are cool, and different.  That's why we don't mind looking at changing things.  

We also had to put "soul" into the club.  It was institutional and, if you asked any member or staff, no one could tell you what we were.  Ponder that a moment.  Even McDonalds has a soul.  Ours is simple and I wrote this early on  "We will know we are making progress when our members come out to play often, when their friends beg them to be included, and when a few may make the choice to join us".

At the end of our first year, we worked with Jack to move the 18th green, forward approximately 80 yards into a natural greensite.  Depending on the tees and wind, 18 can be a short but uphill and into the wind par 5, or a 420ish yard uphill Par 4.  Jack preferred the par 5 but I encourage people to play it both ways for variety.  Either way, it really is a cool hole...one of the most beautiful holes I have ever seen...anywhere.

As posted a few weeks ago, we have few rules.  If we need alot, we have the wrong clientele.  We are 100% about fun and that has served us well in this very difficult and capital starved environment.  We don't take ourselves too seriously and really do like golf in all forms.  We don't even have tee times, yet.

My biggest challenge is not to be an asshole.  As found in the early years here, assholes kill good clubs.  So does turnover.  Remember, we are far away from family during the season, so when member friends come out, that is real fun for us.  They are like part of the family.

At the 5th Major, we will have a look at 13 again to see if people like what I think I want to see finally done, and that includes moving the green again.  John, Eric, and Mac will have a big say here as well, and I hope Brad Klein comes out to weigh in here too.  I bet Kavanaugh is beet red right now!

Forgot Jim's other question.  Jack laid out two course and a par three course, all of which have water piped to those sites.  The stakes can still be found.  Tom Watson and Tiger have stakes out there too.  In the end, I couldn't think of a better person than Tom Doak to do the next routing.  Tom always wanted to do a course in the Sandhills and his routing is unbelievable.  Dare I say both Doakish and edgy?  Bentgrass greens too!  Buckle up!

I wish I could say there is a magic formula but there isn't.  In any business, success isn't guaranteed.  It's hard, tiring, and emotional work.  It is by no means easy.  Fun and friendly seems to work.  Stodgy and pretentious doesn't.  So far, so good.

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2012, 05:24:22 PM »
Jim,

I can't contribute much to the discussion as framed because I only joined Dismal last year, meaning the golf course I've played 10X now is the course you'd play when or if you ever go out. Well, except for 18 green. I do hope you find the time one of these days to play it. No one but you can say whether or not you'd like the golf course, though I think your opportunity cost argument for not going is understandable. To this day it remains an unranked golf course.

I do have sort of a crazy idea: what are you doing June 29-30? Why don't you come out to Dismal and be my partner in the 5th Major? You couldn't ask for a better way to get to know the course than playing 7-8 nine hole matches over it. Not to mention hanging out with 50 or so GCAers. Can't be the worst idea ever. Can it?


John,

Sven and Scott are right, that one post is awful. The other one - gold.



Tiger,

I am a man same as you, though you and I have had very different first experiences at Dismal. You admittedly drove up and saw two holes from the snack bar and left for Wild Horse. The first time I went it transformed me. I was far from a member at the time, only a guest of one. I played the other heavyweights on that trip and loved them. I can't explain how much it pulled at me when I got home but when my friend Mac told me last winter that he had joined I paused, thought about it for a couple of days, talked it over with my wife and then and there decided to take the plunge.  Fantastic decision. Now I am a homer. Much better now though.


Scott,

I don't get it. How can it truly be one of the Top 100 Moderns if it isn't on the Top 100 Modern list?


All,

I'm a reasonable man and am all for everyone having an opinion. It's the room full of ghosts who went from Sand Hills to Dismal 4,5,6 years ago and decided for everyone else (apparently) that visiting Dismal isn't worth the effort that has created the illusion that there isn't ANY thing to love about Dismal. Obviously, to a large extent, the magazine rankings matter to a lot of people. Other things matter too. And I'm not talking about better beef. The architecture is on the extreme end of the spectrum. It is BIG golf. Shot for shot it is no less fun the course next door. I've played 3 rounds over there so I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. If David Moriarty won't be calling me for architecture advice, so what? Hopefully we aren't battling now David because you WILL win. :)


201

No one I know out there cares a flip where the various panels have the course ranked and no one I have met so far has ever told me that they didn't like the course. If anyone cared to read the comments from those who went out there last year they wouldn't find an assortment of nice comments. What they would find is a chorus of high praise by a lot of well traveled GCAers. Again, as I've told others recently, I get about as much satisfaction from their agreeing with me as I do from Jason Jones playing in my foursome. It's great at the time, but it isn't fulfilling by any stretch. ;D  What is fulfilling is being there. Raters and visitors will only ever get a slice of that. I on the other hand get what I am paying for and that is all I can ever ask of Chris, Greg, Jagger and all of the wonderful staff who make me and my guests feel so comfortable when there.


Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #77 on: March 12, 2012, 05:34:30 PM »
You guys don't get it. The architecture was always great. The critics were wrong.  Proving them so has been one of the great joys in my life.

John,

Your statement that the architecture was always great seems to be the crucial divergence in stances on this thread and raises a few questions:

1.  Was the architecture great when the course was built?

2.  How extensive were the changes that were made since the initial design was implemented?

3.   In what ways is the current iteration different from what existed before?

Taking everything out of the equation other than the architectural merits of the course, is Dismal 2.0 a different place than Dismal 1.0?

The answer to question 1 is purely subjective, and I've read opinions on both sides of the fence on this.

The answers to 2 and 3 are based in fact.  If there indeed were extensive changes and if Dismal 2.0 has significant differences from Dismal 1.0, are you not then asking the critics to refine an opine based on the changes that were made, rather than proving them wrong?

  

"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #78 on: March 12, 2012, 05:43:28 PM »
There is no Dismal 2.0.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #79 on: March 12, 2012, 05:45:05 PM »
So you're saying its the exact same course as what was there when it opened?
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #80 on: March 12, 2012, 05:49:31 PM »
Eric,

I was unsure whether it was on this time. I don't follow the GW lists closely.

Chris,

Good post - it appears you are saying Jack himself routed the golf course at DR. Is that right?

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #81 on: March 12, 2012, 05:53:04 PM »
So you're saying its the exact same course as what was there when it opened?

As much as any Dead Old Guy course. Tweaks do not earn decimals.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #82 on: March 12, 2012, 05:57:42 PM »
Darn you all!!!!

I didn't want to post on this thread as I'm tired of internet food fights on Dismal and Ballyneal, but I have to.... >:(  (As an aside, is this how the Merion threads felt or were they worse?)

Dismal 2.0, Dismal 1.0, tweaks, re-do's, bad, now good...whatever...and frankly, I don't know.

I played it first in 2010 as a guest of John Kavanaugh.  I really like it...in fact, I fell in love with it.  However in 2011, I did think it was better and I couldn't really put my finger on why.  Then I heard about the calibration of the irrigation system.  And as I paid attention the rough was less thick.  I also heard, maybe I'm wrong on this, the mowing of the rough was somehow changed.  And the fairways seemed to be ideal for striking the ball and bounding that ball off of.  And the greens were perfect.  I mean perfect.  But I am not sure if they were perfect in 2010 or not...memory is cloudy.

But I do think they got the maintenance meld right.  I mean they nailed it.  Perhaps that made a difference.  I don't know for sure what the total changes for 2010 to 2011 were but they were real and they made a difference...more relaxing...less frustrating...more playable.

Oh yeah, they changed 18...I liked it before...but even as a fan of the old 18, I like the new one better.  And I begrudingly admitted that to Chris in an email after one of my trips out there.

On 13, I like the old (current green) a great deal.  In fact, I love the hole.  There are three ways to play it off the tee, I like going to the lower fairway now...it gives me a better angle into the green.  But sometimes my group plays to the new green down below for giggles.  No pin there usually, but oh well...it is fun.

I think some hole are polarizing.  10 with the bunker in the middle.  I LOVE it and all my guests seem to get a thrill when they play it.  Would I want to play it everyday as if it were my home course?  Probably not.  Too quirky.  But for my national club, Yep!  It is a cool change of pace with some excitement.  Pretty much the same can be said about 5 and 6.  Quirky and fun.  Ideal for my taste and for my national club.

3 is totall kick ass par 3.  John Lyon calls it a "short" hole.  He is right.  Big, contoured, funky green.  Crazy bunkers.  Awesome.  Don't be in the one back left.   :'(

7 and 12 are world class.  The par 3 15th with its massive bunkers and kick plate off to the right...cool!

I'll spare you the hole by hole...but for me, I think getting the maintenance meld right made a big difference in the course.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 06:01:20 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jim Colton

Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #83 on: March 12, 2012, 06:02:49 PM »
Great posts, CJ & Eric. Exactly what I was hoping for in my sudden and disingenuous interest on this topic.

Eric, sadly I can't make those dates work. I'm glad to see friends like Brandon & Matt B sign up though. I appreciate the invite.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #84 on: March 12, 2012, 06:05:00 PM »
How does one go about getting a straight answer out of you?

I'll answer it for you, changes were made and in places they were extensive.

Greens were reshaped to soften contours, fairways were widened and apparently entirely abandoned in places, tees were moved, greens were relocated and irrigation patterns were altered to help temper the severity of the native areas.  Stop me if I'm wrong on any of these points.

Does it shock you that the critics may have panned a flawed course but changed their mind when improvements were made?

"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Anthony Gray

Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #85 on: March 12, 2012, 06:06:35 PM »


  After reading the four pages of this thread one thing that Dismal has going for it is that it's open.

  Anthony


JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #86 on: March 12, 2012, 06:14:44 PM »
Great posts, CJ & Eric. Exactly what I was hoping for in my sudden and disingenuous interest on this topic.

Eric, sadly I can't make those dates work. I'm glad to see friends like Brandon & Matt B sign up though. I appreciate the invite.

Jim,

I changed my post because I was wrong in the way I said what I said.  I do think that you could have visited the course last year and given your posts on your blog I have a difficult time believing time/money were constraints on doing so.  I am generally skeptical of posts questioning the success or appeal of courses from people who haven't played the course.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #87 on: March 12, 2012, 06:19:17 PM »
As one who works in the biz of releases and such....

It sounds like the current Dismal is more 1.0 --> 1.1 as opposed to 1.0 --> 2.0. Anytime something moves from a 1 to 2, it suggests major changes were made and major differences are in place.  Tweaking a few greens and bunkers and changing the maintainence meld for fast and firm and less rough, doesn't sound like major changes to me.  If a few holes had been completely re-routed that would seem to be "major".

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #88 on: March 12, 2012, 06:33:12 PM »
Eric,

I was unsure whether it was on this time. I don't follow the GW lists closely.

Chris,

Good post - it appears you are saying Jack himself routed the golf course at DR. Is that right?

Scott I don't understand your question about Jack.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2012, 06:36:26 PM »
Chris,

Did Jack Nicklaus personally route the golf course?

Jim Colton

Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #90 on: March 12, 2012, 06:52:02 PM »
Great posts, CJ & Eric. Exactly what I was hoping for in my sudden and disingenuous interest on this topic.

Eric, sadly I can't make those dates work. I'm glad to see friends like Brandon & Matt B sign up though. I appreciate the invite.

Jim,

I changed my post because I was wrong in the way I said what I said.  I do think that you could have visited the course last year and given your posts on your blog I have a difficult time believing time/money were constraints on doing so.  I am generally skeptical of posts questioning the success or appeal of courses from people who haven't played the course.

That's fine. Continue to view it w/ skepticism and I'll continue trying to insult your intelligence.

I had the opportunity to visit DR last year and it boiled down to driving out to BN and hitting up DR on the way out (as much as these things are on the way to anything), or just fly to Denver. The original option lost out because flying led to more rounds in the less time with little incremental cost. It did cost Jefe a kidney stone though.

Brandon Urban

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #91 on: March 12, 2012, 06:53:35 PM »
Brandon,

Nice to see you posting.  As your attorney, I advise you to change your last name to "Dunes" and you'll be our new hero!

Terry,

The thought has crossed my mind. I have never been to Bandon but I have a postcard from the resort on a bulletin board in my office to constantly remind me of what I'm missing. My seven year old daughter, who must not have read it too closely when she first saw it, thinks it is so awesome that they named a course after me!
181 holes at Ballyneal on June, 19th, 2017. What a day and why I love golf - http://www.hundredholehike.com/blogs/181-little-help-my-friends

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #92 on: March 12, 2012, 07:02:52 PM »
Chris,

Did Jack Nicklaus personally route the golf course?

I wasn't here at the time so I can't help with the question.  I do know that Jack spent a fair amount of time on site, and at home working on elevations.  And, I've seen his field notes.

Two seasons ago, during the first one of Jack's several visits, at the firepit late the first night right after we arrived from North Platte, Jack described the course and shot values in great detail from memory in response to two hpurs of questions.  He was right on the mark and that was the night he arrived so he hadn't seen the course before on that visit.  He was alone with no other design guys.   After that, I was convinced he knew the course far better than I did.

Based upon that night, if I had to guess, I have no doubt he did indeed do the routing.  He knows every detail.

Later that season, when we discussed the idea of changing to 18 on the phone, he knew things about 18 in very great detail, including a drain pipe that was supposed to be there but had been buried for years.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #93 on: March 12, 2012, 07:10:13 PM »
As one who works in the biz of releases and such....

It sounds like the current Dismal is more 1.0 --> 1.1 as opposed to 1.0 --> 2.0. Anytime something moves from a 1 to 2, it suggests major changes were made and major differences are in place.  Tweaking a few greens and bunkers and changing the maintainence meld for fast and firm and less rough, doesn't sound like major changes to me.  If a few holes had been completely re-routed that would seem to be "major".

Kalen:

Good point.  My guess from reading back through Adam's links is that we're looking at something along the lines of 1.4 at this point.  It raises the question, however, at what point in a series of tweaks the cumulative changes give rise to making the jump to the 2.0 level.

Dismal is certainly no Augusta at this point, but my read on the changes made (and Macs comments on the one-year noticeable differences in the design meld) suggest that the course that will be open for play this summer is not the same course that was in place back when the place opened.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #94 on: March 12, 2012, 07:13:30 PM »
Grant,

Likewise having not been there, but having read about the place, and sitting about as far away geographically as you are, this seems a fair read:

Quote
What I can gather from my limited following is that Nicklaus designed a course that got heavily bagged on here by many yet with a few changes it suddenly became highly regarded.

My questions would be, re: the above:

1. How comprehensive have the changes been?

2. Regardless of the quality of the course as it stands today, does the requirement for significant change so soon after it debuted have a hangover effect on some people's perspective?

3. How highly regarded is it, aside from the obvious joy it brings the likes of Eric, Mac, John Lyon etc.? It wasn't on the new Golfweek list (if I'm not mistaken), is it truly not one of the best 100 modern courses in the USA?

Definitely some legitimate questions here, and I'll take a stab:

1) I think that has been described in the thread thusfar.  One slightly misleading discussion is the change to the 13th green.  Jim Colton outlines part of the change that has taken place on that hole.  However, the long, narrow green short and right is not the original green from my understanding.  The original green was well behind that one, very close to the current 14th tee.  The new green, long and left, is the third green built on the hole.  Personally, I really like the current 13th green (the long, narrow one), and the newest green does not look as appealing.  The current 13th green is a brilliant greensite and proportional to the length of the hole.  The biggest positive about building the newest green is the clearing out of more fairway to the left.  This leaves a huge bailout area to the left, albeit one that leaves a tougher angle into the green.

2) I'm sure it does, but how many classic courses were changed (and improved) after being built originally?  Tons.  Think about all of the courses we played in Britain, Scott--most of them were drastically altered for the better over the years.  In this country, a high profile modern course that has been greatly altered is The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island.  As far as I can tell, that was a very similar type of evolution: a course that was very raw and severe when first built, but one that has been tweaked over the years.  Both Dismal River and the Ocean Course are now grand courses that are very much at one with their surrounds.  Success!

3) I don't know, Scott, how highly regarded are your favorite golf courses?  How much of any ranking is bullshit?  Is the European Club one of the top 20 courses in GB&I just because it is ranked as such?  Dismal River is clearly a polarizing golf course.  Brad Klein wrote that it was Nicklaus' version of Tobacco Road.  I think that makes sense: TR doesn't get ranked highly, but it's beloved by many.  Hell, even Klein hated a few holes on the course (like the 5th, which I think is a frickin' cool par three, and I know others feel the same way).  I'll say this: I like Dismal River better than a couple very highly regarded courses that are inside the top 50 Modern.  Is it Top 100 Modern?  I have no clue: I just haven't played enough courses to make that judgment.  But from the highly ranked courses I have played, Dismal rates pretty favorably.

And yes, Mac, 3 is a total kick ass par three!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 07:16:48 PM by JNC Lyon »
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #95 on: March 12, 2012, 07:18:17 PM »
As one who works in the biz of releases and such....

It sounds like the current Dismal is more 1.0 --> 1.1 as opposed to 1.0 --> 2.0. Anytime something moves from a 1 to 2, it suggests major changes were made and major differences are in place.  Tweaking a few greens and bunkers and changing the maintainence meld for fast and firm and less rough, doesn't sound like major changes to me.  If a few holes had been completely re-routed that would seem to be "major".

Kalen:

Good point.  My guess from reading back through Adam's links is that we're looking at something along the lines of 1.4 at this point.  It raises the question, however, at what point in a series of tweaks the cumulative changes give rise to making the jump to the 2.0 level.

Dismal is certainly no Augusta at this point, but my read on the changes made (and Macs comments on the one-year noticeable differences in the design meld) suggest that the course that will be open for play this summer is not the same course that was in place back when the place opened.

Sven - does it matter to you what iteration it is? Or is it important that its just fun? What point am I missing?

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #96 on: March 12, 2012, 07:45:00 PM »
Chris,

Thanks for clarifying re: being unsure who routed the course at DR.

It was these comments from that post up top that led me to think you were saying Jack Nicklaus had personally done the routing.

Quote
If Tom Doak "perfected what is a routing" at Ballyneal, maybe Jack "reinvented what is a routing" at Dismal.

Quote
I was very surprised that the routing, while edgy and controversial, was splendid reflecting "Jack unplugged"

Quote
Jack laid out two course and a par three course

Of course what matters most is what's on the ground, but owing to past discussions in which it has been asked but never (to the best of my knowledge) answered whether Jack Nicklaus has ever personally routing one of his design firm's golf courses, I thought your comments may have meant we had our first confirmed case.


John L,

A lot of what you say is true, especially to changes made to ODG golf courses in GB&I. My curiosity here is largely driven by how perception affects a course's standing, much the same as the early ratings Ballyneal received (as referenced by Jim in the sister thread).

That too was behind my asking "are there really 100 modern courses in the US better than DR?". Ratings are ratings, but we all talk to friends who visit courses and hear what they say, which I did with both you and Whitty re: DR. That counts for much because you know who you share tastes with and who you don't. I find the entire thing interesting and kinda curious.

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #97 on: March 12, 2012, 07:45:38 PM »
I wish I was a member at Dismal, never mind how good the course actually is. But to have a manager who actually speaks openly and honestly about what's going through his mind when running things today and planning for tomorrow - that is pure gold.

I'm a member of a club that has many things going for it, but for all I know could be run by Scientology. They are doing a lot of the right things, but there is zero communication and zero member involvement. It feels ice cold. When I am talking to people working at the club, they are often saying that "I can't talk about that" or "They're not telling us about these things". Mind you, all I was asking are questions such as when will it be possible to book tee times over the Internet or is there a routing plan for the new holes I could look at or will there be food in the clubhouse next month.

Getting members and employees involved does not mean letting them run the show or doing everything they ask you to do. What it means is gathering input from all sides and coming up with a plan, where everyone finds a little bit of himself in it. There are always areas where it doesn't really hurt to give in to someone else and make him feel an important part of the process.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #98 on: March 12, 2012, 07:57:27 PM »
I wish I was a member at Dismal, never mind how good the course actually is. But to have a manager who actually speaks openly and honestly about what's going through his mind when running things today and planning for tomorrow - that is pure gold.

I'm a member of a club that has many things going for it, but for all I know could be run by Scientology. They are doing a lot of the right things, but there is zero communication and zero member involvement. It feels ice cold. When I am talking to people working at the club, they are often saying that "I can't talk about that" or "They're not telling us about these things". Mind you, all I was asking are questions such as when will it be possible to book tee times over the Internet or is there a routing plan for the new holes I could look at or will there be food in the clubhouse next month.

Getting members and employees involved does not mean letting them run the show or doing everything they ask you to do. What it means is gathering input from all sides and coming up with a plan, where everyone finds a little bit of himself in it. There are always areas where it doesn't really hurt to give in to someone else and make him feel an important part of the process.

Ulrich

Ulrich

That is very well said.  All of our staff are free to make decisions based upon the circumstances at hand.  If it requires an ambulance, any kind of harassment, or a challenge to the guest experience, I need want to know about it.  Staff alignment is gold, uncertainly is a killer.

I agree with you, I too, wish you were a member at Dismal.  You would fit right in.

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #99 on: March 12, 2012, 07:59:59 PM »
Thank you Chris. I have a better feel for what you are saying. cheers and good luck