[Don_Mahaffey]

Tiger,
How do you feel about so many of the courses that debut well, earning best new this or that, ranked early on, only to disappear later?
Do you have the same concerns for the courses that start with a bang and then go away, as you do for one that was panned early on only to develop a following later?

Doesn't history show that often times, be it good or bad, courses are misjudged while in their infancy? Everyone keeps saying things about this resurgence (and spreading innuendo) but isn't it possible that DR was just hard to accept at first because it was so different then Sand Hills?

I'm left with something Ron W from Golf Digest wrote when he was remembering quotes form Geoff Cornish.
I don't know the exact quote, but Geoff said something like this..."almost every great hole was controversial early on".

[John Kavanaugh]

Critics looked for minimalism and found naturalism. It blew their minds. Their loss. Nicklaus invented a new genre at Dismal which is why I claim it was just too far ahead of its time. We are catching up post by post.

[Sven Nilsen]

Critics looked for minimalism and found naturalism. It blew their minds. Their loss. Nicklaus invented a new genre at Dismal which is why I claim it was just too far ahead of its time. We are catching up post by post.

Could you expound a bit more on the differences between minimalism and naturalism?

I don't believe this was one of my questions in the email, so it should be fair game.

[John Kavanaugh]

Critics looked for minimalism and found naturalism. It blew their minds. Their loss. Nicklaus invented a new genre at Dismal which is why I claim it was just too far ahead of its time. We are catching up post by post.

Could you expound a bit more on the differences between minimalism and naturalism?

I don't believe this was one of my questions in the email, so it should be fair game.

Doak has explained mistaken minimalism many times before. I don't have time to do a search currently. I will start a thread on it next week.

[Sven Nilsen]

Chris:

Sounds like 4 and 18 present some strategic options.  

I'd love to see a separate thread that went through every hole and examined the penal, strategic, heroic and other design aspects of each, with hole diagrams and pictures.  In my mind, this would greatly help in accepting the "its just fun" analysis that has permeated Dismal discussions in the past.  I've read through Eric's 2010 photo thread, but without the hole by hole focus a bit of the analysis gets lost in the process.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position now where I foresee traveling to Mullen (or any other remote golf location) for quite some time.  If those that do get the chance to visit would humor those of us that cannot with their patience and input, I'm sure we'd greatly appreciate a detailed look into the merits of the course.

Sven

[Kalen Braley]

Sven,

The basic jist of the difference between naturalism and minimalism is:  (And I know this is a gross generalization but as I understand it):

Minimalism actually means you moved very little dirt in making a course, whereas naturalism means it only looks like you moved very little dirt.

P.S  In about 4 months you're going to have more commentary/pictures/opinions on DR than you can shake a stick at.   

[John Kavanaugh]

Sven,

The basic jist of the difference between naturalism and minimalism is:  (And I know this is a gross generalization but as I understand it):

Minimalism actually means you moved very little dirt in making a course, whereas naturalism means it only looks like you moved very little dirt.

P.S  In about 4 months you're going to have more commentary/pictures/opinions on DR than you can shake a stick at.   

You have it bass ackwards

[JESII]

Not according to Doak from a year or two ago...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Don that is also an interesting discussion. It is one that we find fairly often. There are different reasons. One is that it was over hyped to begin with. 2. another is they club did a great job of promoting it to the media as well as hiding its negatives. 3 The maintenance team or ownership or both lost the initial vision and let the course go in a different direction which effect ed change in the character of the course. There are others but i will leave that to professionals like you who see these things from the inside. Don I am not going to comment on DR anymore other than to say I do not agree it was because it was different than Sand Hills. Ballyneal  is different than Sand Hills yet it is generally considered a great course. I do not think it was just because it was a Jack course either. Jack has many highly regarded courses. The knock on jack is his percentage of great courses is low as compared to the number of courses built and the high quality of sites he had to work with.  However I am not able to really point to why in the DR case. I can only say what I was told by others I respect. And that will not serve this site well. So no reason to go there.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tiger,
 to each his own, I respect your beliefs.
My only question, if that's always been your reasoning, why the false interest in DR?

I do hope you get well soon. I enjoyed our day at Barona and it was far too long ago.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Don thanks I actually do have genuine interest in DR. I would not have asked so many questions or put such a high value on the opportunity this topic offers. My initial feelings about DR were not based as much in fact as reputation. So I was looking forward to the opportunity to learn. I do hope our paths cross soon as well. cheers

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

I believe this is Tom's quote in reference to his work on the Rawls Course:

"So, I wouldn't label it minimalism ... I would call that naturalist, in the sense that we tried to make it look real even though it isn't."

Here is Kyle Phillips' take:

“Naturalism uses existing natural landforms, but also – where the landforms might be devoid of character – allows for a natural looking shaping to be created, and then the holes to be overlaid this new, but natural looking and feeling landscape,” he explains. “The end result still looks and plays like what naturally was there, but we were able to make it more interesting – and most importantly strategic – than what was previously there.”

John:

I'm guessing that is not what you meant.

[Sean_A]

Critics looked for minimalism and found naturalism. It blew their minds. Their loss. Nicklaus invented a new genre at Dismal which is why I claim it was just too far ahead of its time. We are catching up post by post.

Jeepers JakaB - get on a plane and go to the UK.  A simple trip like this would prevent you from making such silly pronouncements.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

How do you feel about so many of the courses that debut well, earning best new this or that, ranked early on, only to disappear later?
Do you have the same concerns for the courses that start with a bang and then go away, as you do for one that was panned early on only to develop a following later?

Don,

This is an excellent point and one of my biggest pet peeves.  I'd much prefer a course that gains traction over time to the flash in the pan.  I'd love to see the statistics on percentage of courses in Golfweek's Modern list that have a higher ranking 5 years later than when they debuted vs. those that came out of the gate in the top 100 only to drift off the list completely over the years.

[Richard Choi]

Jud, that is a natural by-product of not enough people playing the course when it first debuts. You know well as I do (we just had this discussion not long ago), when you have fewer samples, you are more likely to have wider deviation from standard mean.

The only thing that will solve that problem is to require higher number of ratings before a course can debut. Whether or not that is desirable, I dont know as I like knowing about the new courses within a year.

[Jud_T]

Richard,

Agreed.  However the distribution of these variations seems skewed dramatically in favor of overrating new courses rather than underrating.  This is not explained by sample size...

[Jim Colton]

Jud,

  I agree with you. Well hyped courses tend to start off high and settle in over time. Old Macdonald's rank stayed the same, but its points have come down significantly relative to last year. It's probably because those that played it in 2010 probably specifically seeked it out, and I'd bet have a higher propensity to enjoy it. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd bet Whistling Straits and Bandon Dunes are two other examples. On the flip side, Friars Head seems like a course that will drift up and thrive over the test of time.

[Anthony Gray]

  I still haven't heard how the new owners have changed ththe club which is part of the original question. Why is it more successful now as opposed to the begining?

  Anthony

[Mac Plumart]

In all seriousness, I think Adam Clayman's input on this thread has been fantastic and provides many of the answers Jim was seeking.

Thanks Adam!

[Richard Choi]

Jud, I fully expect the variation to be favorable since people who are most excited about the new course are the ones most likely to make plans to visit the new course early.

The opposite case for Dismal makes sense since people who were excited to visit it when it first opened were looking for something just like Sand Hills and were disappointed when it was not. The same fact probably did not affect Ballyneal since it was Doak and people were setting their expectations closer to Pacific Dune and not Sand Hills.

[Anthony Gray]

In all seriousness, I think Adam Clayman's input on this thread has been fantastic and provides many of the answers Jim was seeking.

Thanks Adam!

  ?

[Tom_Doak]

Jud, I fully expect the variation to be favorable since people who are most excited about the new course are the ones most likely to make plans to visit the new course early.

The opposite case for Dismal makes sense since people who were excited to visit it when it first opened were looking for something just like Sand Hills and were disappointed when it was not. The same fact probably did not affect Ballyneal since it was Doak and people were setting their expectations closer to Pacific Dune and not Sand Hills.

Richard:

Ballyneal was not highly rated when it opened, either.  Made #6 on the GOLF DIGEST list of best private courses that year.  Now ranked above all of the ones that finished above it.

[Terry Lavin]

In all seriousness, I joined Dismal River sight unseen, based on information I gleaned from this site, principally the fact that Tom Doak is building a second course that looks like it might be sensational.  All of these threads, however, are making me consider remaining in the "sight unseen" category.  It's a real turn-off.

[Richard Choi]

Tom, that was mostly due to conditioning issues, no? By 2008, Ballyneal was #13 on Golfweek modern, so that situation was pretty quickly rectified.

[John Kavanaugh]

In all seriousness, I joined Dismal River sight unseen, based on information I gleaned from this site, principally the fact that Tom Doak is building a second course that looks like it might be sensational.  All of these threads, however, are making me consider remaining in the "sight unseen" category.  It's a real turn-off.

I agree 100%. I hope no one starts the hole by hole strategic review those who just want to learn have requested. This will be my last post about Dismal until Easter.  Being the most talked about course on the planet may not be all it seems.

All I ask is that those who have never been there is to not bait me until noon on Good Friday. That will give me three days to formulate a response.

I have always thought giving something up for lent was Dismal.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()