THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[Sven Nilsen]

Chris:

If you're going to break your own rule and respond to rating and porkchop questions, please stick around to talk about the architecture.

Is the contemplated change at 10 just about the maintenance?  As someone who hasn't seen the course, this hole remains the biggest mystery to me.  

Sven

[Mark Bourgeois]

Why do no courses in this genre seem to have any shade?

[Chris Johnston]

Literally everyone involved (including quite a few members that were assessed for the course) with building Dismal River Red save the superintendent and irrigation sub-contractor are members of this website. THAT'S the definitive statement about Dismal Red that almost no other golf course can claim. And unfortunately, it has come with a lot of attachments, baggage, and emotion.

I would estimate that less than 5% of the members of Dismal are members of this website.

Less than that, actually.

[Ben Sims]

Literally everyone involved (including quite a few members that were assessed for the course) with building Dismal River Red save the superintendent and irrigation sub-contractor are members of this website. THAT'S the definitive statement about Dismal Red that almost no other golf course can claim. And unfortunately, it has come with a lot of attachments, baggage, and emotion.

I would estimate that less than 5% of the members of Dismal are members of this website.

Less than that, actually.

So a handful of members and almost everyone that had anything to do with putting the course in the ground.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hard to believe that 7 or 8 of us plus the revenue from the 5th Major doesn't finance a 36 hole operation for a year. I better stop before I stifle more frank and honest commentary. I am sorry that Ben finds it "unfortunate" that the people who hired and financed his summer experiment all are members of this site.

[Tom_Doak]

So a handful of members and almost everyone that had anything to do with putting the course in the ground.

Ben:

A lot of the young guys on the crew do post here, in addition to Don and myself, but the three most important players on the team never participate here -- that's Brian, Brian and Eric.  Each of them is responsible for some of the best stuff out there.  I know you knew that, but most here don't.

[Chris Johnston]

Mark - few trees in the Sandhills thus little shade in the region aside from the river corridor where there are non-native cedar trees.  No oaks, etc. to be found anywhere...just grass for grazing originally, and near perfect soil for golf.

Sven - happy to answer, I just don't want to be accused of limiting candid discussion, or even candid criticism.  I'm always happy to answer questions from good folks here...that has never changed.

The 10th green was originally designed to have the lower back bowl area of the green, with the front as an approach with a center bunker.  Sometime in the design phase (before my time so secondhand knowledge at best) the designer thought it may be cool to convert the appraoch to green as well.  That put the front center line bunker in the middle if the green, and created 3 very distinct green zones.  It's a blast at 150 yards, but not quite as enjoyable at 200 yards.  Generally, I would suppose length of a par 3 matters to match it to a more wild green.

The maintenance issue is a very steep slope (estimated 4-5 feet) connecting the front to the back, and walk mowing a very steep slope is not very easy even for the best at the craft.  Also, the center bunker tends to blow out (many do) and that changes the dynamics of the green.  The green is unique, quirky and fun, yet a major challenge to both physically maintain and maintain quality turf.  I would suppose this is true in most greens with high and low spots.  High spots get dry quickly, low spots hold water.

Tom and his team had long term maintenance very much in mind on the Red.  Like most courses, we are seeing maintenenace challenges with the White due to more longevity. 

The "puzzle" is what changes can you make to moderate challenges while trying to preserve the designers intent.  Be it widening, adjusting bunkers, blowing sand, or re-seeding with a new type of grass, we all face the same challenges out this way.  It's perfectly normal but normally behind the scenes.

[Ben Sims]

I get it, nit pick details of my post. Still doesn't change the number of major players from DR that post here. And that creates unique issues and is the largest reason for the issues we're having on this site right now.

We've got three threads precipitated by a silly comparison exercise that now involves members, the owner, the architect and the irrigation/construction/grassing company.  That's unique and I think a definitive example of why Dismal River is talked about the way it is.

[John Kavanaugh]

That's unique and I think a definitive example of why Dismal River is talked about the way it is.

What does that mean?

[Ben Sims]

That's unique and I think a definitive example of why Dismal River is talked about the way it is.

What does that mean?

It's unique that we have so many, so close to it here on this site. And that's what generates all the insanity we've seen today and other days regarding it.

[John Kavanaugh]

The number of members is not unique, the personalities are.

[Ben Sims]

Barney,

You win. There nothing about so many of those involved at DR Red being members of this site that in any way affects the way it is discussed. I was wrong.

[John Kavanaugh]

Barney,

You win. There nothing about so many of those involved at DR Red being members of this site that in any way affects the way it is discussed. I was wrong.

I'm not trying to win I am just saying that there are a dozen courses with five or more members that participate on this site. This is supposed to be the honesty thread.  What can the handful of members and builders do that participate on this site do to make our participation less unfortunate for you?  I would be thrilled if none of us ever mention the course again. Is that what you want?

I am not trying to fight I just want to be able to enjoy a course where I am a member in peace. This site makes me wish I had never heard of the place.

[Ben Sims]

It has nothing to do with me. You're placing emphasis on the wrong part of this. I don't give two figs anymore. I was simply highlighting that DR is unique in that so many close to it are here and are active posters. It's what causes the consternation IMO. That's ALL I was saying.

Rarely has anything good come of discussing Ballyneal or Dismal River on this site. That's unfortunate, because both are great places. Although my negative opinion of Dismal White is strong, it doesn't change the fact that both places have great golf courses that we have the unique opportunity to know so much about. But like I said earlier, that closeness has backfired dozens of times over on this DG. I don't think that is a revelation or news to anyone. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Barney,

You win. There nothing about so many of those involved at DR Red being members of this site that in any way affects the way it is discussed. I was wrong.

Ben,

For those of us who haven't seen Dismal or really followed the GCA discussion about, can you just take up Chris Johnston's offer and summarize with a few bullet points your criticisms?

Thanks.

[Jim Nugent]

I'd like to see the final match-play scores from the Red vs White thread, for those who were playing.  Even though the exercise is tilted towards White, since Red apparently needs (or needed) more grow-in time to play the way it was designed. 

[Ben Sims]

Tim,

I probably shouldn't do this, but I will offer my thoughts on DR White as it seems to be the time to air opinions that were left unsaid.

-In my mind, the Nicklaus course is routed poorly. It negates the walking golfer. Hikes are made to prominent points in order to get a view. If you're going to site a course far away from infrastructure in a bid to get to the best land, why not create a walkable golf course?

-It's true that very little dirt was moved at DR White. This is a negative in a few places. Sometimes getting it right involves doing something with the land. It's through the severest part of the property and without earthmoving, it becomes a severe course unnecessarily.

-Having a "bowl" in a green is fun. But how many times can you revisit that idea in one round?

-Revisiting severity, several holes are severe enough to warrant questions of remaking them. 5, 6, 10, 13 come to mind. I don't buy into the idea that there is something special and unique about these holes.  Instead, I think they offer very little in the way of variety and playability.

-A few tee shots (2, 9 and 11 come to mind) are arbitrary shots of chance. This isn't to say I hate blindness. The counter-intuitive flow of some fairways causes results that aren't consistent with the shape or camber of a hole.

I will say that there are some shots at White that are quite good (approach to 2, tee shot on 8, tee shot on 15, approach on 16), but it's not enough to negate what I think is an unrealized opportunity on great sand hills land. I also want to emphasize that there are many people that think Dismal White is the bees knees. They paid a lot of money to join a club that takes a lot of effort to play. And my analysis is just an opinion of course architecture and certainly not a foreword for the amount of joy that should or should not be provided by the golf course.  Like I said earlier, I'll likely regret being honest and get flamed here shortly.

As for DR Red, sometimes I gravitate to analyzing golf courses that I think are very good by examining its weakest 2-3 holes. For me, 16 is probably the weakest hole at DR Red. It's in a beautiful setting with a green that's a little odd. Sort of a three-leafed clover on flattish ground right by the creek. I think a better par three could've been made by using the sloped terrain about 80 yds on a 190 heading from the current 16 green. That would've provided a conundrum for 17, which I love. So all in all it works. The second weakest hole on Red to me is probably 12. But the green site has changed from what I saw originally, so I can't comment with any validity.  

I think it's a genius routing. It's been explained elsewhere why I think this way. I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole. The finish at 18 will prove to be epic I think. But he's left us panting before on 13 green at Pacific Dunes. You've still got 5 holes to play there!

--EDITED for syntax and subject-verb agreement, not content--

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,

Thanks. I haven't been to Dismal River and have no idea whether your observations are fair or accurate. However, generally your comments do sound like architectural criticism and not some kind of personal attack on anyone involved in the project.

Feels like the appropriate response for anyone who disagrees with your observations is just to detail why.

Even some of the most esteemed courses in the world have been debated here with people expressing very different views. Pebble Beach would probably be a good example. Some people here love it. Some believe it has too many so-so holes.

[Mac Plumart]

Ben...

You ain't getting flamed by me, or probably anyone, for that post. Well thought out and worded. A valid opinion from someone who's played the course.

I disagree on some of the specific hole comments, especially 16 on Red... but that's inherent in talking golf holes and courses, its opinion.

Thanks for sharing this post and your previous ones...I 'get' your point and think you are right on a lot of your thoughts. Dismal is a bit unique in those regards, that has benefits and negatives.

[Tom_Doak]

I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole.

Really?

That wasn't caution.  We barely scraped enough money together to get the 12th hole built, as it was.  There was no money for the irrigation pipe on 19, and we'd have needed another bridge to get from the tee to the fairway.  Even if I'd really wanted to build it, I'd already spent some of my design fee to get 18 holes done.  [Thanks for working a bit for free; every bit helped.]

I've been back twice to play and never felt a twinge of regret when I got off the 18th green and didn't have another hole to play.

[Jim Colton]

I do wish that Tom would've thrown caution to the wind and built that 19th hole.

Really?

That wasn't caution.  We barely scraped enough money together to get the 12th hole built, as it was.  There was no money for the irrigation pipe on 19, and we'd have needed another bridge to get from the tee to the fairway.  Even if I'd really wanted to build it, I'd already spent some of my design fee to get 18 holes done.  [Thanks for working a bit for free; every bit helped.]

I've been back twice to play and never felt a twinge of regret when I got off the 18th green and didn't have another hole to play.

Tom,

 Knowing the there was a 19th hole from an old Topo, I regret playing the course three times and forgetting to look for it after the round. But I guess that means I agree with you.

 After seeing the finished product and getting early feedback from your from your friends and other, any tweaks in the works or changes you'd like to make?

[Tom_Doak]

 After seeing the finished product and getting early feedback from your from your friends and other, any tweaks in the works or changes you'd like to make?

Jim:  I really haven't played the course enough to answer your question.

Unless there was something egregious [which we are paid to avoid], I would generally want to wait five years before I thought about making changes to one of my courses.  When you've just finished a course, you know why you did everything you did, and it's sometimes hard to see how a hole plays, instead of how you ANTICIPATED it would play.  We anticipate correctly way more than we miss one, but there are certainly holes of mine that turned out differently than I thought ... some worse, and some better.

The hole I expected to be least popular is #12.  We built it last because I was trying right to the end to decide exactly what I wanted to build there, so it's the one hole that really wasn't in good playing shape last year, and it's the most important to see how it plays.  I did enjoy watching it play into the wind in the finals of the Renaissance Cup, at alternate shots with some really good players ... I had moved the tee back for the final and they were hitting some long approaches to that scary green.  It worked better than I thought that day.

[David_Elvins]

I looked at the options, and decided it didn't matter much.  I knew not everyone would agree, though I'm confident they couldn't come up with a better plan.  If the discussion is about whether this makes the golf course "less than ideal" and automatically deducts two points from its GOLF DIGEST ballot, I would question whether they were just making up a rule to protect their favorite course as superior, but we shouldn't be building courses for ratings -- we should be building the best course we can.

Tom,

Even if you can justify a routing that doesn't return to the proximity of the first tee, there s no way that you can argue that it is one of your best routings.  

If you remove one of the major rules of the routing puzzle (and there is no way of arguing that finishing where you begin is not traditionally a  major rule of routing a golf course) , it should not be a satisfying a solution.  

It's comparable to shooting a course record with a mulligan, or completing a cryptic crossword whilst peaking at the non-cryptik clues.  If you don't have a hollow feeling in your stomach when thinking about the Dismal River routing, you have lost the essence of what golf is about.  Frankly, you cheated, plain and simple.  The result may be a great golf course,but it can't be a great routing.  

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

I found that you are your teams attention in building the Red course was impressive.  The White Course, which as everyone knows I like very much, has gone through a few rounds of "tweaking"...and potentially there is more to come.  It seems from day 1 the Red was "ready".  That is a testament to you, and your teams skill.

Do you foresee any tweaks to the Red, or do you like it just like it is?

[Tom_Doak]

It's comparable to shooting a course record with a mulligan, or completing a cryptic crossword whilst peaking at the non-cryptik clues.  If you don't have a hollow feeling in your stomach when thinking about the Dismal River routing, you have lost the essence of what golf is about.  Frankly, you cheated, plain and simple.  The result may be a great golf course,but it can't be a great routing.  

I couldn't disagree more strongly with what you've said.  First of all, I'm here to build great golf courses, not to win prizes for routings.

We talk all the time here about "breaking rules" of design.  Young designers posture about it on their web sites, to give themselves street cred.  Probably two-thirds of the posters on this board lament that architects won't take more risks.

I didn't even think my routing solution at Dismal was taking a risk, much less "cheating".  The fact that the course had to start out in the boonies freed me up to do it however I wanted.  As you quoted me, I knew not everyone would agree, but I didn't expect a reaction as strong as yours.

The other piece of this discussion goes back a bunch of years, to a conversation Jim Urbina and I had while driving through New Mexico, on our way to Apache Stronghold.  We were on a road down a very long and steep valley, and Jim mentioned that it would be cool to build a golf course along a site like that, starting at one end and playing all the way to the far end, since it was clearly too steep to provide room for holes out and back.  He "trademarked" a name for his concept which I won't reveal.  Anyway, I thought it was a great idea; I would love to play a course like that, whereas apparently you would rule it out of ever being. 

When the routing for Dismal became public, Jim seemed to feel that I'd stolen his concept.  I had to remind him I'd done the same thing at Black Forest, a few years before he started to work for me.