THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[Jud_T]

The coolest thing I've heard of in skiing is that run in Europe where you ski all day from one town to another and take the train back. IMO those mediocre holes that folks often settle for to get back to the clubhouse, and usually twice at that, are the equivalent of the boring traverses one makes to funnel back to a ski lift.  Saying this is a compromise is like saying heli-skiing isn't really skiing.  Don't knock it till you've tried it...

[Brandon Urban]

The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.

Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.

[Tom_Doak]

The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.

Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.

Brandon:

Thanks for that.  You ARE the only guy who's done it five times in one day.

[John Kirk]

This is bullshit.

The only club we've ever had significant troubles discussing is Dismal River.  Name one other club where we've had problems like this.

The Dismal River vs. Ballyneal thread, while a worthy attempt at serious course analysis, was the worst experience I've ever had participating in a GCA thread.  The people who participated were me and a few members who are rightfully excited about their golf club that they love.  And I participated despite an attempt to stifle my input.  Nobody else wanted anything to do with it.

And here we are with another recent Dismal River thread, with people walking on eggshells, followed by an outpouring of anger and emotion.

Figure it out.

[Tim Bert]

The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.

Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.

Nothing like a little hyperbole on a Friday morning. Who is "everyone" and where did anyone discuss distance?

I asked the question because I was curious and Tom provided a good response.  David E was a little more biting with his words, but that's two people, neither of whom implied it was anywhere close to a mile.

Only one of the two posts was even a criticism.

[Mark Bourgeois]

The only club we've ever had significant troubles discussing is Dismal River.  Name one other club where we've had problems like this.

Deal? Kingsley? /ducks

BTW I certainly appreciated your commentary in that thread. As a bonus, it helped me work through the cognitive dissonance of Kavanaugh praising Doak.

[Brandon Urban]

The funny part is everyone is acting like it's a mile from 18 green to 1 tee. It's a par 4. And not a bad walk.

Considering the fantastically short green to tee walks throughout the rest of the course, I'd imagine the total distance of those walks including back to the first tee ends up being pretty average for modern courses.

Nothing like a little hyperbole on a Friday morning. Who is "everyone" and where did anyone discuss distance?

I asked the question because I was curious and Tom provided a good response.  David E was a little more biting with his words, but that's two people, neither of whom implied it was anywhere close to a mile.

Only one of the two posts was even a criticism.

Tim,

I apologize. I should have been more clear. What I should have said is "... everyone who criticizes the walk from 18 green to 1 tee..." I wasn't even talking about just this thread. It has come up many times on GCA.
I'm not into hyperbole and waiting for a meeting and typing on my phone tends to make me hurry though and not proof read. I'm not that eloquent to begin with... let's face it,  we can't all be Gibs or Pallottas

[Tom_Doak]

This is bullshit.

The only club we've ever had significant troubles discussing is Dismal River.  Name one other club where we've had problems like this.

The Dismal River vs. Ballyneal thread, while a worthy attempt at serious course analysis, was the worst experience I've ever had participating in a GCA thread.  The people who participated were me and a few members who are rightfully excited about their golf club that they love.  And I participated despite an attempt to stifle my input.  Nobody else wanted anything to do with it.

And here we are with another recent Dismal River thread, with people walking on eggshells, followed by an outpouring of anger and emotion.

Figure it out.

John:

Putting 100% of the blame onto the Dismal River guys for the Dismal vs. Ballyneal thread is probably bad math.

This site has had plenty of trouble discussing lots of courses.  Courses where critics tend to be shouted down as heretics include:

Ballyneal
Kingsley
Rustic Canyon
Augusta National
Pebble Beach [don't you dare criticize #11 or #1]
Trump International [plenty on both sides]
Doral [new entry with a bullet]

And there are plenty of others where the naysayers have the floor, including one that you are a member of ... Stone Eagle.

I do think the discussion is more inhibited when the course owner participates directly in the discussion, and Dismal River is [almost] unique in that situtation.  Rivermont, maybe ... except that nobody criticizes it, instead of Chris Cupit arguing with guys who do.

Thought of the day:  imagine Clifford Roberts participating here   

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dismal River Red was the first course that was chronicled from beginning to end on GCA.
That wore some people out as there was a group that grew weary of all the Dismal "love".

For me, I thought it was cool to pull back the curtain on the design and construction of a course in the Sand Hills.
But I also know that some viewed the threads as marketing of the course and participants, and they have always felt the need to reign in the excitement.

I enjoyed helping to tell the story, and I hope I can tell another one like it, but many people in the business are very unwilling to do that here.

I wish Gil Hanse participated here because we could then watch as the Rio course came to life as well from the "inside". That would be a very interesting story with all that is going on there. I know some of the folks down there are on GCA and I wish we had more in depth threads about the creation of that course.

I think there will be more opportunities like we had at DR, but lets hope the negativivity that comes with telling the story doesn't hold others back.

[Josh Tarble]

I haven't been to Dismal yet, so take this for what it's worth.  But I think a lot of the issues stem from the White Course.  In pictures and from descritpions, it seems like one of the weirdest courses in the world.  It's quirky, funky, difficult, beautiful and any number of other descriptors.  Because it's such a different course, opinions can vary wildly.  One person may absolutely love it and one may hate it for the same reason.

It's also one of the reasons that if I were choosing a place to visit in the sand hills, I would choose Dismal first.  It has what could be called the most polarizing modern course and what seems to be one of the top 30 or so modern courses.  They both are very unique and seem wildly different from anything else in the region.  Maybe the White is really bad, maybe it is really good, but I sure as hell know it looks completely different from anything I've ever seen.

[Jud_T]

The problem is one of self-selection.  There are a number of courses- Dismal, Kingsley and Ballyneal being the 3 most obvious ones, where there are a fair number of members who post here.  As members, they by definition like their course and know it better than almost anyone posting here.  So if a guy who's played Kingsley once or twice comes on and criticizes a hole there are a dozen members who collectively have over a thousand rounds fighting back.  Even if their points are valid and unbiased, it's a no-win situation for the non-member.  The trade off is that we get a ton of insight and local knowledge about a course but it can become too much of a good thing.  Personally I've tried to highlight the cons as well as the pros of my club and not be a complete cheerleader, and I think it's each members responsibility to be more than mere shills for their club.  If they have a significant financial interest, a la CJ, it's an even finer line to walk.

[Terry Lavin]

There is a select group of courses that get discussed too often.  It leads to charges of boosterism, favoritism, bias or whatever you want to call it.  But it also gets BORING.  I almost didn't join Dismal because I was so sick about the number of threads and the repetitive rah-rah bullcrap.  And I'll go on record again saying I just love the place and that the buddies trip there was the single best guys trip I've ever taken, and I've taken a LOT of golf trips.

Doesn't mean I want to get inundated with threads about the place.  CJ doesn't need our help.  Doak doesn't need our help.  Dismal doesn't need our help.  It's a classic case of turning a positive into a negative.  Probably some internet psychology lesson there.  Not that we'll pay attention to it.

[John Kirk]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps I'm not being clear.  Even in the last post, I'm asking the reader to "figure it out".  I'm saying that Chris's participation stifles and distorts discussion.  I'm grateful that me and big JK and the other members made the best of it, but some of my friends wanted no part of the discussion.  It's not that the naysayers get shouted down as heretics, it's that the naysayers didn't want to play.  The architect and irrigation guru wanted very little to do with it as well.

The way the DR vs. BN thread ended was atrocious, with pages of non-architecture related garbage attached to what I considered pretty solid analysis.  So the DR White vs. Red thread comes along, and the same thing happens.  Nobody wants to say anything negative.  I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red.  I don't want to worry (again) about critiquing DR's courses, especially when I could be accused of having an alterior motive.  Nobody wanted to play, including yourself.  Since nobody offered any criticism, Eric Smith ends up looking bad for his sunny analysis of his beloved club.  It's not his fault.

I am always a bit more careful evaluating golf courses that don't have full memberships, or may not be financially secure.  [Note: This is not to say I believe Dismal River is financially insecure - Chris Johnston has reiterated many times this is not the case.]  I am a member of two clubs that have been through a bankruptcy, so I'm sensitive to that.  Many top notch golf courses opened between about 2000-2009 have had difficulties, and many still do.  Regardless, it means I'm a bit more careful and respectful in asking questions rather than making judgements, and shy away from broad-based generalizations.

After the DR vs BN thread, it doesn't feel worthwhile to offer much about Dismal River, because I found it unrewarding the first time around.

[Chris Johnston]

The problem is one of self-selection.  There are a number of courses- Dismal, Kingsley and Ballyneal being the 3 most obvious ones, where there are a fair number of members who post here.  As members, they by definition like their course and know it better than almost anyone posting here.  So if a guy who'se played Kingsley once or twice comes on and criticizes a hole there are a dozen members who collectively have over a thousand rounds fighting back.  Even if their points are valid and unbiased, it's a no-win situation for the non-member.  The trade off is that we get a ton of insight and local knowledge about a course but it can become too much of a good thing.  Personally I've tried to highlight the cons as well as the pros of my club and not be a complete cheerleader, and I think it's each members responsibility to be more than mere shills for their club.  If they have a significant financial interest, a la CJ, it's an even finer line to walk.

Jud - agree 100%.  I am probably the most critical guy at Dismal River as I notice and see things that others normally don't and have certainly played more than most anyone.  I'm on the record agreeing that there are flaws and believe no course is perfect.  I really don't feel the need to defend her, I just try to share firsthand experience.    Everyone is more than entitled to their opinion, as I am to mine.   It isn't about fine lines, it is about speaking the truth as you know it.  One thing that I don't think anyone can dispute is, despite some flaws, places like Kingsley, Ballyneal, and Dismal are an absolute blast to visit and play the game.  I often wonder if those who tend toward the constantly critical have any fun playing the game at all, if it isn't fun, the game is doomed.

It's kinda funny, nobody ever asks what holes I may not like less than others.  Maybe they assume I like them all?  

[Chip Gaskins]

John:

Putting 100% of the blame onto the Dismal River guys for the Dismal vs. Ballyneal thread is probably bad math.

This site has had plenty of trouble discussing lots of courses.  Courses where critics tend to be shouted down as heretics include:

Ballyneal
Kingsley
Rustic Canyon
Augusta National
Pebble Beach [don't you dare criticize #11 or #1]
Trump International [plenty on both sides]
Doral [new entry with a bullet]

And there are plenty of others where the naysayers have the floor, including one that you are a member of ... Stone Eagle.

I do think the discussion is more inhibited when the course owner participates directly in the discussion, and Dismal River is [almost] unique in that situtation.  Rivermont, maybe ... except that nobody criticizes it, instead of Chris Cupit arguing with guys who do.

Thought of the day:  imagine Clifford Roberts participating here   

- Merion

[John Kirk]

...

Previous post also edited.

[Don_Mahaffey]

 The architect and irrigation guru wanted very little to do with it as well.

John, I not exactly sure what you are saying here.
When it comes to DR, I've always tried to explain what we did there in an honest way. If I have misrepresented something, please let me know.

If you are saying I wanted nothing to do with the BN vs DR thread, then yes you are right. I've learned I have very little desire to rank two very good courses; I happy to say I think they are both great and leave it at that.  I'm not one of those guys who thinks every kid should get a medal, but I happen to think Brady and P Manning are both great QBs and who you think is better is often based on where you live and which team you favor. The problem with the course vs course threads is one has to won and one has to lose.

Neither BN or DR are losers and I don't see the point in ranking them against each other.

[John Kirk]

Hi Don,

You are correct.  I am saying that neither you nor Tom elected to participate in the DR vs. BN thread, and nothing more.  I had high hopes that the thread could be a great way to discuss a variety of architectural concepts; the two courses are enough different, and built several years apart, that we could have made it a comprehensive study of Tom's work and evolution as a designer.  I enjoyed the part where I chose one hole was better than the other, but it wasn't the point for me.  I thought it was an ideal platform to study architecture, and I felt kind of abandoned when a number of knowledgeable people dropped out.  Even the act of choosing one hole over the other was a revelation; I learned to understand my own biases better, such as liking long par 3s.  Those were my selfish motivations.  I wanted everybody to not be defensive about it, and go into the exercise confident that both courses were outstanding, so we could discuss nuances of fine architecture.  I tried to make observations that were begging for an explanation, and I didn't get what I wanted.  It was frustrating.

[Ben Sims]

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.

I'm not saying that the finish isn't grand, it most certainly is. But I never made any bones about being a huge fan of that short uphill 4. There's just something about a short-ish, uphill par 4 at the end. It's triumphant in a way. I was a member of a course that had a hole sort of like that (Palmetto) and I'm on record as thinking Ballyneal has just a couple of equals in the US. So I'm a shill for these kinds of finishes.

And obviously I'm ignoring the financial aspect which is impossible to ignore. Maybe you should've cut into your design fee a bit more? 

I never actually got the story on why 12 green was moved. That original peninsula was pretty cool and tilted oddly.

[Chris Johnston]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps I'm not being clear.  Even in the last post, I'm asking the reader to "figure it out".  I'm saying that Chris's participation stifles and distorts discussion.  I'm grateful that me and big JK and the other members made the best of it, but some of my friends wanted no part of the discussion.  It's not that the naysayers get shouted down as heretics, it's that the naysayers didn't want to play.  The architect and irrigation guru wanted very little to do with it as well.

The way the DR vs. BN thread ended was atrocious, with pages of non-architecture related garbage attached to what I considered pretty solid analysis.  So the DR White vs. Red thread comes along, and the same thing happens.  Nobody wants to say anything negative.  I don't feel like offering a rebuttal to Mac's and Eric's assertion that #10 White is better than #10 Red.  I don't want to worry (again) about critiquing DR's courses, especially when I could be accused of having an alterior motive.  Nobody wanted to play, including yourself.  Since nobody offered any criticism, Eric Smith ends up looking bad for his sunny analysis of his beloved club.  It's not his fault.

I am always a bit more careful evaluating golf courses that don't have full memberships, or may not be financially secure.  [Note: This is not to say I believe Dismal River is financially insecure - Chris Johnston has reiterated many times this is not the case.]  I am a member of two clubs that have been through a bankruptcy, so I'm sensitive to that.  Many top notch golf courses opened between about 2000-2009 have had difficulties, and many still do.  Regardless, it means I'm a bit more careful and respectful in asking questions rather than making judgements, and shy away from broad-based generalizations.

After the DR vs BN thread, it doesn't feel worthwhile to offer much about Dismal River, because I found it unrewarding the first time around.

John,  With all due respect, I think I posted, maybe 4 times, on the first 18 or so pages on the thread you mention and both Don and Tom posted more that I did.  One of those posts was to describe the unique 12th hole strategy to my friend Simon Holt.  It seems you want to choose who should participate, and my very small participation seems a thorn.  That is sad.

Beginning around page 9, some began to question the scoring of a match between two good clubs and in good fun...then the usual suspects began to emerge questioning the thread itself.  Again, for the record, that wasn't me.  Those that did begin the hijacking had never played one or both of the curses, yet the usual "question of motives" began.  If I stepped in, it was to defend you and your efforts on a very good thread that I know did indeed require a bit of effort on your part.

I am very honest in my assessment of our courses and other that I have played.  Lets cut to the chase here, where I may comment about your beloved Ballyneal (btw a course I too like very much) the thin skins emerge and wagons are circled and that is where I believe the puzzle began.  It's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the greens there as they don't suit my palate, but I'm glad they suit yours.  Some erroneously claim that I shouldn't comment about that, and that to me is silly.  I'm also sorry you are part of two bankrupt clubs, and both are fortunate to have good guys like you still supportive.  

John, I make no claim to architectural superiority, but I did watch and participate a bit in a course being built from start to completion.  I have also played some pretty competitive golf and, while not as skilled these days, I can still get it around ok when I do.  I also have a very unique perspctive to share yet, after these few days and weeks, I understand why others like me choose not to.  The one time you and Cheryl visited last year, you were admittedly off your feed - I think you would agree you were not a very happy person.  I didn't shun you for being surly, I came to visit to try to brighten your mood.

To assert that people don't want to participate due to me really fails basic common sense, and no one is more critical of me and mine than me.  There is only one person here who deliberately hijacks threads for kicks and that isn't me.  I post honestly and, like everyone else, probably unintentionally offend good friends on occasion.  I wouldn't be true to myself if I "pulled punches" and my opinions are pretty well known.  Yet, if I do post what I believe, somehow you find wrong in that too.

I have never stifled honest debate, but I don't suffer fools very well.  I spoke with a friend last week who, after a dustup not with me in this realm, actually asked me if he was still welcome to see Dismal River.  I laughed very hard and told him friendship doesn't mean we have to agree and friendship, to me, is a lot more than that.  

I created a thread yesterday to foster an frank and open discussion about both courses at Dismal River, in response to a silly claim that it was not possible.  While enjoy the posts, the accuser failed the test as he didn't provide any frank or open commentary.  Strawmen are always easier.

I suppose I could accuse you of being a "homer" and claim that you distort discussion but that serves no real purpose any more than yours did me.  I respect and invite your views regardless if I agree or not, and I enjoy looking at things through your lens.

It well past time to put down the guns and competitive koolaid and realize we all share something wonderful...friendship, and an appreciation for golf and the wonderful places we play it.

[Tom_Doak]

I wish Gil Hanse participated here because we could then watch as the Rio course came to life as well from the "inside". That would be a very interesting story with all that is going on there. I know some of the folks down there are on GCA and I wish we had more in depth threads about the creation of that course.

That couldn't happen, because of the non-disclosure agreements we all had to sign before we even bid on the project.  Information is tightly controlled.  I was surprised it was okay for Ian to put up his pictures of the course, but I guess after all the questions about the schedule they thought a little good p.r. might be helpful.

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Don,

You are correct.  I am saying that neither you nor Tom elected to participate in the DR vs. BN thread, and nothing more.  I had high hopes that the thread could be a great way to discuss a variety of architectural concepts; the two courses are enough different, and built several years apart, that we could have made it a comprehensive study of Tom's work and evolution as a designer.  I enjoyed the part where I chose one hole was better than the other, but it wasn't the point for me.  I thought it was an ideal platform to study architecture, and I felt kind of abandoned when a number of knowledgeable people dropped out.  Even the act of choosing one hole over the other was a revelation; I learned to understand my own biases better, such as liking long par 3s.  Those were my selfish motivations.  I wanted everybody to not be defensive about it, and go into the exercise confident that both courses were outstanding, so we could discuss nuances of fine architecture.  I tried to make observations that were begging for an explanation, and I didn't get what I wanted.  It was frustrating.

John:

There are two parts to my answer there.

One, my participation is sometimes limited by circumstances -- there are weeks when I've got time, and weeks where I don't have much.

Two, you were comparing two courses that are both among my best, that were both competing for members, and that both have many ardent supporters here.  Do you really wonder why I would avoid getting in the middle of that?  Anytime I came out in favor of one or the other -- on either side -- I'd be accused of bias by half the participants, and of being a self-promoter all of the time, by a few in the L.A. contingent.

I'm happy to talk about the differences between courses, just not for the benefit of a bunch of guys keeping score [or settling scores].

[Garland Bayley]

Never mind. Tim and Tom already addressed the issue.

[DMoriarty]

I created a thread yesterday to foster an frank and open discussion about both courses at Dismal River, in response to a silly claim that it was not possible.  While enjoy the posts, the accuser failed the test as he didn't provide any frank or open commentary.  Strawmen are always easier.

I failed the test? Ironic, given your oblivious posts to John and JT.

Prior to this latest round of navel gazing, there actually had been some frank and honest commentary in this thread, and it has been interesting and enjoyable, and I hope it picks up again. It is just a shame that the website has to go to such absurd lengths to create a space where such commentary is briefly possible.  

Also, it'd be nice if John could have expressed his views about your participation without your unfortunate response. I guess perhaps he should be grateful you made his point for him. Even Tom Doak acknowledged that your participation inhibits discussion, yet you still don't get it.

As for me, I am just enjoying some semblance of actual frank and honest discussion of the courses, and trying to learn something along the way.  That is a large part of why I am here; to read the views of others and learn about golf architecture.  The lack of frank commentary doesn't just impact those participating, or wishing to participate, it impacts the readers as well.   I may chime in at some point on issues I feel are worth further exploring, but I think it fair to expect that my participation in the substance would not be entirely welcome.  So for now I am just reading, and hoping that the thread takes a turn back toward substance.

I am particularly interested in this notion of what sounds like one way, downhill, ski hill architecture.  With all due respect to Mr. Urbina, I am not sure I see that as a positive development in golf course architecture.

[Chris Johnston]

I created a thread yesterday to foster an frank and open discussion about both courses at Dismal River, in response to a silly claim that it was not possible.  While enjoy the posts, the accuser failed the test as he didn't provide any frank or open commentary.  Strawmen are always easier.

I failed the test? Ironic, given your oblivious posts to John and JT.

Prior to this latest round of navel gazing, there actually had been some frank and honest commentary in this thread, and it has been interesting and enjoyable, and I hope it picks up again. It is just a shame that the website has to go to such absurd lengths to create a space where such commentary is briefly possible.  

Also, it'd be nice if John could have expressed his views about your participation without your unfortunate response. I guess perhaps he should be grateful you made his point for him. Even Tom Doak acknowledged that your participation inhibits discussion, yet you still don't get it.

As for me, I am just enjoying some semblance of actual frank and honest discussion of the courses, and trying to learn something along the way.  That is a large part of why I am here; to read the views of others and learn about golf architecture.  The lack of frank commentary doesn't just impact those participating, or wishing to participate, it impacts the readers as well.   I may chime in at some point on issues I feel are worth further exploring, but I think it fair to expect that my participation in the substance would not be entirely welcome.  So for now I am just reading, and hoping that the thread takes a turn back toward substance.

I am particularly interested in this notion of what sounds like one way, downhill, ski hill architecture.  With all due respect to Mr. Urbina, I am not sure I see that as a positive development in golf course architecture.

David,

Thanks for the mostly nice comments.  After all, I started this thread to encourage frank and open commentary, so it's hard to fathom how I get any blamed if you like that commentary, but if there is an angle, you'll likely root it out.  I've become used to you and would probably miss you if you didn't chime in as expected.  I hope you notice that I didn't respond to any other posts that didn't name me personally, and I tried to answer questions posted by others - in both a civil and professional manner.

I appreciated John's comment, although I do wish his comments would have been true to the topic at hand "either course Dismal River" and not me.  John is a great guy and friend, but criticizing me for doing nothing but expressing my own opinion from time-to-time is really silly.  I also felt obligated to correct some imperfections as I wasn't an active participant in the thread he cited, that is, until you came in and hijacked it with the usual assertions of bias, and fake scoring.  

Failed test? Yes! Indeed.  You have offered nothing constructive to the thread I began.  Others did, you did not.

Fact is, David, it serves no purpose to criticize another here, yet it is certainly appropriate to offer a different opinion if you have one.  

You don't have to make things personal to make a point, David.  Try as you might, you schtick is well worn and you fool no one.  Unless Ran decides otherwise (and I recall his directing you to behave a few months back) the other fact is I have every right to share my honest opinions here.  I'm sorry you have a problem with that and I suggest you consider starting your own website, where you will benefit from the control you always seem to seek.  btw, we haven't see a horde of invisible ninjas yet.

Thanks for the compliments on the thread, backhanded as they were.  It must have been hard for you.

And, pretty please don't hijack this thread.