THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[David_Elvins]

What about the walk from 11 green to 12 tee at Crystal Downs?

Google Earth shows it to be a walk of 200 yards.  Worthy of discussion but not comparable to the 800 yard walk at Dismal, IMO. 

[Jim Nugent]

David, your rule (the one I was referring to) reads: "Each hole starts near where the last one finishes".

I don't consider 150 yards as 'near.'  i.e. I think the examples we've given violate your rule.  Actually, from the sounds of things DRR meets that criterion quite well: no long walks between holes.  

If you stick to your guns about the closeness of holes, do you think Highlands Links cheats?  

Comparisons to Sand Hills may be stacked against DR.  DR already had an existing course to build around.  On top of that, it had an existing clubhouse and private lots.  IIRC, Tom said those lots take up the best land for holes he might build near the clubhouse.  

Did Sand Hills face any of those problems?

ETA: I just read in Ran's profile of Highlands Links that the distance between the 12th green and 13th tee is 480 yards.  Even so, Ran says "Stanley Thompson‘s routing is a marvel as the variety of settings without loss of continuity or character is unique in all of golf."

[Bryan Izatt]

David E,

If all designers kept in the established box of rules/traditions does that not stifle innovation.  If we want all new golf courses to look like the old ones then by all means stick to the rules.  In most other fields of endeavor thinking outside the box and innovating is considered a good thing.  If a better set of holes results from an open jaw and some distance to the clubhouse, that is a good thing to me.

My 36 hole home course at Bond Head has one course 850 yards from the clubhouse through a tunnel under a county road.  It never occurred to me that my feelings about the merits or demerits of the course should in any way be influenced by how far it is from the clubhouse.  The course stands on its own.  

[David_Elvins]

David, your rule (the one I was referring to) reads: "Each hole starts near where the last one finishes".

I don't consider 150 yards as 'near.'  i.e. I think the examples we've given violate your rule.  Actually, from the sounds of things DRR meets that criterion quite well: no long walks between holes.  

Good point, Jim.  I suppose it is a matter of degrees.  

If you stick to your guns about the closeness of holes, do you think Highlands Links cheats?  

 I haven't been to Highland Links but in the past 12 years I have noted 2 occasions where Ran has been wrong in his judgement.  It is possible he is wrong again.  

[David_Elvins]

David E,

If all designers kept in the established box of rules/traditions does that not stifle innovation.

If this website has done one thing it is prove that innovation in golf course design is bad.  We like our golf courses to look and play like those built 100 years ago, thanks.

If a better set of holes results from an open jaw and some distance to the clubhouse, that is a good thing to me.

Golf courses are more than a set of holes, though.  The great courses have a sum greater than their parts in many ways.  I think a small part of that is the course taking you on a coherent journey and part of that is finishing where you begins.  l like the feeling of almost being finished as we get closer and closer to the clubhouse over the last few holes.

The courses have played that do not finish nearthe club house have been abig let downtome. Likewise I don't like the way that Lost Farm returns to the clubhouse at the 15th green and then plays out to a 3 hole loop to finish. Again disjointed from a perfectionist point of view. 


(PS.  The irony is that if I ever built my dream golf course, it would not finish where it began. It would be innovative.)

[Bart Bradley]

David Elvins' comments are not hostile or irrational.  It is okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course.  When obstacles, either avoidable or unavoidable, cause a course characteristic to fall short of those ideals it seems plenty fair to note and take into account that weakness. 

On a thread about frank commentary, having everyone argue with him about his point seems telling.  All things being otherwise completely equal wouldn't we always chose to have short green to tee walks and have the course finish where it starts?

I have not seen a perfect course and I think compromises must always be made given the limitations of a project.  The final outcome of a project may be the best outcome possible given the limitations, but it still would be even better if the circumstances did not demand those compromises.

Bart

[Jim Nugent]

Bart, I generally agree that coming back to the clubhouse is better.  But if you don't route it like that, are you cheating?  That's where I disagree with David. 

Tom had good reasons not to bring the 18th at DR back home.  He produced a much better course.  Especially in a place like the remote Sand Hills, that seems more important to me than blindly adhering to a tradition that will only result in an inferior product.   

[Dan Herrmann]

I think the culture/reason for being of a club is central to this question. 

To me, there's no doubt that a Philly parkland course should start and end near the clubhouse.  The course I play finishes about 20' below the clubhouse porch, and it's great fun to see people "coming home".  (Rees Jones' Broad Run in metro Philly finishes about a mile from the clubhouse, and I abhor its "open jaw" routing)

But DR has a completely different but equally great vibe.  I think Jaka said it well when he mentioned the distant view of 18 from the DR clubhouse porch.  One of the coolest things I've ever seen on a golf course was the trail of golf carts with their headlights on coming home after the 5th Major playoff last year.  It was a scene out of "Field of Dreams".

I'm suggesting that the huge vistas in the Sandhills lend themselves perfectly to this type of routing.  Plus, the culture of DR fits it perfectly too.  Methinks you'll never see a debutante ball at DR!

[Tim Bert]

Is the distance really 800 yards as David implies because I thought I had seen posts from multiple people knowledgeable about the course that it was "a short par 4" away from the 1st tee.  I assume that meant 300 to 350 yards. 800 yards is only a short par 4 at The Judge.

[Tom_Doak]

It's actually 640 yards according to Google Earth, or a bit over 700 if you follow the path.

I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it.  I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.

And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great.  But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the purposes of debate.

Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course."  Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else.  I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.

* And yes, I know that Alister MacKenzie once made a list of 13 ideals for golf course architecture; but he wrote years later that he wished he'd never done so, because some people got so locked into his "rules" that they could not accept better plans that were in conflict with one of the rules [such as having two loops of nine holes].

[Keith OHalloran]

David,
I am not a member of Dismal, and therefore it is not "my" course. I know that adds little, but I wanted to clear it up.
As for the relative distances with DR and Shinnecock. Tom just mentioned the distance at DR, I do not know how to use Google Earth, but maybe someone can tell us what it is at Shinnecock? Seems like it would be close.

[Tom_Doak]

As for the relative distances with DR and Shinnecock. Tom just mentioned the distance at DR, I do not know how to use Google Earth, but maybe someone can tell us what it is at Shinnecock? Seems like it would be close.

It's only 160 yards from 18 green to 1 tee at Shinnecock, though pretty steeply uphill, of course.

You are falling into the trap these guys have set that there is a limit on how far it should be.  I have walked the golf course multiple times, and I think it's a joy to walk.  It starts in the most convenient place relative to the clubhouse, and ends in the most beautiful spot on the property -- just like Pebble Beach.  Why should I listen to a couple of guys who have never been there, about a rule they just invented to judge this course?  This is not a discussion about the golf course.  It's a discussion about their new rule, and I've said my piece about that.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom, , is that directly across the 9 tee to the US open tee? It seems much longer when you walk it.
In any event, it seems my comparison has been invalidated, but I still do not see a problem with ending DR away from 1 tee. the sand hills are unique and the routing can be as well IMO.

[Bart Bradley]

It's actually 640 yards according to Google Earth, or a bit over 700 if you follow the path.

I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it.  I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.

And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great.  But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the purposes of debate.

Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course."  Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else.  I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.

* And yes, I know that Alister MacKenzie once made a list of 13 ideals for golf course architecture; but he wrote years later that he wished he'd never done so, because some people got so locked into his "rules" that they could not accept better plans that were in conflict with one of the rules [such as having two loops of nine holes].

Tom, I cannot judge (nor ever will I be able to judge) whether a routing is the best possible use of the land given the restrictions that the architect faced when making the routing.  How could I ever know everything that an architect had to take into consideration when he made his choices for the routing?  Only he/she (or members of his/her team) could know all that went into those decisions.  I, and most others, simply have to judge by what we see is the final product.  Even you can't know all the things that went into the routing decisions of the courses built 80 years ago, but you can comment on how the routing works or doesn't.   All of those of us on the outside can simply see if the routing produces a course that makes for a great final result.  We are all judging the final result against our preferences/biases/ and standards (some personal and some consensus).  Those personal and consensus notions shape our thinking about what makes an IDEAL routing (variety, smooth transitions, thoughts about pacing, starting and ending points, etc). 

In all honesty, if two courses had 18 identical holes with identical strategies and land forms, identical pacing, identical length, identical walks between holes... if one of those courses finished close to where it started and one finished 680 yards away,  which would you say had the better routing?

That's all I was trying to say.

Sorry that you have a problem with these thoughts.

Bart

[William_G]

David Elvins' comments are not hostile or irrational.  It is okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course.  When obstacles, either avoidable or unavoidable, cause a course characteristic to fall short of those ideals it seems plenty fair to note and take into account that weakness. 

On a thread about frank commentary, having everyone argue with him about his point seems telling.  All things being otherwise completely equal wouldn't we always chose to have short green to tee walks and have the course finish where it starts?

I have not seen a perfect course and I think compromises must always be made given the limitations of a project.  The final outcome of a project may be the best outcome possible given the limitations, but it still would be even better if the circumstances did not demand those compromises.

Bart

well said Bart

the arguing and authoritativeness given the absolute uniqueness of each and every golf course is boring and a sign of insecurity

guiding principles are a good thing and when deviated from you may be innovative while at the same time become unpopular

the Sand Hills of Nebraska are so vast that anything could happen there, but there is no one there and the continuing PR here will help get them there at least once

how about those flies?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Honestly, I deserve it for all the times I did the same to others in my own sorry and jaded way. I had it coming.

It takes a strong man to admit that, I admire you my friend.

+1

BTW I'm sure no one's paying attention but the discussion on this page is quite good. Stick to your guns, David. I say that as one who comes down more on the side of "we don't need no stinkin' rules" -- except if you remove all rules then you remove constraints by definition, and when you remove constraints you're at the mercy of designers and developers to show restraint, and many can't / won't do that. There's a reason for the term, "the exception that proves the rule."

Note: edited for format.

[Chris Johnston]

It's actually 640 yards according to Google Earth, or a bit over 700 if you follow the path.

I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it.  I do think that takes away a little bit from that golf course, because they couldn't decide what the routing was, but I don't think it disqualifies the course from consideration or negates all the fine work that was done there.

And if you wanted, you could make the rule that all courses have to start and finish near the clubhouse -- after all, most do -- in order to eliminate Sand Hills from consideration as great.  But its fans are happy to call Ben's porch the clubhouse for the purposes of debate.

Where I really have a problem is Bart's statement that "it's okay to suggest that there are some IDEAL characteristics of a golf course."  Sure, it's okay to suggest that, but just because something is an ideal for David doesn't make it an ideal for anyone else.  I would suggest that golfers who make lists of "ideals" are not judging courses on their merits*; they are dumbing down the process by just going down their own mental checklist, and at the same time, asserting that THEIR checklist must be adhered to.

* And yes, I know that Alister MacKenzie once made a list of 13 ideals for golf course architecture; but he wrote years later that he wished he'd never done so, because some people got so locked into his "rules" that they could not accept better plans that were in conflict with one of the rules [such as having two loops of nine holes].

Tom, I cannot judge (nor ever will I be able to judge) whether a routing is the best possible use of the land given the restrictions that the architect faced when making the routing.  How could I ever know everything that an architect had to take into consideration when he made his choices for the routing?  Only he/she (or members of his/her team) could know all that went into those decisions.  I, and most others, simply have to judge by what we see is the final product.  Even you can't know all the things that went into the routing decisions of the courses built 80 years ago, but you can comment on how the routing works or doesn't.   All of those of us on the outside can simply see if the routing produces a course that makes for a great final result.  We are all judging the final result against our preferences/biases/ and standards (some personal and some consensus).  Those personal and consensus notions shape our thinking about what makes an IDEAL routing (variety, smooth transitions, thoughts about pacing, starting and ending points, etc). 

In all honesty, if two courses had 18 identical holes with identical strategies and land forms, identical pacing, identical length, identical walks between holes... if one of those courses finished close to where it started and one finished 680 yards away,  which would you say had the better routing?

That's all I was trying to say.

Sorry that you have a problem with these thoughts.

Bart

Bart, 

I am enjoying this thread and the variety of contributions.

In nature, all things are never completely equal, so your premise is hypothetically sound yet impossible in practice.

Suppose that we folllowed the (now new) rule that some hold hard, we would have missed some great holes.  We would have compromised great, for an arbitrary reason.  That's dumbing this down to me...dilution.

Try this exercise for me:

The vast majority of Universities do not express open displays of faith.  Notre Dame does.  Does that make Notre Dame inferior? 

The vast majority Universities don't have Chapels in each dorm and Mass each day.  Notre Dame does.  Does that make Notre Dame inferior?

The vast majority Universities don't have Religious living in dorms.  Notre Dame does.  Does that make Notre Dame inferior?

The vast majority of Universities don't really expect athletes to work academically.  Notre Dame does.  Does that make Notre Dame inferior?

The vast majority of Universities less rules on conduct outside the classroom than Notre Dame does.  Does that make Notre Dame inferior?

Notre Dame is not a secular place, all would agree it is different than the norm.  Yet, it has the #1 undergrad business school in the nation.

All things being equal, should Notre Dame do what the vast majority does?   (I vote no)

Does Notre Dame apologise for what it is?  (No, they don't)

Are there people who disagree with Notre Dame for it's Mission and they manner it is delivered?  (Yes, I believe there are)

Does Notre Dame change due to people who object to the way they do it?  (Thankfully, no)

A golf course has 9 or 18 holes.  Like a class, or a major, each hole has a beginning and an end.  Your score is your grade.

At Dismal River, Tom had a unique (maybe once in a lifetime) opportunity and choice.  Find and embrace the best 18 holes (maybe the best 18 hole set anywhere), or compromise and conform to what arbitrarily fit that which everyone else does, and probably have 18 lesser holes.  He chose the best 18 holes, and I fully supported him.   As good as the holes are, how could we not?  For me, it never makes sense to have less than the best routing.  Tom also did this true to his own values including making his course very walkable.

My own son chose Notre Dame (from a list of what most would call the finest schools in the nation) for he believed Notre Dame fit what he wanted, and Notre Dame was that for him because of what it is. 

If some believe a routing should or must start and finish, that's ok.  In itself, that will require a compromise from excellence.

I often wonder how many good courses would be great, or great otherworldly, if they didn't compromise for something completely arbitrary. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

I was going to start a new thread about "rules" but since this is the hot thread, I'll post it here.

For just about as long as I've been posting here, I've been against "rules" when applied to golf maintenance, construction, or design. I think all these rules have done more to harm the game than anything else. They've contributed greatly to why it costs so much to build and maintain our courses and they have stifled innovation when we need it most in our game.

David E says all green to tee walks should be short (that's not exactly what he said but I'm not going back to quote him), But when he is countered with this walk or that walk at great courses, he argues you can't compare it to DR, even though the walk from the 18th grn to 1st tee is long at many courses. I believe the rule is wrong because there are some longer walks in golf and they work because they don't FEEL long. No one is complaining about the walk at Cypress Point because you can feel the anticipation about what is coming and it is a beautiful walk. It works, and it breaks David's rule, but it works. I know it works because I've walked it. If I was some hard fast rule guy and only judged based on a computer image, I might protest that it is a poor routing because of the long walk.

David says there should be 18 holes. besides the obvious fact that there are many 9 hole golf courses in the world, what exactly is a hole? Are we talking about the cup in the green? A separate tee, fwy and green? What if it is double greens and shared fairways? Are those holes? What if I build a private club that does few rounds and I design a green that is played from two different directions to the same hole in the green. If you look at that on google earth you might call it gimmiky or goofy, but what if when you play it you see it works? Then what? What if it FEELS right? Does your rule still matter.

My beef with David M not wanting to see DR, and then comment on the merits of the course, is because he will never know if DR Red FEELS right. He will always be analytical in his approach and always say, it is worthy of discussion, but I'll never experience it. Do you read sheet music or listen to music? Do you read scripts or watch plays and movies? While I agree that sheet music and scripts are worthy of study, they are only part of the act, and I'd say a small part. So all this google earth study and rules don't mean jack squat if you have no desire to feel the turf under your feet, the wind in your face and watch your ball bounce along the ground. You might as well just study golf in a simulator.

[Tim Bert]

Chris - I don't think  most courses esnding at the same point is completely arbitrary.

In my opinion, most (perhaps not all) of the people carrying this discussion forward are doing do in genuine interest and not to criticize the course.

I think what people are trying to get at is simply was the routing exercise made easier by not having the constraints of other courses and it seems to be to be a pretty obvious yes. That isn't at all intended to discount the quality of the course or the holes that Tom designed at Dismal.

And I don't intend it all as an insult but I agree with others that it is difficult to compare the quality of the routing ( not the course) to his other greats because of this freedom.

I would have loved to have seen what would have come from such freedom at Bandon with Pacific Dunes or maybe even abandon Trails. Trails is a better comparison because I am not a fan of the finish and have to think something even better would have been possible had that course been able to not start climbing hills after 15.

That being said, if I put myself in Tom's shoes I can also appreciate why this conversation could be taken as frustrating and insulting.   I hope he understands, that at least from some of us, that's not the intent.

Edit for addition - I didn't change any of the previous parts of the post...

PS - I do get why this works at Dismal more than it might work at other places so I appreciate all the comments there and I have no problem with it. I'm more interested to see if this highly regarded course inspires any type of trend in this direction with destination courses going forward.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim,
Did you know Mike broke some rules at Kingsley?
Ask just about anyone in golf design and it is golf architecture 101 that says short par 4 = small green, and long par 4 = big green.

What the hell was he thinking with 13 & 15? He must have been confused that day because he got it backwards.

[Adam Clayman]

I'd also say that Jack's (original) course just doesn't get old.  It's exciting and a blast to play.

Dan, To call the white, Jack's original course, isn't accurate in my mind. If nobody recalls, He walked off the inaugural round with the epic quote " We've got make some changes out there". I'm sorry I won't chronicle all of the changes again, but suffice to say, the original course was not fun.

Jim Colton, As Chris mentioned, the original 13th green was 40 yards farther than the current. I've tried and tried to visualize where it was exactly, and I've come to the conclusion that it's indiscernible. The reason MUST be that they destroyed the massive dune that the green was saddled in. Also, recall that the green wasn't the issue, it was the fairway. But I'll tell you what, if you did play an approach from that fairway, it was likely one of the most heroic shot demands I've ever seen. Clearly too much for the average baller, but exhilaratingly heroic, nonetheless.

I have not finished all the posts on this thread, but the early on insertion that this was some world class routing caught my eye. Sure the final 10 holes are epic, but I recall hearing, the front side was basically similar to the routings others had submitted.

I have to play the red a few more times, but I'm concerned about the run up to one of the greens on the back.(unless you use a putter from 105y, Mac) Number escapes me but i'm 90% sure #16. The tiny area on the front right is the only possible place for my mind's eye to play a shot that bounces in. I don't mind the exactitude question, but I'm concerned that the green's depth may not be deep enough to hold the shot MY mind's eye sees. Especially in a south wind. Hopefully, the meld will be perfect and my concerns will be alleviated.  

[Tim Bert]

Tim,
Did you know Mike broke some rules at Kingsley?
Ask just about anyone in golf design and it is golf architecture 101 that says short par 4 = small green, and long par 4 = big green.

What the hell was he thinking with 13 & 15? He must have been confused that day because he got it backwards.

Don - Yes. Thanks for that reminder. A lot of people hate 2 and 9 too.  As a member of an often controversial design I get it which is why as I have tried to post I have no issue with Tom's decisions at Dismal.  I think frustrations about Moriarty's responses and approach is starting to rub over to some of us that aren't here to start a war which is unfortunate.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim, I am not frustrated with you at all. But golf is better when Mike DeVries breaks rules. That was my point.

If Tom Doak doesn't route what he did at DR, there is no DR Red. While that would make some happy, I think DR Red is good for golf for a lot of reasons.
I feel the same way about Kingsley.

But if we follow the formulaic rules preached by some here, these courses are much different, or do not get built.

[Tim Bert]

But does that mean it is off limits for discussion?   It shouldn't.

[Chris Johnston]

Chris - I don't think  most courses esnding at the same point is completely arbitrary.

In my opinion, most (perhaps not all) of the people carrying this discussion forward are doing do in genuine interest and not to criticize the course.

I think what people are trying to get at is simply was the routing exercise made easier by not having the constraints of other courses and it seems to be to be a pretty obvious yes. That isn't at all intended to discount the quality of the course or the holes that Tom designed at Dismal.

And I don't intend it all as an insult but I agree with others that it is difficult to compare the quality of the routing ( not the course) to his other greats because of this freedom.

I would have loved to have seen what would have come from such freedom at Bandon with Pacific Dunes or maybe even abandon Trails. Trails is a better comparison because I am not a fan of the finish and have to think something even better would have been possible had that course been able to not start climbing hills after 15.

That being said, if I put myself in Tom's shoes I can also appreciate why this conversation could be taken as frustrating and insulting.   I hope he understands, that at least from some of us, that's not the intent.

Edit for addition - I didn't change any of the previous parts of the post...

PS - I do get why this works at Dismal more than it might work at other places so I appreciate all the comments there and I have no problem with it. I'm more interested to see if this highly regarded course inspires any type of trend in this direction with destination courses going forward.

Tim,
 
I am enjoying both the thread and opinions expressed.  I don't mind at all criticism, as long as it isn't personal.  I started the thread to foster frank and open discussion, as somebody complained it was lacking.

I can't agree with you that a start and finish in the same place isn't arbitrary, and I also believe it certainly does require compromise by the architect.   Mind you, I don't think that thought is in any way wrong, but having the freedom to find the best possible holes does have merit of you want to find the exceptional. 

A agree with you 100% it may be difficult to compare, but so what?  That only matters if comparison was a goal, and it wasn't for us.  It's difficult to compare the quality of my IPhone with the old rotary dialer we had growing up.  It's difficult to compare the quality of an old hickory driver with the latest titanium models. 

I can't speak for Tom, but I'd bet he isn't bothered at all. 

Tom's course isn't "normal".  Neither was Steve Jobs.  I hope people will keep an open mind until they see it, and before making preconceived judgements just because it may be different.

In any event, we love it and, in the end, that's all that matters.