THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[DMoriarty]

Tim,  My intention whenever I have brought this up was to start not a war but a conversation.

Don I don't understand why DR wouldn't exist except for the "open-jaw " routing.   I understand why the course couldn't start near the clubhouse, but the way Chris has described it the open jaw routing was purely a matter of their preference.  Could you explain?

[Don_Mahaffey]

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

It is not off limits at all, but what if I say, I don't like the 15th at Kingsley because the green is small and because of that I'm never going to play it. Now, how much more is there to discuss? I don't like small greens on long 4s, thus they are bad, thus I'll never go play a course that has small greens on long 4s.

Are you suggesting that is study?

[David_Elvins]

I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it. 

I can't remember the exact words I used but they were definitely not complimentary.  The sooner 18a becomes a practice green and 13a becomes part of the 3rd course, the better, imo.  They detract from the course, imo.


 

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 debate.

Tom,  I have tried to clarify my comments several times,  I am not suggesting that Dismal is a terrible course, or even that the routing solution is not the best solution for the property.  I am only suggesting that removing the constraint of starting where you finish makes the routing process so easy that it precludes the course from being discussed as one of the world's great routing achievements.

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.

Tom,

How many cartball course get a Doak 10?  Or even a Doak 9?  It's silly to suggest that you do not have rules and ideals,  listed or not.
[/quote]

[Chip Gaskins]

Tobacco Road certainly gets dinged for its distance between 14 and 15.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim,  My intention whenever I have brought this up was to start not a war but a conversation.

Don I don't understand why DR wouldn't exist except for the "open-jaw " routing.   I understand why the course couldn't start near the clubhouse, but the way Chris has described it the open jaw routing was purely a matter of their preference.  Could you explain?

The reason I am so impressed with the routing is because the course could be built so economically, and maintained practically. Tom will probably say it was all about the golf, but he also knew there was no extra $$$.

Thus he routed a course that required little earth work, very little drainage because he never messed with what was there, and he took advantage of the best pieces of land.

He routed what I consider a great course and he did it in a way that meant we could build it for the resources available. Remember, no one was lending any money for golf course construction during this time and the members of DR paid as we went. There is no debt on this course, so there is a very good chance it will be there for some time.

I know some will say, why should I care about any of that? To that I answer, if Tom doesn't do what he did, the course doesn't exists. That is my belief and I believe he pulled it off beautifully and if that means I'm a butt boy or a shill for DR, then believe whatever you want. I know I call it like I see it and I didn't just see it, I lived it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - re your discussion with Bart about "ideals", my take is that there are indeed such ideals, and that we can and should discuss/debate courses in those terms. Here's why:

As an architect one can study long and hard (what? the principles of great architecture) and then one can put all one's study into practice, on the ground in the form of a golf courses (aiming to do what? to manifest those principles as best one can) and then one can slowly become famous and have his/her courses ranked highly by the collective/consensus opinion (that high praise engendered by what? by a consistently successful manifestation of those principles) and then one can sit back and talk about those courses and that praise (explaining it how? by referencing one's desire to promote and adhere to those same classic, enduring principles of great golf course architecture).

Now, how could we shorten down this narrative? I think it's by simply saying: Here's an architect who knows what he's doing, one who creates great (i.e.ideal) golf courses. So to me, it's undeniable: of course there is a consensus about ideals. And so, when some golfer/gca fan suggests that a course/hole misses that mark or varies from that ideal, and architect can in my view legitimately say "You're wrong, I don't think it does and so I disagree" or "Yes it probably does veer from the ideal, but I think in this instance it works"; but he can only with much less legitimacy say "There is no such thing as an ideal". Why do I think that's a less legitimate response? Because that same architect has based his entire career on the belief in such ideals!

By the way: I think I know about and appreciate deeply the notion that art can successfully break the rules; Moby Dick and King Lear are both magnificent creations, deeply affecting works of art -- and they are both in their own ways "screwy", straying far from ideal structures or content/explication. But, arguing that they succeed brilliantly in spite of their departure from the "ideal" is a lot different than arguing that there are no ideals at all.

Peter

[Dan Herrmann]

Adam Clayman - When I said "original", I was thinking "first course on site".  I shouldn't have used the term "original" - you're right.

[Tim Bert]

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

It is not off limits at all, but what if I say, I don't like the 15th at Kingsley because the green is small and because of that I'm never going to play it. Now, how much more is there to discuss? I don't like small greens on long 4s, thus they are bad, thus I'll never go play a course that has small greens on long 4s.

Are you suggesting that is study?

Don - No I am not suggesting any such thing nor do I think the majority of those interested are saying or implying such a thing about Dismal.

As I said I am interested to see if it becomes more of a trend in the destination golf space.  Finding the best 18 holes has merits.  It wouldn't work as well in a walking only no cart environment like Pacific Dunes or  Ballyneal but it doesn't stop me from wondering what types of modification might have been made to improve the holes at those sites if it was a possibility. Sounds like based on Tom's response that it wouldn't have made much of a difference ar those locations which is why it is even more interesting that it made such a difference here and impressive that he was able to identify it and use it as a strength here.

[Don_Mahaffey]

While not a golf architecture specific book, or even landscape architecture focused, 101 Things I learned in Architecture School by Matthew Frederick is a most insightful book. The book has many "lessons" that work for vertical or golf architecture. At the beginning of the book, the Author's note reads:

Certainties for architecture students are few.  The architecture curriculum is a perplexing and unruly beast, involving long hours, dense texts, and frequently obtuse instruction.  If the lessons of architecture are fascinating (and they are), they are also fraught with so many exceptions and caveats that students can easily wonder if there is anything concrete to learn about architecture at all.
The nebulousness of architectural instruction is largely necessary.  Architecture is, after all, a creative field, and it is understandably difficult for instructors of design to concretize lesson plans out of fear of imposing unnecessary limits on the creative process.  The resulting open-endedness provides students a ride down many fascinating new avenues, but often with a feeling that architecture is built on quicksand rather than on solid earth.
This book aims to firm up the foundation of the architecture studio by providing rallying points upon which the design process may thrive.  The following lessons in design, drawing, creative process, and presentation first came to me as barely discernible glimmers through the fog of my own education.  But in the years I have spent since as a practitioner and educator, they have become surely brighter and clearer.  And the questions they address have remained the central questions of architecture education:  my own students show me again and again that the questions and confusions of architecture school are near universal.
I invite you to leave this book open on the desktop as you work in the studio, to keep in your coat pocket to read on public transit, and to peruse randomly when in need of a jump-start in solving an architectural design problem.  Whatever you do with the lessons that follow, be that grateful I am not around to point out the innumerable exceptions and caveats to each of them.  

Matthew Frederick, Architect  August 2007  

 

Hobbyists think there are hard fast rules that must be followed, practitioners know there are exceptions to every rule or idea.

[Mark Saltzman]

I have never heard David Elvins say that Bill Coore "cheated" for having 20 holes at Lost Farm; maybe I missed it. 

I can't remember the exact words I used but they were definitely not complimentary.  The sooner 18a becomes a practice green and 13a becomes part of the 3rd course, the better, imo.  They detract from the course, imo.

[/quote]

I don't know if David has said it, but I'll say it.  I hated that they built 13a and 18a.  If they were happy with the 18 holes they built, and they required some longer walks to make it work, then so be it.  Just don't built these stupid extra holes that needlessly disrupt the flow of the round.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Don. That's very interesting.   Im not sure your description is at all consistent with Chris's repeated description of how this routing represents the best collection of golf holes (maybe anywhere) because the holes were chosen free of the tradional constraints.

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks Don. That's very interesting.   Im not sure your description is at all consistent with Chris's repeated description of how this routing represents the best collection of golf holes (maybe anywhere) because the holes were chosen free of the tradional constraints.

The above shows that this is not a discussion, it is a flame war. Every post includes an insult.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Thanks Don. That's very interesting.   Im not sure your description is at all consistent with Chris's repeated description of how this routing represents the best collection of golf holes (maybe anywhere) because the holes were chosen free of the tradional constraints.

I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and you revert to this?

[DMoriarty]

John,  I had no intent to flame anyone.  The points don't seem at all consistent to me.  Chris has expressed a perspective on routing that I think goes to the heart of this issue, and I think it worth exploring.   Don has offered a different explanation that to me heads things in a completely different direction.

[DMoriarty]

I'm confused.  Isn't that what Chris just said?

[DMoriarty]

From Chris's recent post 172:

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.

[Jud_T]

Disclaimers:

1.  I have yet to make it to Dismal (everyone knows I only fly private to the Sand Hills  ).
2.  Oddsmakers say the chances of me setting aside my preconceptions and preferring the White to the Red are about as good as the Cubs winning the World Series this year (Currently 60-1 in Vegas and that's only because so many schmucks play it every year).
4.  While Don's input about economics of build and maintenance is excellent, and perhaps even groundbreaking, it should be arms-length from a critical analysis of the finished product.
3.  I'm loathe to make any preconceived judgements about the club prior to visiting except to say that Blue Horseshoe says the Firepit burns brighter at Kingsley.  

As far as "rules" about returning loops go, imposing requirements from clubs where 30 guys are milling around the bar watching matches come in at 18 while all the ladies who lunch are looking down approvingly at their hubbies finishing up the club matches whilst picking at their poached salmon at a suburban club with trees planted all around the perimeter to block out the view of the Piggly Wiggly or the Interstate to a destination club in the Sand Hills is akin to saying that I should employ the same course management strategy and lines as Josh Tarble when visiting (fyi- Josh hits each of his clubs about 40% farther than I do).

P.S.  free high-end microbrew to the first guy who finds a longer run-on sentence on the site...

[Don_Mahaffey]

David, what you don't get, and you'll never get because this is more about an argument for you then study, is Tom did both.
That is why it is a genius routing.
It is not about trading good golf for ease of construction, or spending more then you have to connect the dots, it is about solving the routing puzzle with a solution that did both. Build great golf that can be built and maintained for practical expense.

Your biases will never let that sink in, and it is too bad because it is worthy of study, for those who actually wish to be a student.

And I have zero belief that you have any desire to actually learn a damn thing. And I should know better because I've seen you in action for years.
The last word is yours.

[Jerry Kluger]

I was fortunate to play Red this summer - in fact, I played it twice and I want to see how others felt about #18 as I found it incredibly difficult.  That is not to say that I thought it was a bad hole - by no means did I find that to be the case but it certainly was tough.  My handicap is less than 10 and I found the rest of the course very playable but I am not especially long and I just didn't feel that I could hit it on that green in 2.  The tee shot was hard to place and even if I hit a good tee shot the second shot was so long that I could not hit and hold that green and I didn't see any option to run the ball onto the green.  Was I missing something or is it simply a 3 shot hole for all but the very long hitters?  

[Keith OHalloran]

Don,
Can you talk a little about some specifics decisions that were made that helped the maintenance?

[Josh Tarble]

I have a question for anyone that has played both (especially Tom D.):

How much further is the walk from 18 green to 1 tee than Crystal Downs?  I can safely say they aren't close and the walk isn't easy...and in no way did I come off the course saying "I wish the 18th was closer to 1"

p.s. Jud, I think a better comparison would be like me trying to play a bump and run 4wood from 60 yards

[DMoriarty]

Who is flaming whom here, Don?   .

I didn't say it was about trading good holes for ease of construction.  I'm just trying to make sense of your statement that, without this particular routing the course wouldn't exist, and reconcile  that with Chris's statements that Tom had free reign to choose the very best regardless of traditional constraints.  The way you put it, it sounds like Tom had  the no real choice.  Do it this way, or not at all.

I suppose one could reconcile these two ideas but I am having trouble understanding how, exactly, unless the very best routing also happened to be the only one that was doable financially.  That seems unrealistic, doesn't it?

Anyway, you seem incapable of discussing it without resorting to insults and attacks, so there probably isn't much point in continuing down this line.

[Chris Johnston]

I was fortunate to play Red this summer - in fact, I played it twice and I want to see how others felt about #18 as I found it incredibly difficult.  That is not to say that I thought it was a bad hole - by no means did I find that to be the case but it certainly was tough.  My handicap is less than 10 and I found the rest of the course very playable but I am not especially long and I just didn't feel that I could hit it on that green in 2.  The tee shot was hard to place and even if I hit a good tee shot the second shot was so long that I could not hit and hold that green and I didn't see any option to run the ball onto the green.  Was I missing something or is it simply a 3 shot hole for all but the very long hitters?  

Hi Jerry,

Did you play the back tees?  If so, it's a pretty stout hole.  Tom provided some shorter tees on the hole and they may have been a better choice.  That is one reason we don't set the course with customary tee markers. 

The 18th green doesn't have a run up per se, but there is a large expanse left of the green from which you can easily chip or use a putter.

I recall that you have played at Sand Hills.  What tee do you utilize on 18 there?  I can hit it pretty far and have often had trouble reaching that green - I miss it more than half the time.

CJ

[Don_Mahaffey]

Who is flaming whom here, Don?   .

I didn't say it was about trading good holes for ease of construction.  I'm just trying to make sense of your statement that, without this particular routing the course wouldn't exist, and reconcile  that with Chris's statements that Tom had free reign to choose the very best regardless of traditional constraints.  The way you put it, it sounds like Tom had  the no real choice.  Do it this way, or not at all.

I suppose one could reconcile these two ideas but I am having trouble understanding how, exactly, unless the very best routing also happened to be the only one that was doable financially.  That seems unrealistic, doesn't it?

Anyway, you seem incapable of discussing it without resorting to insults and attacks, so there probably isn't much point in continuing down this line.

It is only unrealistic to you and others who do not believe it possible.

[Chris Johnston]

David,  Tom asked me directly if it was important to me if the course finished where it started.  My answer was no, and that I wanted the best 18 holes possible.  The result of that conversation may test some convention here, but it was easily the right choice to make.

Don is also correct, and there is no conflict at all.  We were fortunate that the routing also made perfect sense from an irrigation and maintenance perspective given, in part, that we already a well that fit perfectly.  

I suppose we couild have moved a ton of material and made something work, but that would have not been kind nor honor the natural landscape.  Keep in mind, 14 or so greens took less than an hour to shape.  The bulldozer moved dirt on only a few holes.

All - The walk back to #1 is indeed long, so we don't walk it.  That's why we have carts for that purpose.  Candidly, while it may be sacred to some, I find no importance in walking from 18 green to 1 tee, or 18 green to clubhouse at all.  

We also plan to have a halfway house on the bench between 9 green and 18 green.  We are stuck a bit on the type of structure and are actually thinking about placing it underground.  Can't explain it better without one seeing it, but we are very sensitive about a building in the view scape.