THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[PCCraig]

The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.

This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed. 

Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion. 

Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion.  Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest.  Either way, I support it and him.

It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact.  He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time".  With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all.  While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present?    All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them.  Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne.  I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.

I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post.  Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context.  The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.

I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once.  I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters.  To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing.  I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias?  Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing.  ...Crickets...  And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.

To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block".  With that, the course in question never had a chance.

Like Jim, I've said my piece. 

Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course?  We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well.  While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.

Chris,

Give it a rest.

[Chris Johnston]

Chris, you asked if there is anything more that people want to discuss.  YES, I have some more items that I need to get addressed.

Last year, we added the surf and turf to the dinner menu.  Excellent addition.  HOWEVER, the BBQ Pork Sandwich, with Montgomery Inn BBQ Sauce, was removed from the lunch menu.  To put it mildly, I was disappointed in this move.  I think it was wrong and I hope that it gets "fixed" this year. 

Vehemently,
MRP

Mac,

There really isn't anything like Montgomery Inn!  It was a bit messy (stains) for some people, but I'll take it up with Chef Eric.

CJ

[Chris Johnston]

The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.

This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed. 

Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion. 

Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion.  Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest.  Either way, I support it and him.

It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact.  He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time".  With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all.  While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present?    All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them.  Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne.  I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.

I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post.  Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context.  The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.

I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once.  I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters.  To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing.  I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias?  Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing.  ...Crickets...  And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.

To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block".  With that, the course in question never had a chance.

Like Jim, I've said my piece. 

Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course?  We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well.  While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.

Chris,

Give it a rest.

Pat,

Thanks for the comment!  Please feel free to read other threads.

CJ

[PCCraig]

The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.

This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.  

Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.  

Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion.  Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest.  Either way, I support it and him.

It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact.  He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time".  With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all.  While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present?   All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them.  Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne.  I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.

I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post.  Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context.  The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.

I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once.  I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters.  To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing.  I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias?  Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing.  ...Crickets...  And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.

To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block".  With that, the course in question never had a chance.

Like Jim, I've said my piece.  

Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course?  We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well.  While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.

Chris,

Give it a rest.

Pat,

Thanks for the comment!  Please feel free to read other threads.

CJ

Please feel free to bog down other golf course architecture forums with your P.R. agenda and stories of  pork chops. Most people here don't care and actually want to discuss golf course architecture outside of Dismal River. Believe it or not.

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone believe that if Chris was truly interested in P.R. he would be on here knowingly pissing off raters?

[Tim Bert]

Does anyone believe that if Chris was truly interested in P.R. he would be on here knowingly pissing off raters?

Chris strikes me as a savvy business person. Whether or not one believes his purpose on this discussion forum is to promote his club, it would be silly to believe that he would actively engage in this discussion forum if he believed the net impact would be negative to his business.

So, I guess my answer to your question is yes.

[PCCraig]

.

[Chris Johnston]

The Colton one is the most interesting to me. Looks like he felt he had to commit seppuku to tell the truth. Or something like that. Just my interpretation of his Last Posts, by the way. Haven't spoken with him or heard anything from anyone.

This thread has had its bumps, but any questions have been graciously answered and differing opinions welcomed.  

Many good folks have participated, and any comment by anyone can and should be open for friendly discussion.  

Jim chose to post and he shared his opinion.  Maybe it was truth to him, or maybe he just wanted to get some things off his chest.  Either way, I support it and him.

It does bear pointing out that Jim stated he didn't play the entire White course (let alone more than once), so I welcome and consider his opinion based on that fact.  He also stated that he had a preconceived "mental block" for the White course due to not "getting it right the first time".  With both of these statements, I considered Jim's post for what it was yet believe, going in, it was impossible for him to like the White course it at all.  While a fresh thought and possible thread idea, I wonder if mental blocks (impeding an open mind) are often present?   All courses (including Jim's) make changes, and I believe a course should be judged having made them.  Last I looked, a number of courses are changed, renovated, or restored every year, among them ANGC and Royal Melbourne.  I also suppose it makes sense to say again that judgement is arbitrary and we are all guided by our own preconceived notions.

I'm bothered that some here assert people can't discuss Jim's post.  Even more so when people have their own posts challenged out of context.  The treatment of Michael George here yesterday was shameful as he has no dog in any fight.

I wonder how the reception would be if I made the exact same post about Jim's course having played it once.  I'd bet I would be shouted down by the same old and tired characters.  To his credit, Jim epitomizes an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter for, and advocate of, his club...and that to me is a good thing.  I do wonder, where were the critical trolls and usual accusations or summary dismissals due to bias?  Even more so after Jim confessed bias, which I also appreciate him doing.  ...Crickets...  And, no, I don't wish to open an extended discussion about Jim's post...he said what he said...and what he said in no way makes him bad.

To me, passing judgement on a course for anything than that which it is today seems but a means to continue the stated "mental block".  With that, the course in question never had a chance.

Like Jim, I've said my piece.  

Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss about either course?  We have covered routing, cart transports, and pork chops pretty well.  While probably not possible, I think Tom and Don Mahaffey could speak volumes about very interesting things done.

Chris,

Give it a rest.

Pat,

Thanks for the comment!  Please feel free to read other threads.

CJ

Please feel free to bog down other golf course architecture forums with your P.R. agenda and stories of  pork chops. Most people here don't care and actually want to discuss golf course architecture outside of Dismal River. Believe it or not.

Pat - The solution is pretty basic, don't read or participate on this thread if it bugs you.  If you have a topic you want discussed, start a thread.

You don't have to challenge my motives, that's more than insulting.  If I was interested in P.R., there are firms than can do it better than me and a lot of places far more effective than here.  Rather, I'm here to learn from people who like to talk about architecture and golf, and I happily respond to a wide range of questions about the club and my experience in the industry, even including about the pork chop if asked.  I also make comments where I think I may have something to contribut and never barf on, or hijack, a thread others may be enjoying. 

"most people don't care"?  Really?  Pat, you should see my inbox.  It would appear some people care very much.  Those that do can participate and those that don't can participate on another topic.  Pretty simple, actually.

I can believe you may not want to discuss Dismal River, so please, please, feel free.  Have a look for yourself, some threads here don't touch on architecture at all, and its all in good fun and topical by well meaning people. 

I will tell you this, I don't think I'll be starting a thread anytime soon - It's a pain to have to check it and see otherwise good people turn to ugliness or question the motives of another. 


Tim - I don't think anyone is hurting Dismal River here and I'm anything but savvy.  If I were savvy, I probably wouldnt have been in the golf business for most of the last 25 years!    This is a group of like minded people, even if we don't agree some of the time.  I will confess to enjoying other's views, for I find it insightful. 

[David_Elvins]

Chris Johnston,

One of the things that has intrigued me from this thread was you saying that the Red course was constructed without going in to debt. This sounds outstanding.  

How did you achieve this?  Should you publish some sort of paper/article/information booklet that other similar clubs could learn from?  

[Dwight Phelps]

I've never played either course at DR, but I'm going to be there this summer for the 5th Major (thank you to all who made this possible!) and I couldn't be more excited about it.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the various discussions regarding both courses, but also wanted to share those aspects that I'm most looking forward to (or at least nervously looking forward to):

I can't decide which course I'm looking forward to playing more (though my instinct is the Red), but sometimes thinking about playing the White course scares me.  I'm a big hitter (and I wouldn't plan on playing the tips) that's consistently wild, but there are some pictures that show some seriously daunting drives (2 and 14 come to mind). 2 especially makes me already feel a slice working its way up from a flying right elbow - there's a bail-out option for laying up (off the tee) with a mid-iron, right?

I can't wait to play the 4th, though, like those who always play the tips because they want 'to get everything they paid for', I won't be able to resist trying to go for the green in 2 - taking on the windmill - regardless of whether or not that's the correct strategic play.

Looking forward to the 5th for the same reason I'm looking forward to playing BT #14 (whenever that happens) - Challenge Accepted.

The greens on the White course look very interesting and more than a little fun - the semi-blind, semi-punchbowl 1st and doughnut 10th look fantastic and I can't wait.  The 18th green also looks fascinating, but I thought I saw somewhere around here that it was changing.

In short, the White, to me, looks like a fantastic and fun course that could absolutely kick my butt.

As I said above, I'm probably looking forward a bit more to the Red course (possibly/probably due to my very real fear of the some aspects of the White).  I've never played a TD course.  The 'highest ranked' course I've played would probably be Rustic Canyon.  As such, I'm looking forward to - without any thought yet to the course itself - playing a Doak design for the first time.

'Anatomy' was the first GCA book I read, and the first thing that I remember from that book is that 'undulation is the soul of the game'.  In that vein, I can't wait to play 15, 17, and 18, which, according to the pictures I've seen, seem to take that idea and absolutely sprint with it.

The other holes I'm most looking forward to on the Red are 4 and 14. I have a soft spot for short 4s and love the Alps conceit on 14.

I know that there are other great holes on both courses which have gone unmentioned - remember I'm going off pictures alone, not personal experience - but I will reiterate that I can't wait to play these courses.  My only criticism is my fear of some of the shots (esp. tee shots) demanded by such courses - however, I also feel like that is merely a rite of passage for someone who's been reared on LA's parkland munis.

I, for one, have loved all the discussions, photo tours, and comments on these courses (as well as all other courses). I hope to continue seeing them continue in the future along with the spirited discussion that invariably rides shotgun.

[Chris Johnston]

Chris Johnston,

One of the things that has intrigued me from this thread was you saying that the Red course was constructed without going in to debt. This sounds outstanding.  

How did you achieve this?  Should you publish some sort of paper/article/information booklet that other similar clubs could learn from?  

Hi David,

I think I covered it before in this thread, but the answer to the question is the members voted to fund the cost of the new course...pretty amazing given the time frame involved.   It's probably a "close cousin" to clubs that may vote to renovate an existing course.  And, remember, the land was already there.

Hope it helps.

CJ

p.s. I wouldn't mind publishing something with Tom and Don about the story for I think it has merit.  We really did do things right without spending a fortune.

[John Kavanaugh]

Not a book, please God, not a book.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Not a book, please God, not a book.

There is a first time for everything...

+1...

[jeffwarne]

Forgetting all the nonsense, I always enjoy the Dismal river threads.
A very interesting case study of an emerging trend in course construction-the destination club.
I think it's fantastic that Chris opens up his course and club for discusssion.
It's great that the first course was designed by the greatest player in history and a noted architect.(Nicklaus)
It's gravy that that architect built the post course on a unique piece of Sand Hills land after a collaboration with an architect that was soon to build the second course on the property.(Doak)
Having the comments of Doak, as well as Don Mahaffey's make the threads about Dismal thread fascinating to me on multiple fronts. to include (at least) an interesting, ongoing documentary on architecture, construction, and yes, a business model.

Never been there-never met Chris.
But speaking as one who runs a club not without GCA controversy, I respect the hell out of him for opening up far more than I ever would publicly.

If you don't like Dismal River threads, don't read them.
If people choose to get nasty, don't engage them.
It's very simple

[RJ_Daley]

I haven't posted on this thread for all the reasons already expressed regarding not enjoying seeing the personal attacks, for no freaking reason!

I really can't say anything more to demonstrate how I feel about the entire matter than Jeff's above.  Well said Jeff!

I am looking forward to my new Aussie friend Andy Gray and I making a run at the 5th Major.  Thanks Chris for your input, frank and open discussion.  I can't think of a better gent in the golf biz.

[Terry Lavin]

.

[Mark Bourgeois]

But Jeff (and RJ),

If all of us adopt that behavior, then where does that leave the discussion? Don't such threads degenerate into cheerleading?

But as CB Macdonald wrote so shall it always be: criticizing a man's course is like going into his family. Not accusing anyone in particular of this, it's more a blanket opinion thrown out for reflection. Why is this so, in the real world and on here?

[Tim_Weiman]

Forgetting all the nonsense, I always enjoy the Dismal river threads.
A very interesting case study of an emerging trend in course construction-the destination club.
I think it's fantastic that Chris opens up his course and club for discusssion.
It's great that the first course was designed by the greatest player in history and a noted architect.(Nicklaus)
It's gravy that that architect built the post course on a unique piece of Sand Hills land after a collaboration with an architect that was soon to build the second course on the property.(Doak)
Having the comments of Doak, as well as Don Mahaffey's make the threads about Dismal thread fascinating to me on multiple fronts. to include (at least) an interesting, ongoing documentary on architecture, construction, and yes, a business model.

Never been there-never met Chris.
But speaking as one who runs a club not without GCA controversy, I respect the hell out of him for opening up far more than I ever would publicly.

If you don't like Dismal River threads, don't read them.
If people choose to get nasty, don't engage them.
It's very simple

Jeff:

Appreciate your post. I think what some have missed is that this thread actually has several interesting golf architecture issues to discuss if we could just filter out the background noise of personal attacks.

[jeffwarne]

But Jeff (and RJ),

If all of us adopt that behavior, then where does that leave the discussion? Don't such threads degenerate into cheerleading?

What behavior are you referring to?

This part?

"If you don't like Dismal River threads don't read them"
"If people choose to get nasty, don't engage them"

I don't see where I'm promoting cheerleading.

My favorite writer on this site is Mark Rowlinson. I've never been led astray by any of his reviews, yet I can't think of a nasty word, and barely a negative word he's ever written about any course,yet somehow I haven't stumbled onto any dogtracks by following his recomendations.
I can tell an awful lot by what he doesn't say about a course than I can from many more nasty reviews.

I happen to think people go way overboard with frank and honest commentary, but that's just my minority opinion.
I've always felt you could get more with sugar than spice, and am a big fan of damning with faint praise.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Comparing any of us to Mark R is patently unfair to us! Give us a lower bar.

I just meant your first point (about not participating). And of course you're not promoting cheerleading,  just wondering if that's where we all end up if only people who like a course (or who support the premise of a thread) participate.

Maybe one way to reconcile our views is just to ask questions. Lots and lots of questions. Perfect for me as I don't have any answers. Let me see if I can do more of that.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark B:

Hopefully discussion would not just turn into cheerleading.

Think for a second about Pebble Beach. Imagine a debate about whether PB is overrated. Would that discussion have to include personal attacks?

Another example might be nearby Spyglass Hill: did RTJ do a good job routing the golf course? Would that discussion have to include personal attacks?

Now, I realize Dismal isn't Pebble or Spyglass. Project members are alive and are participants in the discussion. But, if we all just imagined how we would debate PB and SH and apply that to the Dismal discussion, shouldn't that cut out personal stuff but also allow for frank commentary?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tim, hmm. So why is it that criticizing a man's course is like going into his family?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, hmm. So why is it that criticizing a man's course is like going into his family?

Mark,

I am certainly not saying frank discussion about someone's course is ever easy. But, if we want to increase our chances of success we definitely have to eliminate all the personal stuff.

[David_Elvins]

I think I covered it before in this thread, but the answer to the question is the members voted to fund the cost of the new course...pretty amazing given the time frame involved.

Has the running of the club changed between private ownership and the members having equity? 

[John Kavanaugh]

I think I covered it before in this thread, but the answer to the question is the members voted to fund the cost of the new course...pretty amazing given the time frame involved.

Has the running of the club changed between private ownership and the members having equity? 

Many members had equity before the Red was built. Nothing has changed.