[Mark Bourgeois]

 First, congrats to the Dismal team.

I have a few questions:

Why did Klein rate it when he couldn't issue a score in one category? Is there some sort of statute of limitations?

Why the high score for routing when mention is made of a one-mile drive to/from the course? Does that not count? (Serious question as I don't know how "routing" is defined; since mention of the drive is made then it makes me wonder if that counts. Otherwise, why mention it?)

Why is the land use plan so high when the entrance drive is listed as being 27(!) miles long - and 10 miles too long at that?

Are these cases of the course overcoming these shortcomings?

As a broader question not really specific to Dismal, isn't it sort of prejudicial to make a public rating? Or have so many already rated it that it won't matter?

[Garland Bayley]

PCraig - what would you suggest?

I would suggest someone explain why it's so clearly better than the following courses:

Pacific Dunes
Friar's Head
Whistling Straits
Old Macdonald
Bandon Dunes
Ocean Course
Etc.
Etc.

Putting Dismal Doak slightly behind Sand Hills is extremely high praise for effectively a brand new golf course. Right or wrong, how that doesn't even warrant a meaningful discussion is pathetic.    

How do you know Brad didn't rank each and every one of those higher than Dismal Red?
 

[William_G]

PCraig - what would you suggest?

I would suggest someone explain why it's so clearly better than the following courses:

Pacific Dunes
Friar's Head
Whistling Straits
Old Macdonald
Bandon Dunes
Ocean Course
Etc.
Etc.

Putting Dismal Doak slightly behind Sand Hills is extremely high praise for effectively a brand new golf course. Right or wrong, how that doesn't even warrant a meaningful discussion is pathetic.    

How do you know Brad didn't rank each and every one of those higher than Dismal Red?
 

+1

lots of room between 9 and 10, 9.5 for instance

[Mac Plumart]

 

[Mark Steffey]

.....As a broader question not really specific to Dismal, isn't it sort of prejudicial to make a public rating? Or have so many already rated it that it won't matter?

are you implying that people who also rate for GW would now want to rate DRD within a close range to Brad's #?    interesting....

[Carl Nichols]

Someone with more time than I could go look through old rater's notebooks to see the scores brad gave other courses. He did give chambers bay a "8.5-9."

[Mark Steffey]

Someone with more time than I could go look through old rater's notebooks to see the scores brad gave other courses. He did give chambers bay a "8.5-9."

as luck would have it i have a couple here on the desk awaiting time to read.   lake of isle north (public at foxwoods casino ct) was given 6.8 & tulsa country club (OK) a 6.4 while Philly Cricket Club (PA) Wissahickon got 8.2 (scoring "10" in both natural setting and overall land plan & variety and memorability of par 4's.  Mid-Pines (NC) was given 8.0

[Howard Riefs]

Someone with more time than I could go look through old rater's notebooks to see the scores brad gave other courses. He did give chambers bay a "8.5-9."

Whistling Straits -- 8.5
Trump International GL Scotland -- 8.4
Dormie -- 7.5
Streamsong Red -- 7.5
Streamsong Blue -- 7.3

Indices:
http://t.golfweek.com/news/golf-travel/raters-notebook/
http://t.golfweek.com/categories/news/travel/raters-notebook/

[William_G]

no doubt it would be fun to see Brad's personal ratings of all courses.....sounds like someone's book? eeek   

[Steve Lang]

  How does one rate the bugs coming home along the river valley on the Red??  I gave them a  -6 during the 5th Major ..

[Sean_A]

Well done Dismal folks, its wonderful to see a turn-around success story.  

Anybody else think going to a decimal point in a rating is bizarre?  Can a course really be .2 better than another course? 
 
Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Well done Dismal folks, its wonderful to see a turn-around success story.  

Anybody else think going to a decimal point in a rating is bizarre?  Can a course really be .2 better than another course? 
 
Ciao

I generally mark out of 1,000 Sean...

Without seeing it, I already know Dismal Red will fall somewhere between 873 and 911.

(I do really like the look of it though - For instance, I'd prefer to see it ahead of the Streamsong or Bandon courses)

[Josh Bills]

Based upon my plays at Dismal River Red and White, they both are amazing courses.  Looking at his criteria, I would have to agree the Red course is of a high quality, though some grow in still needed.  Would I agree with every one of his premises or conclusions, probably not, but the overall impression is similar to mine, spectacular place, spectacular golf.  I played three 18 hole and some cross country on the Red as well as three 18 holes and some cross country on the White.  Both are amazing properties with world class holes.  I played I think 34 holes straight on the White course without losing a ball and the Red has seemingly more room to hit it.  It feels like a golfer’s oasis in the middle of nowhere with endless possibilities for play, I think his assessment of a 9 is certainly justifiable.  With two amazing courses, the Dismal River Club is simply amazing.   

White (Nicklaus) Holes 4 in foreground and 8 in background


White (Nicklaus) Hole 15


Red (Doak) Hole 5


Red (Doak) Hole 17

[PCCraig]

It doesn't matter what Brad's personal rankings are. My point is that his "9" would rank it as second on the Modern list. If he, or anyone else on his rating panel, has that many 9's on his personal list the scale is off.

[PCCraig]

So Brad Klein just listed Dismal River Red as the 2nd best American golf course built since 1960...second only to Sand Hills. And all we've gotten so far here is a bunch of back slapping and a discussion on hole handicaps in the sand hills.


Sad.  

Pat, the far more important issue is why folks are referring to him as "Dr." all of a sudden.  

It's amazing how a guy can go from "that pencil-necked, know-it-all architecture dork from Golfweek" to "Dr. Klein" ... as soon as he likes your course!

Considering Anthony Gray was/is a Dr., it doesn't say much for the title...

[Michael George]

Why did Klein rate it when he couldn't issue a score in one category? Is there some sort of statute of limitations?

Why the high score for routing when mention is made of a one-mile drive to/from the course? Does that not count? (Serious question as I don't know how "routing" is defined; since mention of the drive is made then it makes me wonder if that counts. Otherwise, why mention it?)

Why is the land use plan so high when the entrance drive is listed as being 27(!) miles long - and 10 miles too long at that?

Are these cases of the course overcoming these shortcomings?

As a broader question not really specific to Dismal, isn't it sort of prejudicial to make a public rating? Or have so many already rated it that it won't matter?

Mark:

1 - I think it is acceptable (although not preferred) to rate without giving a conditioning score.  People want to know about the new courses and it simply is not fair to rate conditioning in the first 2 years.  In fact, I think it is hard to rate a lot of courses this year on conditioning.  I am hopeful that great courses don't drop in the ratings due to one harsh winter.  

2-  The routing is a good question.  Having walked DRR, I can tell you that the routing from 1-18 is wonderful...as good as I have seen.  However, I do believe that your concerns should be considered in rating a routing.  Brad did not deduct much for those concerns.  Others may deduct more.  I think it is up to the rater and let the ratings fall where they may.

3- Not sure access roads have ever been considered in a rating.  Land use planning has to do with the golf course, not an access road.  Otherwise, you would have to deduct the long drives into Bandon and Sand Hills too.  Can you imagine the deduction for Fishers Island...you cannot even get there by car!!!!

4- I have no problem with public ratings.  If a public rating by Brad Klein influences his raters, then shame on those raters.   I personally enjoy Brad's ratings and really respect his opinion.  I think he gets it right a lot.   He has long espoused many Ross gems and I have found many of these courses to be greatly underrated ----- Brookside in Ohio being the greatest example.

[Michael Whitaker]

First, congrats to the Dismal team.

I have a few questions:

Why did Klein rate it when he couldn't issue a score in one category? Is there some sort of statute of limitations?

Why the high score for routing when mention is made of a one-mile drive to/from the course? Does that not count? (Serious question as I don't know how "routing" is defined; since mention of the drive is made then it makes me wonder if that counts. Otherwise, why mention it?)

Why is the land use plan so high when the entrance drive is listed as being 27(!) miles long - and 10 miles too long at that?

Are these cases of the course overcoming these shortcomings?

As a broader question not really specific to Dismal, isn't it sort of prejudicial to make a public rating? Or have so many already rated it that it won't matter?

Mark - Spot on! As good as Dismal Red is (and, it's VERY good) there are many issues. Especially when compared to every other modern course in the country... which is what the Golfweek ratings are all about.  To give the course an overall rating of 9 means it is nearly at the top of the list. The #1 highest ranked modern course has a score of 9.34, so the rating means Brad thinks it is nearly the best modern course ever built. Lofty stuff indeed.

I'm not a fan of the one mile ride in a gas powered cart to get to the first tee... but, they had no other choice. Still, it detracts from the experience for me, especially since you've got that same one mile trip back after the round.

As Steve mentions, the flies are something to behold and will eat you alive without heavy doses of repellant. Does that affect my opinion of the course design? No! But, it does affect my opinion of the experience.

And, Mark, I do believe that Brad's high rating reflects the course overcoming the shortcomings of its environment. It is a very creative course with some of the most natural holes you will ever play. The presentation is so natural, unforced and creative that I can see someone becoming smitten with the course and gushing with a rating... but, top 10 in the country? A bit early for that I think.

This is going to be fun, watching the yin-yang of the Nicklaus course detractors praise the Doak course. There is a lot of emotion tied up in these opinions and ratings, which is good I guess, because it yields spirited debate.

Personally, I'm impressed with the passion places like Dismal, Cabot Links, Bandon, Streamsong, Ballyneal, etc, etc, bring out in their creators. As Yo-Yo Ma said, " Passion is one great force that unleashes creativity, because if you're passionate about something, then you're more willing to take risks." There were a lot of risks taken in creating these places for our enjoyment. Thank God for the risk takers!

[Mac Plumart]

It doesn't matter what Brad's personal rankings are. My point is that his "9" would rank it as second on the Modern list. If he, or anyone else on his rating panel, has that many 9's on his personal list the scale is off.

"that many 9's"

 

On the modern list, there is 1.  Sand Hills.  Dismal Doak was just given a 9 by Brad.  If that number holds up, that would be 2 total on the modern list.

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael Whitaker, Forget what their ranking is, how do they have the nerve to charge what they charge if conditions are that spotty? But, if it doesn't affect play, and is purely cosmetic, it's a non factor for architectural analysis.

Adam - I agree that conditioning is mainly cosmetic and I generally overlook spotty presentations. As a matter of fact, I'm generally more accepting of "natural" course presentations than most. But, some of these courses need to give up their quest to have fescue greens. The experience of playing Ballyneal is greatly affected IMHO by the putting surfaces. I've played there several rounds over the past two or three years and it's the same story each time. Those greens would not be acceptable on a C-level course in the UK, much less one that proposes to be one of the most highly ranked in the world.

And, as for the courses at Bandon... they obviously know how to grow grass out there as Old Mac and the Par 3 course have good greens. But, to charge premium prices for the sorry surfaces presented at Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes is a shame. I don't care what the reason might be... fix the problem. Again, if these greens were on a prominent course in the UK (which is the standard they use for comparison) the staff would be tossed. There is no issue with these courses that they can't fix if they want... they just don't seem to want to fix them.

[PCCraig]

It doesn't matter what Brad's personal rankings are. My point is that his "9" would rank it as second on the Modern list. If he, or anyone else on his rating panel, has that many 9's on his personal list the scale is off.

"that many 9's"

 

On the modern list, there is 1.  Sand Hills.  Dismal Doak was just given a 9 by Brad.  If that number holds up, that would be 2 total on the modern list.

Mac,

I agree with you. I was responding to someone above who asked "How do you know Brad didn't rank each and every one of those higher than Dismal Red?" when I listed a number of courses Dismal Doak was ranked higher than.

[Bill Seitz]

For Brad, he left the conditioning as unavailable/incomplete anyway, definitely a tough winter everywhere and now drought conditions all over the west, never seen Bandon so baked out.

Well, either conditions are important or they aren't.  The message from Brad seems to be that conditions are unimportant if a course's poor condition is justifiable, which it surely is for a course as young as Dismal Red.  On the other hand, Lawsonia tanked in the ratings after a ratings retreat held in late spring after one of the worst winters for golf courses in a long time (lots of snow, melt, then ice, etc.)*.  That seems like a justifiable reason to have poor conditions, and since that time, every thread about Lawsonia has included someone raving about its great  condition.  So what are raters supposed to think? (IANAR).

*Discussion of such starts with this post:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58107.msg1361156.html#msg1361156

[Bruce Wellmon]

How does one rate the bugs coming home along the river valley on the Red??  I gave them a  -6 during the 5th Major ..

FYI, the "bugs" are seasonal.
Yes, they were present during the 5th Major. When I was at DR July 26th they were gone, I never pulled the spray out of my bag.  

[Mac Plumart]

It doesn't matter what Brad's personal rankings are. My point is that his "9" would rank it as second on the Modern list. If he, or anyone else on his rating panel, has that many 9's on his personal list the scale is off.

"that many 9's"

 

On the modern list, there is 1.  Sand Hills.  Dismal Doak was just given a 9 by Brad.  If that number holds up, that would be 2 total on the modern list.

Mac,

I agree with you. I was responding to someone above who asked "How do you know Brad didn't rank each and every one of those higher than Dismal Red?" when I listed a number of courses Dismal Doak was ranked higher than.

Got it.  Makes sense.

[Lyndell Young]

Well said Michael in your last two posts. I have to commend these guys for trying to achieve fast and firm. But turf conditions especially on the greens has to be comparable to the quality of the course in my opinion. As for Dismal rating I think it is an exceptional course but Pacific Dunes is  way above just on sheer drama of the ocean holes.

[Jason Thurman]

Well said Michael in your last two posts. I have to commend these guys for trying to achieve fast and firm. But turf conditions especially on the greens has to be comparable to the quality of the course in my opinion.

Agreed completely, Lyn. Great turf is the ingredient that makes architecture matter.

It seems like it would be just fine to evaluate the course based on its maturity and whether it's coming along as expected or not. If the turf is currently average but progressing on schedule, I'd have no qualms with someone rating it an 8 or whatever on their arbitrary scale. Still, to avoid scoring it on conditioning altogether seems like a cop-out. As others have noted, Lawsonia wasn't afforded the same sympathy.

As for those who think Klein's rating the course a 9 means that he thinks it's the second best modern course, please review the table on page 12 of the Golfweek Rater Handbook. That 9 really means that Klein thinks it's somewhere in the vicinity of a top 10 modern course. I think some of you are failing to remember how averages work, or just overreacting. http://www.wsj-classified.com/downloads/Golfweek_Rater_Handbook_2009_2010.pdf

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()