[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

i liked the Nicklaus more than the Doak.  numerous rounds on both.

wow

[Mark Pearce]

204 responses on one man's rating of one golf course.  Has GCA jumped the shark?

[Brent Hutto]

Long, long ago Mark.

Almost as long as I've been a part of this forum the best approach is to enjoy everything discussed that does not involve Merion, magazine ratings and raters or puerile disputes over ship manifests and travel documentation for long-dead golf course designers. Leave off those things (opitional extra, leave off the eternal chain of Cary threads about Tiger) and you've got a perfectly cromulent forum, in my opinion.

[Adam Clayman]

  So, he may be trying to tell them to change their rating, but he isn't telling them in advance what it ought to be [or, which course at Dismal to prefer], as he did at Streamsong.

This is not how Brad rolls, or, do any of the longer term panelists, that I know.

Is the 12th hole the green with the exterior contours? If so, perhaps thats why it's a fav?

[Tim Bert]

204 responses on one man's rating of one golf course.  Has GCA jumped the shark?

Mark - To be fair, a very small percentage of the posts on this thread relate to Brad Klein's review of Tom Doak's course at Dismal River.

[Dwight Phelps]

i liked the Nicklaus more than the Doak.  numerous rounds on both.

Chip:

Why?

Tom

While I'm obviously not Mr. Gaskins, I'll chime in here.

I don't have numerous plays (just been there for the weekend of the 5th Major this year).  My perception is certainly impacted by expectations (relatively low for Nicklaus and high for Doak), how I was playing (wild off the tee), and my playing partner for the weekend.

Done with all that throat clearing, I'll say that I did enjoy the Nicklaus more.  I felt that, on the Nicklaus, the fairways were helping me keep the ball in play more while I felt like I was fighting the Doak fairways at times.  From an objective golf architecture standpoint, the Doak required more and varied shot types, it just wasn't as fun when I didn't have much control off the tee.  I liked the green complexes for both courses but typically thought of the Nicklaus' punchbowls as more fun and the Doak's as more challenging.  Additionally, I found that I really loved the blind shots on the Nicklaus.  I was striking the ball much better when I couldn't see the target.

Now, obviously, a lot of this has to do with how I was playing, which is not truly indicative of the golf architecture.  But Mr. (Dr.?) Gaskins did say that he 'liked the Nicklaus more', not that it was a better example of golf architecture.  And I can I agree with that statement.  When we had the chance to choose which course we played, we played the Nicklaus (but were in the extreme minority there).

Were I to get more opportunities to play at DR, I could easily see my appreciation and love of the Doak course growing and thus my preference switching - there were many fantastic features on the Doak that I loved.  But, from my limited experience, I, too, liked the Nicklaus more.

[George Pazin]

George, I don't see how it makes sense, philosophically or otherwise.  People are comparing a single rating (and one that is far removed from the average rating for Dismal River) against averages for other courses.  

Here is an analogy.  Rory McIlroy's scoring average is 68.960 this year.  Justin Hicks scoring average is 70.78.  But last week Justin Hicks shot a 68 in the first round of the Barclays tournament.  Do you really think it would make sense to compare the single score of 68 with Rory's average score for the season?   Or to congratulate Hicks on being as good as or better than Rory because one of his scores is comparable to Rory's average?  I don't.  

But maybe I misunderstand what you mean.  Care to explain?

As long as you keep them in the proper context, it makes perfect sense to compare the two. For instance, does the following sentence have no meaning:

"If every rater felt as Brad does, DR would be the 2nd highest rated modern course."

It doesn't make sense to insert the rating into the ranking, as others did, but to say it makes no sense to compare the two is an almost equally incorrect statement.

[Steve Lang]

Dwight, and didn't you and your Dad play the Nicklaus on Sunday before you left?

[DMoriarty]

George,  I think it was obvious from my initial statement (and the follow ups) that I was referring to the attempt on this thread to "insert a rating into a ranking," as you put it.  As you acknowledge, that is what is going on here.   

As for your sentence, "If every rater felt as Brad does, DR would be the 2nd highest rated modern course,"  I think it is misleading in this context.  I hate to try to go all Shivasian grammar-man on you (because frankly I'm not smart enough grammar-wise to do that) but perhaps it ought to read something like . . .  'If every rate had felt as Brad does, DR would have been the 2nd highest rated modern course.'  Even then, it probably ought to be followed by . . .'But the raters who have rated the course thus far do not feel as Brad does, so the course is ranked 38th with a score of 7.42, much closer ratings-wise to the bottom of the top 100 than to the top.'

In short, George, this whole exercise seems to have been an attempt to hype the course by (as you put it) inserting a rating into a ranking, despite the fact that the actual ranking tells a different story.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

You seem to refuse to believe that the course has matured in a year.  Chris has a history of letting anyone with an interest see the course if it was ready or not without questioning them of their outside status in the rating community.  Its not the first time his generosity has come back to bite him.  The old ratings that you have attached yourself to are exactly that, old.  I'm glad they mean so much to you and have enriched your life.  Dismal is there to serve.

[Dwight Phelps]

Dwight, and didn't you and your Dad play the Nicklaus on Sunday before you left?

Yes we did. And it felt like we were utterly alone out there. Sadly, no aces for us. 

[John Kavanaugh]

If you take a step back and imagine each of the green sites of the White you can see how much fun they are to a fault.  Forget how they are connected and it is hard to imagine a more fun course in creation.

[DMoriarty]

You seem to refuse to believe that the course has matured in a year.  Chris has a history of letting anyone with an interest see the course if it was ready or not without questioning them of their outside status in the rating community.  Its not the first time his generosity has come back to bite him.  The old ratings that you have attached yourself to are exactly that, old.

An alternative theory might be that Dismal's early attempts to hype the course (by, among other things, bringing in raters) haven't been as successful as some might have hoped.

Either way, your attempts to dismiss and discount the Golfweek rating (which is quite good actually) are just more hype and spin. (As is your new thread.)  Golfweek has a methodology for ranking and rating courses, and according to the 2014 Golfweek rankings of top 100 modern courses, Dismal River Red is ranked 38th with a rating of 7.42, and this rating is much closer to the bottom of the list than the top.  The numbers underlying this rating don't go away now that Brad has also rated the course.

The attempts to hype, spin, and sell this course are well beyond tiring at this point.

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes, our first attempt to hype Dismal with the Golfweek raters was to put my face on the project.  Raters love me.

[DMoriarty]

As usual, John, I think you drastically overestimate the importance of your role in the greater scheme of things.

[John Kavanaugh]

As usual, John, I think you drastically overestimate the importance of your role in the greater scheme of things.

As you drastically underestimate the importance of the opinion of Dr. Klein.

[DMoriarty]

You should try to keep your story straight on the value of the opinion of "Dr. Klein."  Earlier in the thread you didn't think his opinion was worth much at all, because he had given Dismal White a 6-point-something.  Now you think his opinion is so important that it ought to wipe his Golfweek methodology and list right off the map?  

Still hyping . . . still spinning . . . still selling.

Next thing you know you will try and convince us that Nebraska is without a doubt more visually appealing than a view of the Ocean . . . Oh wait, you already tried that.

Still hyping . . . still spinning . . . still selling.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

No one is responsible for more feet on the ground in Nebraska than you.  While that has little to no effect on my bottom line I am sure that Chris is most grateful.

There is a course on the east coast where I have a poor relationship with one of their principals.  Because of this, and the fact it would make a thread go viral, I have recused myself from ever discussing the course on this site.  I can not form an unbiased opinion because of my hatred for this individual.  Sound familiar?

[Chris Shaida]

...Additionally, I found that I really loved the blind shots on the Nicklaus.  I was striking the ball much better when I couldn't see the target.

I think Mr Phelps is both on to something and in a small minority here. There ARE a LOT of blind shots on DR-W. And an inordinate number of them are what some of us have started referring to as 'double-blind'  -- that is not ONLY can you not see the landing area (a 'blind' shot) but ALSO the surrounding landscape doesn't really tell you what's going on either.  Now there is no question that quality is really annoying to most first or second time players because it seems unfair or faintly ridiculous, but here is where it gets interesting (I think anyway) in that the more one plays it the more one learns those double blind shots and they start turning from annoyances into cool little puzzles of the I think my may thru this, can-my-mind-make-my-body-do-something-it-doesn't-quite-feel-or-'see'-or-sense type.  AND one can get a great sense of both satisfaction and fun from solving some of those 'puzzles' during the round.

I happen to think that only some (likely a minority of) personalities (or physiologies) are constructed in this way. 

[Michael Whitaker]

...Additionally, I found that I really loved the blind shots on the Nicklaus.  I was striking the ball much better when I couldn't see the target.

I think Mr Phelps is both on to something and in a small minority here. There ARE a LOT of blind shots on DR-W. And an inordinate number of them are what some of us have started referring to as 'double-blind'  -- that is not ONLY can you not see the landing area (a 'blind' shot) but ALSO the surrounding landscape doesn't really tell you what's going on either.  Now there is no question that quality is really annoying to most first or second time players because it seems unfair or faintly ridiculous, but here is where it gets interesting (I think anyway) in that the more one plays it the more one learns those double blind shots and they start turning from annoyances into cool little puzzles of the I think my may thru this, can-my-mind-make-my-body-do-something-it-doesn't-quite-feel-or-'see'-or-sense type.  AND one can get a great sense of both satisfaction and fun from solving some of those 'puzzles' during the round.

I happen to think that only some (likely a minority of) personalities (or physiologies) are constructed in this way. 

Chris,

Please detail a few of those double-blind shots for me... which holes? Your concept is interesting.

Mike

[Mac Plumart]

...Additionally, I found that I really loved the blind shots on the Nicklaus.  I was striking the ball much better when I couldn't see the target.

I think Mr Phelps is both on to something and in a small minority here. There ARE a LOT of blind shots on DR-W. And an inordinate number of them are what some of us have started referring to as 'double-blind'  -- that is not ONLY can you not see the landing area (a 'blind' shot) but ALSO the surrounding landscape doesn't really tell you what's going on either.  Now there is no question that quality is really annoying to most first or second time players because it seems unfair or faintly ridiculous, but here is where it gets interesting (I think anyway) in that the more one plays it the more one learns those double blind shots and they start turning from annoyances into cool little puzzles of the I think my may thru this, can-my-mind-make-my-body-do-something-it-doesn't-quite-feel-or-'see'-or-sense type.  AND one can get a great sense of both satisfaction and fun from solving some of those 'puzzles' during the round.

I happen to think that only some (likely a minority of) personalities (or physiologies) are constructed in this way. 

Love this concept.  Reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy in Ohio.   

[Garland Bayley]

George, I don't see how it makes sense, philosophically or otherwise.  People are comparing a single rating (and one that is far removed from the average rating for Dismal River) against averages for other courses.  

Here is an analogy.  Rory McIlroy's scoring average is 68.960 this year.  Justin Hicks scoring average is 70.78.  But last week Justin Hicks shot a 68 in the first round of the Barclays tournament.  Do you really think it would make sense to compare the single score of 68 with Rory's average score for the season?   Or to congratulate Hicks on being as good as or better than Rory because one of his scores is comparable to Rory's average?  I don't.  

But maybe I misunderstand what you mean.  Care to explain?

As long as you keep them in the proper context, it makes perfect sense to compare the two. For instance, does the following sentence have no meaning:

"If every rater felt as Brad does, DR would be the 2nd highest rated modern course."

It doesn't make sense to insert the rating into the ranking, as others did, but to say it makes no sense to compare the two is an almost equally incorrect statement.

George,

How do you know DR is Brad's 2nd highest rated modern course?

[Chris Shaida]

Mike,

Well for starters THE reference 'double-blind' shot is the 2nd at the 13 hole at Rye.  Cool tee shot then for your 2nd you know you have to hit to a hidden green OVER the ridge you are facing.  You could stand there all day and study the landscape and you'd never figure out where the green was -- which is why they erected not one but two poles to indicate where you should hit the ball.  Now most everyone loves this hole and (at least if the double-blind theory ends up holding water, it's likely because it's the ONLY such shot in the round -- though there are other traditional blind shots).

But at Dismal White there are 3 in just the first five holes. the 2nd on 1 AND 2 (the tee shot on 2 is a traditional blind shot) and the tee shot on 5 where the landscape says the green is a bowl -- but it's not! etc.

I think that even when one learns what is going on and is then standing over the shot there is still a battle going on between one's analytic intelligence that 'knows' where one needs to hit the ball and one's somatic (or something) intelligence that is used to also being able to get confirmation from other sources about what the body is supposed to do.  Some people don't like it at first and then do (quite a few Dismal members), a few like it all the time (Mr Phelps), some sometimes enjoy that inner battle and other times don't (I'm probably in this group) and many never like it ("I like it when the course is right in front of me.')

(Mac, maybe it's beating dead horses but would be happy to continue in the same venue some time...)

[DMoriarty]

David,

No one is responsible for more feet on the ground in Nebraska than you.  While that has little to no effect on my bottom line I am sure that Chris is most grateful.

Once again, John, you are deluding yourself.  While I am apparently the topic of gossip and lies at the fireside sewing circle, that is probably about it.

There is a course on the east coast where I have a poor relationship with one of their principals.  Because of this, and the fact it would make a thread go viral, I have recused myself from ever discussing the course on this site.  I can not form an unbiased opinion because of my hatred for this individual.  Sound familiar?

No, it doesn't sound familiar. Just who is it that I am supposed to hate, anyway?  I've lost track.

The reality is that my opinions relate to 1) the unusual routing choices (as I outlined above) 2) the way the course has been presented on here and elsewhere; and 3) the way some of those involved have treated anyone who dare raise any question about the place.  Given that this is a discussion group supposedly promoting frank and honest discussion about gca, it seems that this is a perfect forum to address all three of my concerns.  

I haven't thought about it much, but guess the way you guys constantly over-react to everything probably helps keeps my interest alive. Take the self-congratulations and inapt comparisons brought on by Brad's rating, for example.  Or take Barry Doyle's vile threat, for another example. Or take Chris's past veiled threats of the same nature, for that matter.  Do you guys really think that threatening me will 'shut me the fuck up.'  From my perspective, your collective behavior probably piques my interest further.

In short, if you guys would dial back sycophancy, hyping, and selling, and quit flying off the handle (ala Mr. Doyle) at every comment not sufficiently obsequious, then I'd probably not have too much to say.  That'd be fine with me.

As for you, maybe you should see someone about all that hate you are apparently carrying around.  Doesn't seem like that would be healthy.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

Well for starters THE reference 'double-blind' shot is the 2nd at the 13 hole at Rye.  Cool tee shot then for your 2nd you know you have to hit to a hidden green OVER the ridge you are facing.  You could stand there all day and study the landscape and you'd never figure out where the green was -- which is why they erected not one but two poles to indicate where you should hit the ball.  Now most everyone loves this hole and (at least if the double-blind theory ends up holding water, it's likely because it's the ONLY such shot in the round -- though there are other traditional blind shots).

But at Dismal White there are 3 in just the first five holes. the 2nd on 1 AND 2 (the tee shot on 2 is a traditional blind shot) and the tee shot on 5 where the landscape says the green is a bowl -- but it's not! etc.

I think that even when one learns what is going on and is then standing over the shot there is still a battle going on between one's analytic intelligence that 'knows' where one needs to hit the ball and one's somatic (or something) intelligence that is used to also being able to get confirmation from other sources about what the body is supposed to do.  Some people don't like it at first and then do (quite a few Dismal members), a few like it all the time (Mr Phelps), some sometimes enjoy that inner battle and other times don't (I'm probably in this group) and many never like it ("I like it when the course is right in front of me.')

(Mac, maybe it's beating dead horses but would be happy to continue in the same venue some time...)

Chris,

Interesting that the first time I played Dismal they were putting her to sleep for the winter and there were no holes in the greens.  We would each hit to the green and then play to the other guys ball.  I don't think I even got past the first level of blindness.  I've actually improved my game at all courses by aiming for areas rather than holes.  Only took over 40 years to figure that one out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()