[Howard Riefs]

That was quick:

9.0 is also the over/under for the number of pages in this thread.

My money is on the over.

[Eric Smith]

Chris Shaida,

Thanks for your post. It is always interesting to hear the differing opinions around the dinner table when discussing the second hole of the White course. Holes like it (the double blind as you call it) are always going to be controversial and I think its a good thing if variety is what the golfer ultimately hopes to experience when he's out there.

[Lou_Duran]

Chris Shaida,

Thanks for your post. It is always interesting to hear the differing opinions around the dinner table when discussing the second hole of the White course. Holes like it (the double blind as you call it) are always going to be controversial and I think its a good thing if variety is what the golfer ultimately hopes to experience when he's out there.

It is only blind for us short knockers.  One of my opponents in our first round knocked his drive over the left bunkers all the way to the bottom of the valley.  From there he had a sand wedge to a pin that was very visible.  Me, I was on the fairway right, 200+ yards for a blind second shot with a 3 hybrid (I was lucky to find my approach).  Oh, and we were spotting this young guy a stroke on that hole!

[Tom_Doak]

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.

Dwight:

So, you are saying the Nicklaus course looks hard but plays easy, and [some of] mine looks easy but plays hard?

If so, that's kind of what I was going for, so I'm happy with that critique, even if it doesn't appeal to everyone.

The one thing I don't get though is that [I think] the turf areas on the Red course are generally 25-50% wider than the White, so even if the fairways on the White are helping contain you, there is less grass to hit, which I would think makes it harder.  It certainly seems a more intimidating course off the tee than mine, at first glance, partly because of the blind shots.

[Jon McSweeny]

The one thing I don't get though is that [I think] the turf areas on the Red course are generally 25-50% wider than the White, so even if the fairways on the White are helping contain you, there is less grass to hit, which I would think makes it harder.  It certainly seems a more intimidating course off the tee than mine, at first glance, partly because of the blind shots.

One reason for that may be that the native areas around the Red course seemed to be a little more difficult to deal with during the Fifth Major this year. That may have been just the luck of the draw for me that week- but I heard a couple of people make a similar suggestion. Accordingly, a drive that strayed from the short grass/first cut on the White was generally findable and playable. Conversely,  I had a couple instances on the Red (4 and particularly 6) where tee shots that had run through the fairway ended up in very difficult spots. Again, that could be an artifact of having only played each course a couple of times, but it was a noticeable difference.

It was suggested to me that the measures needed to grow new turf on the Red course- and efforts to deal with the especially difficult winter this year- served to promote some native growth that may have a been a bit thicker than would be preferred. I'm not sure how accurate that is.

At least for me, I didn't notice a big difference in the number or severity of the blind shots. As a cartballer, blind approaches are a little easier to tackle because I can sneak ahead and see what I am dealing with. This makes the 2 White approach, for example, much "less blind" than it might otherwise be. Blind tee shots don't typically offer that option. Without doing a formal comparison, it seemed that White and Red featured a similar number of blind tee shots (or at least not a substantial delta in number) such that I didn't notice much of a distinction in that area.

More generally, I would also say that- based on my understanding of the courses as they are discussed here- the Red was much tougher than I expected and the White was much more playable than I anticipated. I half expected the White to be nearly unplayable for someone not named Mickelson or Woods and the Red to be a "wide open and try to avoid the the 3 putt" course. Both expectations- thankfully- were way off.

[John Kavanaugh]

My best medal score on each is a 69 on White and a 74 on Red. I mentioned in front of my brother that I thought the White is the easiest big course I had ever played. I thought he was going to whack me in the head for being so stupid. Dismal does that to people. My ranking on the 10 most difficult drives on property goes as such:

9R, 2W, 2R, 5R, 9W, 4W, 11W, 17R, 14R, 6R

[Eric Smith]

Chris Shaida,

Thanks for your post. It is always interesting to hear the differing opinions around the dinner table when discussing the second hole of the White course. Holes like it (the double blind as you call it) are always going to be controversial and I think its a good thing if variety is what the golfer ultimately hopes to experience when he's out there.

It is only blind for us short knockers.  One of my opponents in our first round knocked his drive over the left bunkers all the way to the bottom of the valley.  From there he had a sand wedge to a pin that was very visible.  Me, I was on the fairway right, 200+ yards for a blind second shot with a 3 hybrid (I was lucky to find my approach).  Oh, and we were spotting this young guy a stroke on that hole!

Lou,

I think you're talking about the first hole here (?), which I agree can be a long way home when you don't catch your tee shot, but my post was about the second shot at no. 2. Even if you crush it there the next shot is going to be blind, save for the top of the flag stick on occasion.

[Chip Gaskins]

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

Chip:

Why?

Tom

Tom-

I will reply to you privately. 

I have played a bunch of your courses all over the globe, and as you can see from this thread, Dismal can be a lighting rod for controversy.  Six or seven years ago I got on this site and panned the original version of Dismal-Nicklaus and got skewered, deservedly so.  I learned a lot about how not to throw out critiques without much architectural substance .  Don't get me wrong, I can't say I have much more to add today other than being lucky enough to play lots of the worlds great courses and being fortunate enough to learn from many of the best on this site over the years.  But I have learned to keep my thoughts, for the most part to myself, so I will reply to you directly.

Chris has built a great great club and my own (unintelligent) views probably aren't productive in the grand scheme of things.  At the end of the day, I am the "retail golfer", which on a site dedicated to architecture often conflicts.

Kudos to Chris and team for having the vision and staying power to make Dismal what it is.

Chip

[Tim Book]

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. 

Dwight, I also had the good fortune of playing DRW at day break on Sunday of the 5th Major.  I realize I am in a small minority, but I liked DRW more than DRR.  Like many others, I came to the 5th Major expecting to enjoy DRR more.  I have spent the last few years becoming exposed to what I would call 'lay of the land' golf.  Bandon, Wild Horse, Rustic Canyon, Barona, Tetherow, We-Ko-Pa, and Chambers Bay.  With each play my appreciation grew.  My expectation was DRR would fall right in with those great courses.  However as Matt Ward once said, "sometimes you just feel like Thai food".  Don't get me wrong, both are fantastic courses.  However, when my playing partner figured out we would need to tee off around day break to make our flight out of Denver, we both agreed we need one more go around on DRW.  I guess the next most logical question would be why?  I thought DRW was more visually interesting off the tee.  After a 2nd play the blind shots became more fun. I enjoyed the isolation of DRW.   Maybe there is some satisfaction in navigating a course that felt tougher than it really was?

[John Cowden]

The way I play the second, it is rarely a "double blnd" hole.  Three out of three times around last weekend, my second shot had a view of the flag.  (As to whether the pin might have/should have been moved over the course of successive playing is a different topc).   I have to credit my so-called power fade off the tee, but it works for me, that and knowing the details of the downhill shelving in front of the green.  The hole is quite growing on me. 

[Michael George]

Variety is the spice of life, right.

I think some like DRW better than DRR simply because of its unique nature.  They may not say that directly, but it is at the root of their reasoning.  The course is simply different than most any course that I have played and provides many unique, fun shots that I hadn't hit before and haven't hit since.  Love or hate it....it is unique (and in my opinion fun).

Just think about some of the shots on that course:

2nd shot on #1
2nd shot on #2
2nd shot around the windmill on #4
Tee shot on #5
2nd shot up the hill to the semi-punchbowl green on #6
Alps drive on #8
3 sectioned green on #10
2nd shot on #13 with the hill to the right bouncing balls down onto the green
2nd shot from the bottom of a bowl on #14
Bank shots galore on many 2nd shots on the course (where you can hit 20 yards right on a hill and it will bounce on the green)

These shots are not the cup of tea of a lot of people and they pan the course because of it.  I often find that these people are those that take golf course architecture very seriously, where the architectural merits of the course based on certain principles trump everything else.  I have no problem with this view.
  
On the other hand, some simply love the adventure of a course and hitting shots that you simply don't get to hit on other golf courses.   I often find that these people seek interesting/entertaining golf.  I also have no problem with these people too.

I have played DRW and walked DRR.  I would rate DRR ahead of DRW.  DRR is a truly special course and when I get a chance to play it, it may be  my favorite course by Tom (which is high praise because I loved Pacific Dunes and Ballyneal).  However, I enjoyed DRW also as a unique experience with a ton of fun shots and I understand how it draws people.  I actually think the 2 courses really compliment each other by providing membership 2 different experiences.  

As I have said many times before, golf is a big enough game for different styles of golf courses.  Golf should have strategic designs from Alister MacKenzie and CB Macdonald that most golfers enjoy (and which should comprise most golf courses).  However, it should also have penal designs from RTJ that pro and low handicappers can test themselves (ie. although these courses should be more limited due to the small number of golfers of this caliber).  It should have minimalist designs like Tom Doak that look completely one with nature (when nature allows) and artificial designs by Tom Fazio that are clearly made solely by the hand of man (I mean who would want to play a minimalist design in the Las Vegas desert).

[Dwight Phelps]

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.

Dwight:

So, you are saying the Nicklaus course looks hard but plays easy, and [some of] mine looks easy but plays hard?

If so, that's kind of what I was going for, so I'm happy with that critique, even if it doesn't appeal to everyone.

The one thing I don't get though is that [I think] the turf areas on the Red course are generally 25-50% wider than the White, so even if the fairways on the White are helping contain you, there is less grass to hit, which I would think makes it harder.  It certainly seems a more intimidating course off the tee than mine, at first glance, partly because of the blind shots.

Tom,

I'd say that's a fair assessment, though I don't think I'd use 'easy' in either case. Just doesn't seem right to describe any golf course as 'easy', at least for me.

As for the comparative drives, I find the blindness to be less intimidating in cases. It removes distractions.

[John Cowden]

Well said, counselor.

[Mac Plumart]

The bottom line is that both courses are good, at a minimum.  And Michael is right, variety is the spice of life.  For me, I don't want to travel from GA to Mullen, NE and get something I can get closer to home.  Both courses deliver unique and interesting golf.

And a MAJOR point on both courses, you can't "get" them if you've only played them once.  Dismal Doak is a killer golf course with tons of subtle nuances and hidden secrets that are revealed over multiple plays.  I've been around close to 20 times and I'm still learning things.  

The same can be said about Nicklaus.  They take time to learn...I especially love the idea of of Chris Shaida's Double Blind holes.  He doesn't mean two blind shots on one hole.  He means you are blind with no terrain clues (or very, very subtle) terrain clues on where you should hit your ball.  Compare that to blind holes with some sort of indication of how the land and the hole unfolds in front of you.  2 on Nicklaus is the perfect example of this.  Unless you've played it more than a few times, you don't fully know how to play the hole given your games strengths and weaknesses.

From my perspective, a member who travels out there multiple times a year to play the courses, this type of insider knowledge and subtle nuances are perfect.  After all, this is a private club where members play a lot of golf on these two courses.  You need interesting and diverse golf with lots of options in order to keep the interest high for each and every trip out there.  Now, the one and doners might not ever get to appreciate the quality of the courses...because they'll never see the course over time and multiple rounds and different wind conditions.  I personally think the Doak is truly incredible on how it changes with different winds.  The tactics on how to play the holes can change completely from day to day.  Brilliant for a private members course.

[Bart Bradley]

Mac, nicely written post.  I feel your passion.

Since I am going to be out there in a month and playing both courses twice (that is the best I can do on this trip), can you share the secret to the White 2nd hole tee shot...double blind sounds like I will be confused.  Do you just have to "know" where to hit it or is there a subtle land form at which to aim?   

Bart

[Andy Troeger]

And a MAJOR point on both courses, you can't "get" them if you've only played them once.  Dismal Doak is a killer golf course with tons of subtle nuances and hidden secrets that are revealed over multiple plays.  I've been around close to 20 times and I'm still learning things.  

Mac,
I'm going to pick on you a bit with this comment. I don't buy the you can't "get" them on one play. That wording is an excuse I hear to explain points of view of people that don't like a course and only played it once. I know you've played a lot of courses once, and at some point you can see whether there's something intriguing there that makes you want to go back.

I've played a lot of courses once where I could tell there were plenty of subtle nuances and clearly understood that if I had the opportunity I would enjoy playing them day in and day out. I do agree with your point that you can't learn all the subtle nuances in one play, but that's true of pretty much every good or great golf course in the world. I learned a few things by replaying Las Campanas and Twin Warriors here in New Mexico recently, and I wouldn't call them great. The best courses create a lot of interest on the first go around, and then they provide a more significant variety with changing winds, conditions, and pin locations for future play, and I see those traits in the rest of your post. If trying to speak intelligently about a course, it always helps to have seen it 20 times, but most of us don't have that luxury beyond our home course(s).

Sorry for the tangent! I've not been to Dismal (yet!) so these comments are supposed to be general.

[Phil McDade]

And a MAJOR point on both courses, you can't "get" them if you've only played them once.  Dismal Doak is a killer golf course with tons of subtle nuances and hidden secrets that are revealed over multiple plays.  I've been around close to 20 times and I'm still learning things.  

Mac,
I'm going to pick on you a bit with this comment. I don't buy the you can't "get" them on one play. That wording is an excuse I hear to explain points of view of people that don't like a course and only played it once. I know you've played a lot of courses once, and at some point you can see whether there's something intriguing there that makes you want to go back.

I've played a lot of courses once where I could tell there were plenty of subtle nuances and clearly understood that if I had the opportunity I would enjoy playing them day in and day out. I do agree with your point that you can't learn all the subtle nuances in one play, but that's true of pretty much every good or great golf course in the world. I learned a few things by replaying Las Campanas and Twin Warriors here in New Mexico recently, and I wouldn't call them great. The best courses create a lot of interest on the first go around, and then they provide a more significant variety with changing winds, conditions, and pin locations for future play, and I see those traits in the rest of your post. If trying to speak intelligently about a course, it always helps to have seen it 20 times, but most of us don't have that luxury beyond our home course(s).

Sorry for the tangent! I've not been to Dismal (yet!) so these comments are supposed to be general.

+1 (and a GCA novelty -- Andy Troeger and I agreeing on something... )

[Dan Herrmann]

Don't neglect the cultural/sense of place aspect of DR.  Granted, it has doesn't have anything to do with the architecture, but it certainly boosts the effect of each hole.  I guess it's a Sandhills effect  -  not terribly unlike the Ocean effect.

Or put it another way.  You simply couldn't build any of the 3 Hooker County courses in metro NY.  Nor would you want to!

[John Kavanaugh]

Mac, nicely written post.  I feel your passion.

Since I am going to be out there in a month and playing both courses twice (that is the best I can do on this trip), can you share the secret to the White 2nd hole tee shot...double blind sounds like I will be confused.  Do you just have to "know" where to hit it or is there a subtle land form at which to aim?   

Bart

Bart,

The further right you hit your drive near certain death the more likely you will have a look at the top of the pin. I prefer to aim middle left and hope to push it just enough.  Most people are so focused on making the forced carry that anywhere left and long of death is great. Seeing the pin is really like that extra little gift that you are not expecting.

[Mac Plumart]

Andy...

You won't get either one after one play. You'll be filled with questions, but have no real answers. You'll know the Doak is good, but
You'll not be able to fully understand how great it is.

Pick almost an hole on Doak...say 12. Depending on the wind and playing ability, the play might be driver right at the pin, 3 wood right of the skull, or 6 iron to the top of the ridge.  With one play, you'll never understand those options and which one works for you.

Take 6, down wind you might drive the green. Into the wind, you might hit way right with 4 iron.

Lots of holes like this...4 (all time great hole), 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18.

One play no one can understand how to play it optimally. If you are architecturally astute, you'll see the decisions that need to be made but you'll have no idea which ones are right for you.

If people want to pooh pooh that...whatever. It's your life. Enjoy your point of view. 

[Mac Plumart]

Bart...

I firmly believe a newcomer must play both courses with a member or risk being overwhelmed. Only the most mentally stable and architecturally curious will be able to handle the unique nature of both courses without a guide.

[DMoriarty]

Isn't there a fundamental difference between being able to appreciate the quality of the architecture, on the one hand, and understanding which options and plays best fit one's game, on the other?  Some are capable of the former upon limited viewing.  Some aren't.

[Mac Plumart]

David...

Yes. The astute know a course is good, perhaps, after one play. But theyll never appreciate all the course offers. Poor to average courses you can fully get after just a few plays.

The Old Course seems to offer unlimited enjoyment due to equifinality. But I've only been around once. I know it's good, but I don't fully comprehend how good.

NGLA is similar. Fortunately, I've played there a number of times and it gets better every time...despite loving it after one play.

There are quite a few courses like that...and they are the greats.

[DMoriarty]

I don't think that anyone can understand all that poor to average courses have to offer after one play.

I am pretty sure that one with a talent for such things can usually understand whether a course is excellent after one play.

I think that there is a difference between enjoying a course over time and understanding whether it is a good course.

[Rich Goodale]

Dismal River is a superb golfing experience, but neither of the courses is a 9 (Doak Scale--not sure what a Klein 9.0 means).  In my Rihcelin Scale, they are each in the 1*-2** range., which translates to ~top 50-300 in the world.  Both have a few world-class holes but both have a few only above average holes and a few routing issues.  Comparing and contrasting the two is a futile exercise.  If you have the privilege of playing there, enjoy the privilege and play your golf one shot at a time and in good humor.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()