Dr. Klein rates Dismal River Red a 9.0

[Brad Klein]

Sorry, Jim, I'm not going there. I don't believe it makes any sense for me to post something that might vary with or undercut the GW ratings. And for what it's worth, I don't have my own list, never worry about relative standing and don't maintain my own records of my own votes.

Brad 

[Jim Franklin]

So you consider Sand Hills using the Dismal River because the cabins and clubhouse are next to it? Not in my opinion. The river is no where near the course and, I believe, is what my friend did not like about Dismal. The river was only in play on a few holes. I understand Tom's reason for not using the river though.

[Tom_Doak]

So you consider Sand Hills using the Dismal River because the cabins and clubhouse are next to it? Not in my opinion. The river is no where near the course and, I believe, is what my friend did not like about Dismal. The river was only in play on a few holes. I understand Tom's reason for not using the river though.

Jim:

If you could get your friend to go back, you should take him down to explore his other holes by the river.  He will sink up to his knees at some point and then maybe he'll understand. 

I really dislike when people rate a course on the basis of what they think it should have been, rather than what it is.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jim,
I do t understand your post  #305.  Could you clarify?

Keep in mind that there is only so much you can do with a riparian zone.   If legal issues won't stop you,  nature usually will.   I thought the use of the river was pretty damn great at DR.   

[Don Mahaffey]

So you consider Sand Hills using the Dismal River because the cabins and clubhouse are next to it? Not in my opinion. The river is no where near the course and, I believe, is what my friend did not like about Dismal. The river was only in play on a few holes. I understand Tom's reason for not using the river though.

While I don't want to speak to Tom's design or routing ideas, one reason for not doing as your friend wanted is it simply is not possible. At least not possible without major civil type work and you don't go out to the sand hills to blow up nature. Golf courses on quick sand don't work so well.

When you look at those overhead photos of the river area, that entire green river corridor area is wet, very wet. While it may not appear to have a lot of surface water, it does, and it is right there.

That river drainage is a lot larger then that small stream you see. The Dismal drains thousands of acres and there are springs all along the river corridor. It is pretty cool to walk it and see all the water just flowing out of the ground and feeding the Dismal.

[Adam Clayman]

.

[Keith OHalloran]

[/quote]

Jim:

If you could get your friend to go back, you should take him down to explore his other holes by the river.  He will sink up to his knees at some point and then maybe he'll understand. 

I really dislike when people rate a course on the basis of what they think it should have been, rather than what it is.
[/quote]

Tom,
Do you dislike it because most people have no idea how to rout a golf course? Do you feel comfortable looking at a course and being critical of missed opportunities?

Sorry to get off topic.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Do you dislike it because most people have no idea how to rout a golf course? Do you feel comfortable looking at a course and being critical of missed opportunities?

Sorry to get off topic.

Keith:

In general, I think people should judge the holes the architect built, instead of suggesting alternatives.  Quite often, as in this case, the alternatives are impractical.  In other cases, improving one hole would wreck a couple of others around it, so the fact the architect did not go the same way the rater would have actually results in a better course -- but the rater can't see that.

I'm sure there have been times when I wondered why an architect didn't route things a different way, but I generally don't look for that when I am playing someone else's course, unless I'm getting paid to do so.  There's no way I can understand the site as well on my first visit as the architect who did the routing to begin with.  But, it's certainly possible I'll see something he didn't.  When we find a hole we really like, sometimes we fail to look for even better alternatives.

[Chris Shaida]

Brad (and Tom and Don et al),

Thanks for the post.  The last three paragraphs in particular are deftly expressed.  I'm not quite sure why the relatively small group of you who actually spend most of your time doing this (Tom, Don, et al.) put up with the rest of us who don't but the fact that you do is to our benefit.

[Keith OHalloran]

[/quote]

Keith:

In general, I think people should judge the holes the architect built, instead of suggesting alternatives.  Quite often, as in this case, the alternatives are impractical.  In other cases, improving one hole would wreck a couple of others around it, so the fact the architect did not go the same way the rater would have actually results in a better course -- but the rater can't see that.

I'm sure there have been times when I wondered why an architect didn't route things a different way, but I generally don't look for that when I am playing someone else's course, unless I'm getting paid to do so.  There's no way I can understand the site as well on my first visit as the architect who did the routing to begin with.  But, it's certainly possible I'll see something he didn't.  When we find a hole we really like, sometimes we fail to look for even better alternatives.
[/quote]

Thanks. I am endlessly in awe of people who can route a course, and shocked that others feel they can critique a routing specially after one visit.

[Jim Franklin]

Jim,
I do t understand your post  #305.  Could you clarify?

Keep in mind that there is only so much you can do with a riparian zone.   If legal issues won't stop you,  nature usually will.   I thought the use of the river was pretty damn great at DR.   

Brad said C&C used the river at Sand Hills or at least that is how I read his post. If I misinterpreted what he said, I apologize. I do not think they used the river except for the lodging. AND, I want to add, I would not suggest they made a mistake. Sand Hills is a grand slam. But my point is, they did not use the river for a good reason. They found a better course without it and I am fairly confident that Tom did the same at Dismal. I have not been there, but I certainly trust that the final result is awesome and the best course for that piece of property.

I agree with Tom in that people should judge a course by its merits and not how "they" think it should have been done. "They" are not GCAs, but only golfers that enjoy gca.

[Brad Klein]

What I meant is that the river is an integral part of the Sand Hills experience as you go to sleep by it and wake up to it. Insofar as routing has to do with placement of the course and not just the relative positioning of the holes with respect to one another, the site, the buildings and the clubhouse/lodging, etc. and the journey to and fro the first tee/18th green are all part of the land plan and part of what makes golf at Sand Hills so memorable.

[DMoriarty]

The use of "Dr." in this thread brought to mind a cartoon I first saw outside the office of Kent Jennings, a notable poll sci professor with a good sense of humor.

[Jim Franklin]

What I meant is that the river is an integral part of the Sand Hills experience as you go to sleep by it and wake up to it. Insofar as routing has to do with placement of the course and not just the relative positioning of the holes with respect to one another, the site, the buildings and the clubhouse/lodging, etc. and the journey to and fro the first tee/18th green are all part of the land plan and part of what makes golf at Sand Hills so memorable.

Thanks and that makes more sense.

[Sean_A]

Tom,
Do you dislike it because most people have no idea how to rout a golf course? Do you feel comfortable looking at a course and being critical of missed opportunities?

Sorry to get off topic.

Keith:

In general, I think people should judge the holes the architect built, instead of suggesting alternatives.  Quite often, as in this case, the alternatives are impractical.  In other cases, improving one hole would wreck a couple of others around it, so the fact the architect did not go the same way the rater would have actually results in a better course -- but the rater can't see that.

I'm sure there have been times when I wondered why an architect didn't route things a different way, but I generally don't look for that when I am playing someone else's course, unless I'm getting paid to do so.  There's no way I can understand the site as well on my first visit as the architect who did the routing to begin with.  But, it's certainly possible I'll see something he didn't.  When we find a hole we really like, sometimes we fail to look for even better alternatives.

Tom

Do you think many people do this?  My impression is usually folks question features of a hole rather than suggesting throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Ciao