Dismal River (White Course) profile is posted ...

[Ran Morrissett]

... under Architecture Timeline and Courses by Country.
 
Not too long ago a friend called after playing Merion. "It is really good," he said but could not elaborate.  While there is much to be gleaned from studying the greats, it wasn't going to happen on that phone call. In fact, for a good while now, I have taken a greater interest in discussing courses that are more polarizing than acknowledged like Merion. Places that I either overvalue or under appreciate are the ones that stimulate the best conversation.

For my tastes, several venues are grossly undervalued based against current magazine rankings. Westward Ho! (and its wonderfully varied hazards) is world top 50 for me but doesn't sniff that rung even within the United Kingdom alone. Whippoorwill, Bandon Trails, Rock Creek, Banff, Jasper Park, Haagsche, and Prestwick are others that I seemingly admire much more than panelists at large. Some courses likely get held back because of conditioning (Yale, Askernish, The Addington) - I get that. Some for length - St. George's on Long Island and Brora - I get that too. Others like Ballyhack and Tobacco Road polarize enough panelists that the high votes are voided by low ones - roger that, also.

That brings me to the latest course where my affections appear way out of whack - the White Course at Dismal River - built by Nicklaus Design.  It opened in 2006 and rivals Cabo del Sol for my favorite Nicklaus. It crushes Turnberry in a hole for hole match yet it barely achieves Golfweek modern 200. Why? How??

Here is a course that has *great land/soil * great routing * great holes* wind * challenge * strategy * no homes* and is fun. Yet, apart from its members, it apparently generates little affection. I have wondered why that is for three weeks now and called people to gain insight. Frequently, as opposed to discussing the Nicklaus course, they asked, "What did you think about the Doak? Didn't you love it?" Yes, very much so, BUT that's not the subject at hand! Several thought the land that Nicklaus selected was too dramatic. That's fine - certainly a matter of taste and per above, I am the one that likes up and down courses like Haagsche, Yale, The Addington, etc. Pull carts aren't an option on the Nicklaus but I walked it just fine. Some people resent how vocal supporters of Dismal River have used this web site but what that has to do with the Nicklaus course is ZERO. Also, reference was made to some braggadocios comments that the original owners ostensibly made (such comments are a decade old now); again no relevance to the course at hand.
 
FYI No one I spoke to had seen the earlier versions of the course which featured more severe putting surfaces and two different - and more difficult - green locations. Those are not the course that exists today nor is it the one that this post is about. I'm interested in today's eighteen holes and how they are connected (otherwise known as the golf course!).
 
Apart from it being a tough walk, I gleaned little. It reminds of a passage in 44 Scotland Street by Alexander McCall Smith that I am presently reading. In it, and I paraphrase, a long time resident of Edinburgh on his death bed whispers to his grandson, 'Don't ever trust someone from Glasgow.' The grandson asks why and the grandfather eventually responds, 'I can't remember.' 
 
That's how I still feel about the White! What the heck? Aren't 2, 4, 8, 16 and 17 world class holes? My other personal favorites include 3, 7, 12, 13, and 15. Where are the indifferent holes? I don't see one, though 10 with a bunker in the front middle of the green is a lightning rod for criticism.

Is the course natural? Yes, and the presentation exacerbates the raw feel of its environs, which I like. The ball stays on the various sides and downslopes of the fairways creating interesting and challenging approach shots. Try to advance the ball on 13 from a down/side slope with a three wood or hit the elevated 14th green from a downslope with a long iron - no mean feat. Additionally, there are three punchbowl greens, two potentially drivable par 4s, reachable par 5s and a slew of other fun shots. There is much to not just  'like' but to feel strong emotion for.

The White Course is unlike any Nicklaus design that I have seen and that may be the rub. It is very different and outside the box for this architect. His fans might not know what to make of it and those who aren't fans don't know how to embrace something from someone other than their favorite (minimalist) architect. To me, that's a shame.

I introduce this course profile, looking forward to returning one day because I can't wait to play it more as well as for the sake of taking better photographs (the lighting rarely cooperated over the four days. A hole like 17 is epic but flat lighting is flat lighting). I am keen to solicit feedback about the course and my (radical?) opinion. Though I am a huge fan, I don't have a horse in the race. I am more perplexed than anything and look forward to your thoughts and observations (especially from non-Ballyneal members      ) on the pros and cons of the design of the White Course.
 
Best,

[Sam Morrow]

I once said that 2 is a great hole and was slammed on this site, go figure.

[Mac Plumart]

http://mrpgolf.com/overunder-rated


Agreed, Ran.

[Terry Lavin]

White has always suffered because of the comparison to its next-door neighbor, Sand Hills, which is uniformly regarded as one of the most important courses built in America in the past 70 years or so.  How's that for competition!  I wouldn't claim White is an architectural masterpiece, but it is a rollicking good bit of cartball fun.  Great mix of holes, great greens, phenomenal natural site. 

But now, White has a new problem, the Red Course.  If one can feel sorry for a golf course, I feel sorry for the White.  Everybody is going to go hole-by-hole with the Red vs. White and Red will win every time.  That's reality.  And that's a shame.  If the White was the only destination course in the Sand Hills it would be in the Top 50 USA.  C'est la guerre!

[Michael George]

Thanks for the review Ran.  I enjoyed it.  You certainly captured my feelings on the course.   

As Jack said, it is unique and not supposed to be like other courses, and that is what I like about it.  It has some of the most unique and fun shots that I have hit on any golf course.   If a golfer can appreciate this and enjoy all of the cool shots that you get to hit, you will love the course.     

If the measure of a good golf course is one that gets better the more that you play it, then Dismal River fits that description.  I did not know what to think of it after my first round.  By my third round, I was hooked and have loved it since.

I do think Terry is right about its problem being compared to its neighbors.  However, I also think that Ran is correct that it is so unique that some panelists are bound not to enjoy it, pulling its score lower than it should be in my opinion.

[Michael George]

.

[Thomas Dai]

Thank you for this tour.


I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago about golfers thoughts and perceptions etc if they know in advance who the architect is. Is this a course that is effected GCA wise because folk know in advance who designed it?


Atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

I watched responses on this site go from damning the course to praising it.  I have not seen it since the redo but like it in its first life. I played Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Dismal, and Ballyneal on the same trip. My wife liked DR the best.  She thought there were fewer carries needed.  I thought it was good but had a few very weak holes. I'd like to get back and play both. It is a pretty great place.

[Rob Collins]

I too came away extremely impressed by the white course. Great strategy, an abundance of shotmaking opportunities, and a lot of fun -- my takeaway was that it would be considered one of the best modern golf courses in the world if not for many of the aforementioned reasons that Ran noted. If it was a Mike Strantz course, this community would be tripping all over itself to sing it's praises. Oh well. It's a great course and it's there. I highly recommend going out there if you get a chance.

[Joel_Stewart]

Is this one of the most scary bunkers in golf?

[Tom_Doak]

Is this one of the most scary bunkers in golf?
[\quote]


The scary part of that hole is not the bunker, it's all the short grass bringing the ball back down the slope if you come up short and wide of the bunker.


Personally, that is one of three holes I dislike on the White course.  But I really dislike those three, and that sets the course back a long way in my own rankings.

[Mac Plumart]

That hole (5th) is a ton of fun and one of the most unique par 3's I've seen, especially from that back tee (which is pictured).


If you come up short, the ball usually hangs in the grass somewhere on that hill and leaves you with an up and down opportunity that really isn't that hard.  The angle you hit from causes the ball to fly way up in the air (like a flop shot but you don't have to try too hard to execute due to the angle of the hill) and the green is very large and easy to hold, with that type of recovery shot.


The better players I've seen, that have experience playing that hole, seem to like to fade one in off the left side of the green and use that slope to feed the ball to the hole.  As for me and my lowly game, I just try to get it over the bunker and use the backboard to stop the ball.

[Ron Csigo]

Is this one of the most scary bunkers in golf?
[\quote]


The scary part of that hole is not the bunker, it's all the short grass bringing the ball back down the slope if you come up short and wide of the bunker.


Personally, that is one of three holes I dislike on the White course.  But I really dislike those three, and that sets the course back a long way in my own rankings.

How is this hole any different then all the other golf holes ever built with false front greens?
 
It requires nothing more then a well struck PW or 9 iron to hit the middle of the green.   

[JC Jones]

Is this one of the most scary bunkers in golf?
[\quote]


The scary part of that hole is not the bunker, it's all the short grass bringing the ball back down the slope if you come up short and wide of the bunker.


Personally, that is one of three holes I dislike on the White course.  But I really dislike those three, and that sets the course back a long way in my own rankings.

How is this hole any different then all the other golf holes ever built with false front greens?
 
It requires nothing more then a well struck PW or 9 iron to hit the middle of the green.

Well, to be fair, he needs to be able to point to some reason (whether made up or not) why the Red gets a better score in the CG than the White beyond just his dislike of Nicklaus....

[Tom_Doak]

How is this hole any different then all the other golf holes ever built with false front greens?

On most holes with false front greens the ball doesn't run back down a 30-foot hill when you miss the green.


I guess there are some where it does ... for example, the 9th at Augusta ... which I have never been a particular fan of, either.  It's fun to watch in the big tournament, not so fun to play oneself.

[Mac Plumart]

9 at Augusta National is very fun to play.


And isn't 5 at Royal Melbourne West a par 3 with a massive drop off in the front of the green?


http://www.royalmelbourne.com.au/cms/west-course/hole-5/


The drop off at Dismal Nicklaus 5 might be bigger, but most things are bigger in the Sandhills of Nebraska.


Like the elevation change in the fairway at 8 on your course at Dismal, Tom...that is massive.  Or the elevation change from tee to fairway on 17 of Dismal Doak...again, massive.  That's the nature of the property...big and bold.  To capture the essence of the land, I believe you should make the courses big and bold too.

[Jeff Tang]

Can anyone point to where the original green on #13 was?  Would it be in the frame of Ran's first picture of #13 of his review? Would it have been on the line of that tall blow out bunker and further back?  Or was it in an entirely different location?

[Mac Plumart]

Jeez, the more I think about holes with huge false fronts...the more I think they are great!


11 at Crystal Downs
11 at Ballyneal
13 at Rivermont is a par 4 with a killer false front...one of my favorite holes.


Wonder if you could through 11 at Shinnecock in that basket too...just at the bottom of the false front are some crazy bunkers.

[JC Jones]

I happen to really like false fronts or severe drop offs at the front of greens.  Sometimes on uphill courses it is necessary.

In all seriousness though, Tom has been pretty consistent on this.  See:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37649.0.html

Now, the 11th at Shinnecock and the ones at Augusta don't seem to have nearly the negative effect that this particular one has on Dismal.

[Paul Gray]

How is this hole any different then all the other golf holes ever built with false front greens?

On most holes with false front greens the ball doesn't run back down a 30-foot hill when you miss the green.


I guess there are some where it does ... for example, the 9th at Augusta ... which I have never been a particular fan of, either.  It's fun to watch in the big tournament, not so fun to play oneself.

Tom,


To be fair, I've never played the hole so won't be making too strong a case for it. Nevertheless, my immediate reaction to viewing the hole was one of delight. And that coming from a man who doesn't usually offer up much praise to Jack Nicklaus. Maybe I'd love it a few times, as I suspect might be the case with the rest of the course, and then be bored of it forever after.

I did wonder though about you mentioning the thirty foot roll back down the hill if you miss the target. Point taken, but it's half a plateau green in that sense and I'm not sure that a little plateau green surrounded by short firm grass would generally qualify as bad architecture. Miss the green short and you roll back down the plateau. Fine by me. Ok, so the average rise might not be 30 foot but I'd be reluctant to mark it down because of said feature, particularly not at 140 yards. I don't though have an issue with games of ping-ping across elevated greens whereas many people do.   

[Tom_Doak]

Ok, so the average rise might not be 30 foot but I'd be reluctant to mark it down because of said feature, particularly not at 140 yards.   

Paul:


If I thought of the hole as being 140 yards I would probably not be as negative about it ... but, there is a back tee at about 200 yards.


Also, those sorts of shots are extra-harsh in an environment like the Sand Hills.  How do you hold the green when you've got a 20-MPH wind at your back?  [Going over the back is not so good, either.]  And how is the 200-yard shot when you've got a 20-MPH wind in your face?  One of my main observations about the course was that it didn't seem like Jack worried much at all about the effect of the wind on play.  Maybe he doesn't have to think about it the same way I do.


The course has come a long way from the first time I saw it.  I don't know why JC [or anyone else] would be surprised that I don't like it as much as I like my own, but it's certainly nothing personal towards Jack Nicklaus.

[Jeff Tang]

Ok, so the average rise might not be 30 foot but I'd be reluctant to mark it down because of said feature, particularly not at 140 yards.   

Paul:


If I thought of the hole as being 140 yards I would probably not be as negative about it ... but, there is a back tee at about 200 yards.


Also, those sorts of shots are extra-harsh in an environment like the Sand Hills.  How do you hold the green when you've got a 20-MPH wind at your back?  [Going over the back is not so good, either.]  And how is the 200-yard shot when you've got a 20-MPH wind in your face?  One of my main observations about the course was that it didn't seem like Jack worried much at all about the effect of the wind on play.  Maybe he doesn't have to think about it the same way I do.


The course has come a long way from the first time I saw it.  I don't know why JC [or anyone else] would be surprised that I don't like it as much as I like my own, but it's certainly nothing personal towards Jack Nicklaus.

Tom, I thought the 13th at Sand Hills was more severe in the front than the 5th at DR White. In Ran's course review of SH he lists the yardage at 220 yards for the 13th. Curious to get your opinion of how that hole differs than the 5th at DR White since both obviously are in similar environments. Part of why I think the 13th is more severe is when I played it the front was maintained firmly so that the ball would roll back. At DR the ball would hang up on the green surrounds. My experience at both places are limited to just one visit each so I can't say how the holes play over multiple trips in differing conditions.

Also, while different because it's a par 5, the 1st at SH also has a wicked false front where one could fairly easily putt off the green and see the ball scurry well below the green surface.

[astavrides]

Great profile as usual. Fun course and place to be.

[Sam Morrow]

If you haven't been on the 18th tee at midnight to see the stars then you haven't really done Dismal.

[John Kirk]

I am a huge fan, I don't have a horse in the race. I am more perplexed than anything and look forward to your thoughts and observations (especially from non-Ballyneal members      ) on the pros and cons of the design of the White Course.
 
Sincerely,
Ran Morrissett

I'm breaking the rules!  Well, not exactly.

Thanks for the enjoyable tour, and the compelling case for Dismal River (White).

JMK