Paul,

I was told by the Dismal River staff a year ago when there that at least four fairways were to be regraded to make them more playable. I was also under the impression that at least as many greens were to be substantially reshaped.

My impression of that place was that as the first post-Sebonack routing, Nicklaus' people were determined to make it a naturalistic routing. They proceeded to produce the routing in, I was told, two days.

It showed it.  

Dr. Klein,

Had you said something like, the Dismal River course had an average GW rating of 6.3 or some such rater evaluation numerical assignment, I would be left wondering if it was any good.  But due to your excellent and succinct post, I am left with little ambiguity on whether the course might be any good, or whther I'd want to see it.

My impression of that place was that as the first post-Sebonack routing, Nicklaus' people were determined to make it a naturalistic routing. They proceeded to produce the routing in, I was told, two days.

It showed it.  

Probably because that's all JN could spend on the site. 2 days? That explains changes already happening. Would this qualify as "re-perfecting"?


I wonder if the members think they got what they paid for.

I played there in August.  The head pro Rob Brown (if my memory serves me) told me that the at least five holes had been reworked.   It looked it too.  Evidently they are going to do some serious regrading on 18 to make the shot into the green less blind.

In fact he said that he would like to have all the ratings from a year ago erased because the course is so different.  I'm still not certain they have finished tinkering with it.  I like the course but it will still get better.  The most impressive thing about the place may be the 17 mile paved road that was built form the main road.

This neatly ties into the "are you serious about GCA" thread, in my view.  

Remember back when DR was being proposed and built.  We had a pretty long discussion about JN not seeking out a review of SH, and Lipe coming on here defending the methods and approach to design and construction that their firm had undertaken out there.  The suggestion that it was bad form and unwise for JN not to at least have a good look-see at SH was pooh-poohed by Lipe as I remember.  Afterall, JN has played all the great courses of the world, and what does he need to see another for... (that was what I got out of those remarks by Lipe).  

Then, we were treated with pictures during construction and grow-in, and some of us called into question the wisdom of some obvious features and how they were a departure from some of the lessons learned at SH.  (not everything at SH went hunky dory and some stuff needed tweaking as well)  But, we were told by Lipe and the developer of DR that everything was under control, and they knew just what they were doing.  

All this points to what I termed on the other thread as hubris, to say that because you have all this worldly golf playing experience, there is nothing substantive to learn from one's predecessors.  Even if C&C aren't exactly or actually JN's predecessors, they beat him to the sand hills and learned, and enough was written that even JN and his team, including Lipe, might have learned a thing or two about construction, design, extremes of terrain combined with weather, that was encountered in the other seminal sand hills project.  If JN and their team could pay respect to learn, they would be better for it, it seems to me.  And, even their clients would be better off.  

I remember Doak having his Renaissance gathering at SH not too many years before embarking on BallyNeal.  I wasn't there, yet I remember the threads on GCA.com about discussions and considerations that those in attendance had about the methods and lessons to be learned from the building of SH.  Will TD come on here and say he learned nothing in his attendance and observations of SH then at other visits, that didn't at some point matter in his own masterpiece at BallyNeal.  

If I got that right, then is this a small example of the factor of why JN doesn't hit the homerun or even score well, and TD seems to continues to drive runs in?  Which archies have a firm understanding of the ODGs, Doak, C&C or JN?  Which ones have a reverance for the ODGs?  Which ones are driving the great designs now?  

Except that he's simply dead wrong about it.

Anyone who elevates ignorance and obliviousness into a principle of virtue, whether Nicklaus on design or John Kavanaugh on this site, condems himself (or his body of work) to irrelevance.

Except that he's simply dead wrong about it.

Anyone who elevates ignorance and obliviousness into a principle of virtue, whether Nicklaus on design or John Kavanaugh on this site, condems himself to irrelevance.

Brad,

Critically irrelevant or economically irrelevant? Nicklaus Design currently has 100 designs under way according to their website. Okay with permitting and financing issues maybe you can cut that number in half, but economically it is hard to argue that they are not the market leaders by a long shot.

The Doak (or others) vs Nicklaus seems simple to me. Brand name producing volume vs craftsman with lower volume and quality of detail work. As a golfer and regular here it is obvious which model I prefer, if I was a higher end developer, I would probably choose the later.

Would St Andrews Beach be closed if Nicklaus rather than Doak was hired? I have no idea, just asking.

PS. I am sort of guessing that Barney is more of a Doak than a Nicklaus in the asphalt paving world.  

Seems curious, Mr. Goodale, to confuse evolving and tweaking a well-established golf course with fixing one as soon as, if not before, it opens, to make sure it's not unplayable.

Thanks, Mike

I know that Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes and Kingsbarns have also been not insignifcantly tweaked since their openings.  Maybe Dismal River is more of of an extreme makeover than plastic surgery, but so what?  I give Jack (or whomever) credit for admitting they could do better, and then doing it.  Afer all, Frank Lloyd Wright went back and fixed that leaky roof at Falling Water, didn't he....

Brad

Not even my youngest daughter's 10-year old friends call me "Mr. Goodale."  Try Rich, or Rihc or even just Hey You!  It would be more polite in this day and age.

As for your point. what's wrong with admitting you made a mistake and then trying to fix it?  More importantly (my point above) what's right with building something great that could be even greater and just sitting on it because one is just not bovvered, as the chavs in the UK are now wont to say?

Not a good example for our children, or even budding GCAs......

Rhic

Tom

When I was at PD in 2001, you and your team were building a ginormous new back tee for the 1st, near the putting green.  Was that just a mere bagatelle, or did you eventually decide to not do it?

I'm assured that you haven't done anything so radical as changing greensites or the overall routing, but can you not imagine some time in the future when that might not be desireable?  If not, why?  Is it because what you have now is perfect, or because you believe that it is more important to retain design integrity than have continuous improvement that improves on "perfection?"

Kingsbarns has done and continues to do a lot of reshaping of greens, green complexes and routing theory.  I was there a few weeks ago.

You are the first to tell us about 12 greens being changed at Dismal River.  Yes that is a lot, but, if we end up with a better product, so what?  Are you, or Coore & Crenshaw or Nicklaus so good that you can get it right the 1st time, every time?  If so, good to you.  If not, why let your ego get in the way of better golf for those of us in the masses?

Constructively

Rich

"What's wrong with admitting you made a mistake and then trying to fix it?"

Well, let's see:

- someone has to pay for it;
- play is interrupted for existing members who paid their initiation fees only recently;
- the course is closed during the most important period for selling memberships;
- you get bad ratings from magazines for the first version;
- they may not come back to see the second version;
- if they do come back, the openning buzz is gone;
- your reputation as an architect is tarnished;
- questions are raised about how much time was spent on site - these sound like pretty big goofs;
- makes you wonder about the six holes they aren't fixing;
- finally, and most importantly, it raises questions about the original architect's ability to get it right on a second pass if he was so far off on the first.

Otherwise, there are no problems whatsoever.

Bob

Would St Andrews Beach be closed if Nicklaus rather than Doak was hired? I have no idea, just asking.

Mike,

They never would have had that much money to pay him and construct the course in the first place.  

Interesting point, though. I have often wondered something similar. I think they would have sold more memberships overall.

I would be better off financially, however, because I wouldn't be a member.