How many cubic yards of earth were REALLY moved at Dismal River?

« **Reply #100 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:15:04 AM »

Jay said:

"It is typical Nicklaus at DR...all aerial attack with precious few ground game options. The people I talked to who played the course and the other staff to whom I spoke all agreed...DR is a very difficult course for highly skilled players. For goodness sake...the MEMBER tees are 6690 and the rate/slope are 73 and 137...that is much too difficult...but the next set down are 5100 so if the 440 yd par-4 is too tough for you, the 270 yard par-4 might be too easy or short."

*****

Jay -- a point-by-point counter according to my PERSONAL VISITS / PLAY OF DR.

1). It is atypical of Nicklaus. I have played 70+ courses of Jack's handiwork and DR flies in the face of what Nicklaus and crew have done. You have some edgy stuff I have never seen -- the par-3 5th is one example -- the center-placed bunker at #10 which you debunk as contrived -- and the cut-off fairway at #11 on the left side which are just a few examples that come quickly to mind.

2). You say "all aerial" with few ground options. Again -- wrong. I don't know the precise number of ground options you count as "few." I mentioned more than half a dozen specific holes and not one has been examined by you in any specific detail. Just more of the shoot-from-the-hip approach that lends itself to derision from a number of respondents. Jay -- it's time to really do your homework on any course visit because your credibility on DR is sinking faster than the Titanic.

3). Jay, when you speak about tee lengths I have a small suggestion for you that might work. Nothing prevents players from mixing and match the different tee box lengths they play. In some holes -- you can play from further back -- on others much further ahead. Let's also be clear -- 6,600 yards is not backbreaking when you consider the elevation above sea level at DR and the fact that the turf is quite firm.

Jay -- this Board thrives when people respond in greate detail to the points put forward by others who have also played the course(s) in question. While I don't doubt the aspects of walkability and minimalism matter to a number of people they are secondary issues when the core areas of the specific holes are discussed in terms of their architectural qualities. I have asked several times for ANYONE to respond to my original discussion on the holes themselves. It's time to get back on the main topic because little is served with the pattern that you are following.

« **Reply #101 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:21:36 AM »

Tom -- you didn't say a huge amount, and I didn't get that from it. It sounded like more than we might have realized, and I took that to mean over 15,000 cubic feet.

(See, I was right. You moved around 15,000 cubic YARDS. 27 times more than I said.

)

I know you haven't seen DR, but do you have opinion about it as minimalist? Ground game options?

Jay -- the pictures you posted look pretty spectacular. They also look minimalist to me, as much as pictures can. Don't know about playability, but sure would love to find out.

« **Reply #102 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:24:21 AM »

"Nothing prevents players from mixing and match the different tee box lengths they play. In some holes -- you can play from further back -- on others much further ahead."

Not true. There is something that prevents players from mixing and matching tees. You cannot post a score for handicap purposes when you bounce back and forth between tees during a single round.

« **Reply #103 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:28:40 AM »

Matt...again THE WALKABILITY AND MINIMALISM WERE NOT THE ISSUE.

I walked the golf course. The whole thing...except the cart ride between a couple holes. Yes, I was exhausted, but I walk everywhere. It can be walked with out too much problem.

Look, you are a hell of a stick and I am a 15 handicap. But fromm the 6700 yd tees...the only option...its got alot of forced carries.

Look at the difference between the photos above and these from Ballyneal:

or from sand hills

or wild horse

which looks easier for the ground game? Which looks more natural on the greens and fairways?

« **Reply #104 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:32:21 AM »

Jay

Could you point out specific features and bunkers that look unnatural in those photos you posted?

Could you comment on the ability to use the ground game at #10 at Dismal River relative to the ability to use the ground game on #17 at Sand Hills?

« **Reply #105 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:35:43 AM »

Wayne Morrison:

A player can play from different boxes if he wants to do it. If the pen and pencil set are so determined for handicap purposes then you can play from the 6,600 yardage marks which are far from onerous.

Jay:

You keep on diverting the subject at hand.

Jay, with all due respect, I mentioned in somewhat grand detail the ground game optoin holes at DR.

You have said the aerial game is the essence of DR -- that's not true from my personal playing of DR. You can play ground game aspects.

Now, you are throwing into the mix the name of Ballyneal. I don't doubt the ground game options may be more forthcoming (from a total number of holes perspective) at the Colorado layout BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT DR doesn't have a high number of them.

Please, go beyond the surface retorts and start with some clear hole-by-holes specifics -- I'll be more than happy to reply when you do.

Thanks ...

« **Reply #106 on:** September 02, 2006, 11:40:30 AM »

Matt, I am too busy. This thread totally scud attacked my work on other articles and I have written enough for now on the issue. My feelings are clear and so are the pix. Lets meet on another thread.

« **Reply #107 on:** September 02, 2006, 12:02:20 PM »

"Wayne Morrison:

A player can play from different boxes if he wants to do it. If the pen and pencil set are so determined for handicap purposes then you can play from the 6,600 yardage marks which are far from onerous."

You stated previously, "Nothing prevents players from mixing and match the different tee box lengths they play."

I stated one reason why that your statement is not absolutely true. You then proceed, as you are wont to do, to disparage people that post for handicap purposes as the "pen and pencil set" and if they want to post a handicap, they can do so at shorter yardages. Since you do not belong to a club, let me tell you that some of us keep accurate handicaps and post all our scores as we should. Your post also suggests that you are not aware that handicapping adjusts for different tees with the resulting different course rating and slope. What tees I play is not relevant, just that I keep consistant in which tees I use. Therefore, my playing the course at 6600 yards has nothing to do with my point to you. Playing multiple tees in a single round prevents posting a score for handicap purposes. This is one reason that some would not play from multiple tees (disproving your position) even though everyone is free to do so.

I've seen you play multiple balls on a single hole after you've hit a bad shot (as I recall you did it quite often at LuLu). You don't seem to have the same mentality as others. Is that any reason to disparage them?

By the way, do you keep a handicap? Or are you once again disparaging a group that you are not associated with such as when you were critical of private club members and their caddie useage?

« **Reply #108 on:** September 02, 2006, 12:22:48 PM »

Mr. Morrison:

This thread is about Dismal River -- you are the one who is intent on re-making a point and then continuing on it with per exhaustion and in personal sniping. Your point was made but you wish to pile on because of some perverse pleasure you derive from it. How sad and predictable.

If people wish to play from different distance markers that's their prerogative. I simply added that the pen and pencil crowd who are totally interested in having a posted score can play from the tees of their choosing -- in the case the marks from 6,600 yards, or the very tips or forward ones.

Re: Lulu -- I enjoyed sampling the course from different vantage points because I like to see how an architect builds into the design any number of features and because of time I may not be able to return to it so quickly. Yes, I hit bad shots when I play -- you must be Tiger like in your ability.
I'm am soooo sorry you were disturbed by this enterprise. That can be rectified by us never playing again. What joy indeed !

I am in the 20+ handicap range -- lucky to break 100.

Now, how about you allow this thread to return to what it is about -- you can read the title of it quite clearly I guess. Or I am wrong about that too ?

« **Reply #109 on:** September 02, 2006, 12:43:48 PM »

Jay:

Now we're getting to an analytical discussion . . . great photos of DR and I see lots of merit in them.
For instance, and while i'm sure it's more exhilaranting in person . . . walking down 4 fairway with 5 green perched in the background and that bunker and false fronts just taunting a player . . . man that's awesome.

I never really thought of it as a design feature but "showing some skin" like that for the next hole might distract you on your approach to 4. It's got to get into your head especially if you've played 5 a few times and dunked it short and rolled down those fronts . . .

10 also looks like it could be maddening but I don't think that's weakness (the 1st green at Engineers is easily 4 puttable but it's also a total hoot). Perhaps it's impossible to play if you don't hit the correct section of the green but that's what the idea of greens within greens is all about.

I also don't see how your examples of 5 and 10 illustrates that there's no ground game at DR, there may not be bump and run options from the tee but there certainly are chip and run options for recovery shots.

Also, does a course have to have ground game options on every approach in order to have sufficient ground game?

BTW, I deleted the adjective you found objectionable from an earlier post so there's no need for a cease and desist letter.

Your last post analyzing the photos is a thoughtful critique evaluating design strenghts, weaknesses, etc., but I will not change my tune about your original posts being out of line given that this board is about fostering a candid and critical discussion of courses such as DR.

Water under the bridge to me so let's just keep criticially analyzing gca and put the boxing gloves back in storage.

Jason

« **Reply #110 on:** September 02, 2006, 12:47:19 PM »

Jason:

The 5th is indeed a very vexing hole to play. You have to hit a very controlled and precise approach to the correct side where the pin is located. Anything just a tad short can mean a full 40-50 yards slide to the botton of the hill.

It's not something I have seen Nicklaus do previously.

What's interesting Jason is that little is said about the daunting par-3 3rd hole. It has plenty of contours and does allow for a ground game approach and recovery as needed.

There are other option too that I can more fully add on the role of the ground game at DR.

« **Reply #111 on:** September 02, 2006, 07:14:37 PM »

Jason...deal. I'll do better to go back to the kind of writing that made you start readin my work in the first place...I was too glib early in the thread. Thanks for reading in the first place. This is good lesson for all of us...myself included!!...before you hit "send" think "is this something I would say to the person over dinner at the club."

« **Reply #112 on:** September 02, 2006, 07:24:25 PM »

Jay:

Just to be helpful -- can you tell me which holes were the worst at DR (not counting #13 which will be changed) and which holes did you really liked ?

Please try to be specific.

Thanks ...

P.S. I did mention the ground game aspect on a number of holes at DR -- can you tell me if I erred in the ones I named and if so how you see them ?

« **Reply #113 on:** September 02, 2006, 07:38:55 PM »

Matt...my faves were 4,5,6.

4 - great alt shot patterns.

5...I love every lions mouth green I've ever seen

6. It looks like there is no way to hold the fairway, but like 17 at Crystal Downs...JUST LIKE IT!...it's Short and uphill and when you LOOK BACK FROM THE GREEN, you see hidden shelves of fairway that will hold a fairway metal! Really good stuff.

7-13 were too much and the greens especially were too fast for the contoiurs.

I like 16-18 because it was a little mellower in vertical movement in the fairway and the greens were not as severe.

« **Reply #114 on:** September 03, 2006, 04:10:37 AM »

Quote from: Paul_Turner on September 02, 2006, 08:27:21 AM

If it's possible, someone should build a course in the sand hills without any bunkers. Cheaper to maintain, different and maybe just as good?

Paul

Folks on this site wouldn't have anything to oooh and aaah over if your suggestion were followed.

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #115 on:** September 03, 2006, 07:20:12 PM »

Jay:

In regards to your last post -- you make reference to the 7th - 13th were low level holes at DR.

Jay -- I asked this before but how about some detailed comments -- listing them like phone numbers in the yellow pages does very little for my understanding and likely that of others. You used the term "too much" but didn't define it and without the details it becomes nothing more than a very limited exercise for discussion purposes.

I have posted my comments on all the holes -- and I do agree that the 13th is poor for the reasons I mentioned and including those of Nicklaus and others who see the hole as being too severe -- it will be changed.

Like I said -- the devil is in the details -- if you can provide yours I'm sure we can move the discussion to a deeper level.

Thanks ...

« **Reply #116 on:** September 04, 2006, 12:02:50 AM »

There have been several times when I suspected that Jay Flemma was full of shit.

In particular, he has certaintly misused or misunderstood the phrase "line of charm," which, by the way, I only believe I understand because of some postings here.

But, people have gone beyond the pale here, criticizing Jay because people think he's a higher handicap golfer.

Well, that's not kosher--a higher handicap player can evaluate a course, including how that course plays for others, just as well as a lower handicap player.

I've disagreed with Jay many times, but I think people on this thread have been disrespectful and out of line.

Jay may be on to something that Dismal River is too hard for the middle handicap player--I don't know because I haven't played it.

In any event, I'm coming to Jay's defense because most of the people attacking him here haven't played DR either--they're just defending DR for some unknown reason.

Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, and Jay's criticism of DR may be right or wrong, but it's not wrong simply because he may have a higher handicap than you.

« **Reply #117 on:** September 04, 2006, 08:44:10 AM »

Tim: Agreed.

I'm not just talking here about Dismal River, which I have yet to play. But in general, it's funny to me that high handicappers seem to be dismissed by low handicappers, even on the subject of how playable a course is for high handicappers. The low handicappers insist they must have played from the wrong tees, the fairways are really generous, they must have been intimidated, and so on.

So my question to the low handicappers is this -- should not a great course appeal to ALL levels of player?

I know there are exceptions to that rule. Pine Valley, for one. But don't you have to contend that other courses which fail the test are exceptions to the rule? Or do you really believe that a great course just makes too many demands for a 20 handicapper?

« **Reply #118 on:** September 04, 2006, 09:36:55 AM »

Well said, Tim.

Quote from: Tom_Doak on September 04, 2006, 08:44:10 AM

But in general, it's funny to me that high handicappers seem to be dismissed by low handicappers, even on the subject of how playable a course is for high handicappers.

(emphasis added)

Couldn't agree with this more.

« **Reply #119 on:** September 04, 2006, 08:57:24 PM »

A good friend of mine is designing the clubhouse at Dismal...he noted that nearly all — maybe all — of the shaping was "pushing". This means localized "moving" with dozers. When you build a course this way there is no way to quantity the cubic yards because nothing is loaded and actually moved...it is pushed from one place to another. I would say a few thousand blades (at about one cubic yard each) is a reasonable estimate.

« **Reply #120 on:** July 10, 2007, 04:02:52 PM »

I'll agree w/ Doak - Sand Hills is *the* 10.
Still can't believe Nicklaus didn't visit.

On the topic of difficulty, Dismal is about 2-3 shots easier than Sand Hills for my game. Dismal is 100% aerial in a region known for strong winds. The greens are questionable several times, but they're mostly in bowls which means they're out of wind. Par 5 holes are easier at Dismal, Par 3 holes are easier at Dismal. I think I would average 2-3 three putts per round at Dismal.

Sand Hills' greens are exposed to the winds.

At Dismal, my game will get 4-5 rub of the green(i.e. unfair) type of events per round, and about 2 of those are guaranteed to leave you bitter. Learning the course would not help reduce these events.

I played the black tees most of the way in a South wind, and really wouldn't say the course was that much longer than Rustic Canyon. The 629 yard downhill 9th hole was playing about 460 yards for us.

Dismal's into the wind par 4 holes didn't play that long.

« **Reply #121 on:** July 10, 2007, 04:45:57 PM »

I was just re-reading this thread . . . it was certainly a lively one.

« **Reply #122 on:** July 10, 2007, 05:13:43 PM »

I understand that they've redone a number of holes - has anyone played it since this has happened - what do you think? Are there still plans for a second course and are they moving along?

« **Reply #123 on:** July 10, 2007, 06:22:05 PM »

Well that was fun! Having not seen this topic before today I feel somewhat cheated.

Two obvservations:

1. A genuine dislike of a course is not a big deal... 1000´s will love it.

2. Why question the honesty of the design associate in a public forum?

« **Reply #124 on:** July 11, 2007, 01:56:11 AM »

Quote from: Thomas_Brown on July 10, 2007, 04:02:52 PM

At Dismal, my game will get 4-5 rub of the green(i.e. unfair) type of events per round, and about 2 of those are guaranteed to leave you bitter. Learning the course would not help reduce these events.

Can you give us some examples of what you mean?

News:

Matt_Ward

Jim Nugent

wsmorrison

Jay Flemma

Kevin Edwards

Matt_Ward

Jay Flemma

wsmorrison

Matt_Ward

Jason Blasberg

Matt_Ward

Jay Flemma

Matt_Ward

Jay Flemma

Sean_A

Matt_Ward

Tim Pitner

Tom_Doak

George Pazin

Forrest Richardson

Thomas_Brown

Tim Pitner

Jerry Kluger

Greg Tallman

Jim Nugent