Hole-by-hole tour of Dismal River Club

« **Reply #50 on:** February 16, 2006, 07:27:50 PM »

George — I don't know if I've given the game earth shattering innovations, but I do enjoy discussing things like that. Perhaps my take on turfed areas extending from greens to the next tee was a bit flippant. I do agree; it is interesting.

Some recent work from our team includes the following: A short cut hole that allows a non-returning 18 to be played as a 9-hole or a 6-hole; alternate play (routing) on a 10th hole which allows it to play to the 11th green...cascading holes to then include a bonus hole (the course has three separate cards as a result); a 55-yard par-2; a loop of practice holes configured into a course using No. 10, a designated hole and the course's 18th; a peninsula green in the spirit of Desmond, bordered by a stone wall that has running water around the edges, eventually spilling into a lagoon (not everyone's cup of tea, but I like it); a 9-hole course-within-a-course of 18-holes (precision length) that allows members of an under 3,000-yard layout to establish transient handicaps on 9 pre-determined holes; and two par-3s which cross each other over a lagoon.

« **Reply #51 on:** February 16, 2006, 07:46:40 PM »

A short cut hole. That is fantastic.

One of the first continuous examples I saw was just recently at Jasper Pk, A few hundred google points back, it was one of coolest things especially since it came into play for the Bad Baby.

« **Reply #52 on:** February 16, 2006, 09:41:57 PM »

George,

It looks like the greens are close to the next tees, but considering those are the 7500 yard tees, it adds about 1000 yards to the walk where you and I would play.

A lot of the holes look like the long hitter has a significant advantage - they open up after the turning points - 850 feet if you are counting.

« **Reply #53 on:** February 16, 2006, 09:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 16, 2006, 07:07:10 PM

Marc Haring,

In the drive from North Platte to Mullen you will see an infinite number of golf holes that would all bear a striking resemblance to the ones pictured.

It's the land.

Uhh...Patrick?

Wasn't it you who started the thread last week that the land doesn't matter?

That's like me starting a thread claiming, "How to shave strokes off your game with the wedge".

« **Reply #54 on:** February 16, 2006, 10:33:00 PM »

Count me among the rookies who were floored the first time they saw the back of a green complex dissolve into the next tee.

Never shall I forget peering over the edge of the sixth green at Friar's Head to behold her seamless integration into the seventh tee.

Don't even get me started on the seventh hole!

« **Reply #55 on:** February 16, 2006, 10:44:25 PM »

Quote from: Marc Haring on February 16, 2006, 09:43:22 AM

[size=4x]
There really is a striking familiarity to the courses in this area.
[/size]

Mike Cirba,

Read what Marc said.

Then, read what I said.

There's a reason the courses SEEM to have a striking familiarity, it's because the land is almost identical.

I suspect that the courses may NOT have a striking familiarity, and that the familiarity has more to do with scale, and THE LOOK OF THE SURROUNDINGS to someone not intimately familiar with each golf course, each hole.

You're starting to get dense, like TEPaul.
Do you have the same water supply ?[/color]

« **Reply #56 on:** February 16, 2006, 11:06:06 PM »

Forrest I had no idea.....my lawyers be trackin you down boy less you be doin this down meheeco way...lol.
...just proves that nuthins new, just new to me the first time I thought it

but, seriously as I can be...call me crazy...sounds like neat stuff...shurr nuff.

« **Reply #57 on:** February 17, 2006, 03:35:04 AM »

Patrick and Mike.

I reread my initial post and thought what a dunce, I should have put ‘what a striking similarity these courses have’. If I had meant ‘familiarity’ I would have meant that they bore a resemblance to courses that I am familiar with i.e. British links. That’s why I posted a picture of Sand Hills in there. Sorry for my ineptitude but what I was saying was that courses in that area all look very similar which is clearly a product of the land but also maybe the ultimate design opportunities that the land allows. I guess any other design style would be sacrilegious.

« **Reply #58 on:** February 17, 2006, 06:06:33 AM »

"One of my associates walked Dismal River late in the fall and said it looked really difficult."

That's what they first said about Pine Valley too.

« **Reply #59 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:09:35 AM »

Marc Haring,

Without playing each course, and looking solely at the photos, I think the surrounding land overpowers the golf course features.

One of the comments and discussions during a 3-4 day trip to Sand Hills was the impact of the surroundings. While they may be attractive and pristine, they're identical, and this doesn't help in seperating the uniqueness of each hole.

On many holes there's a feeling of isolation.
The golfer, the hole and the surroundings are one world.
The high tee, low fairway, high green architecture acts as a catalyst in that regard.

The uniqueness of the topography promotes that effect.

Hence, even if the golf courses were greatly disimilar, the scale and identical nature of the surroundings would present the aura of similarity.

« **Reply #60 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:12:19 AM »

TEPaul,

The difference is that Pine Valley was close to two of the biggest cities in America at the time it was being built, hence it had a large potential membership pool, and was convenient.

In addition, it was built for a specific golfer.

Building a hard, remote golf course is puzzling to me.

« **Reply #61 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:24:55 AM »

"Building a hard, remote golf course is puzzling to me."

Not to me. The perception of PVGC back in construction had nothing to do with any membership. That's what got everyone else's attention with that course out of the box. It's great architecture and that was apparent from the git-go, but "hard" is what put the course on the radar screen bigtime---and apparently with the entire profession. It even made it somewhat controversial in the beginning. Everyone was talking about it. Why do you think so many within and without the busines made the trip down there to look at it in those years between 1913 and 1918-21?

It was a "ringing the bell at the State Fair" kind of thing and it was brilliant even if Crump may not have foreseen that going in.

« **Reply #62 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:38:11 AM »

TEPaul,

Not surprisingly, you've missed the mark, or at least half of it.

Building a hard golf course isn't something new.

Building a hard golf course far removed from civilization isn't so common.

Pine Valley had millions of people within a short distance of the club.

« **Reply #63 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:53:38 AM »

Patrick:

That may be your 'mark' but it's not mine.

Furthermore, this whole "remote" thing you mention is into a whole new modern phenomenon. The idea today in a place like Sand Hiills is that at least three courses, even if they're technically competing will actually help each other in a remote area like that.

Not just that but as you must have seen when at Sand Hills G.C courses like that do not need to run anywhere near the amount of play through that most other courses in America do.

Why? Because their entire cost structure from ground up is so much lower.

« **Reply #64 on:** February 17, 2006, 08:59:50 AM »

Tom: Your statement about the cost of courses in the sand hills is right on. However, I don't understand how these courses will help each other in any way ... members of Dismal River are not going to be welcomed with open arms at Sand Hills. There may be a modicum of crossover play but that's all.

Gil's project in Valentine may benefit from the success of the others if it stays public per the new plan; but there is also a risk in having no membership to keep it afloat if times get tough. If it's good enough that won't be much of a risk.

Bottom line is that synergy may be good sometimes, but I would bet you that the owners of each of those courses would rather be selling to 1/2 the potential members instead of 1/3.

« **Reply #65 on:** February 17, 2006, 09:07:32 AM »

It seems to me that the real challenge in the sand hills would be building a bunkerless hole. no?

« **Reply #66 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:07:12 AM »

SPDB,

Speaking of bunkerless hole, check out #14 on the routing map on Page 2 of this thread. It's a 514 yard par 4 from the back tees and appears to be bunkerless. I'm sure there are native blowouts on the perimeter of the hole but the routing shows it as bunkerless. This is also the hole that has the next tee directly off a chipping area to the back right of the green.

« **Reply #67 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:15:51 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 16, 2006, 10:44:25 PM

Mike Cirba,

Read what Marc said.

Then, read what I said.

There's a reason the courses SEEM to have a striking familiarity, it's because the land is almost identical.

I suspect that the courses may NOT have a striking familiarity, and that the familiarity has more to do with scale, and THE LOOK OF THE SURROUNDINGS to someone not intimately familiar with each golf course, each hole.

You're starting to get dense, like TEPaul.
Do you have the same water supply ?[/color]

Patrick,

Neither Tom Paul nor I drink much water that I'm aware of.

« **Reply #68 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:22:54 AM »

Must be that Italian wine that was fortified with antifreeze several years ago, you know about the time that Mike and Tom decided it was time to stock the wine cellar.

« **Reply #69 on:** February 17, 2006, 04:06:28 PM »

Quote from: Forrest Richardson on February 16, 2006, 07:27:50 PM

Some recent work from our team includes the following: A short cut hole that allows a non-returning 18 to be played as a 9-hole or a 6-hole; alternate play (routing) on a 10th hole which allows it to play to the 11th green...cascading holes to then include a bonus hole (the course has three separate cards as a result); a 55-yard par-2; a loop of practice holes configured into a course using No. 10, a designated hole and the course's 18th; a peninsula green in the spirit of Desmond, bordered by a stone wall that has running water around the edges, eventually spilling into a lagoon (not everyone's cup of tea, but I like it); a 9-hole course-within-a-course of 18-holes (precision length) that allows members of an under 3,000-yard layout to establish transient handicaps on 9 pre-determined holes; and two par-3s which cross each other over a lagoon.

Thank you for responding in the spirit you did, I was indeed trying to be serious and not smart assed. I'd love to see a thread on some of your innovations, maybe a diagram of the layout that allows the shortcut hole.

« **Reply #70 on:** February 17, 2006, 04:09:17 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 17, 2006, 08:59:50 AM

However, I don't understand how these courses will help each other in any way ... members of Dismal River are not going to be welcomed with open arms at Sand Hills. There may be a modicum of crossover play but that's all.

Tom:

I'd be suprised if a healthy rivalry doesn't develop between these clubs. In fact, I think a ryder cup style match play event or multiple course member guest would go far to create that type of environment. For me, the idea of travelling an entire day to play one course for 2-3 days and then travel home is far less appealing than travelling for perhaps a week to two or more locations and playing multiple rounds. Much like one does on a trip to other regions.

I'm attracted to these clubs for their remoteness but IMO reciprocity among clubs would strengthen the overall appeal to the area. Perhaps the other clubs need time to mature before that happens but it would benefit all, IMO.

« **Reply #71 on:** February 17, 2006, 04:21:36 PM »

George — The only smart asses on GCA live in the West...west of here. When our new website gets up and going I can post stuff (images.) On Tuesday I get to argue the par-2 again. Some members of this very short executive course think it belittles their course. I've told them that it actually makes their short 3 more difficult — now one less shot to match par.

« **Reply #72 on:** February 18, 2006, 01:56:02 AM »

TEPaul,

You're starting to make progress, but, very slowly.

Building a hard golf course in a remote area is going to attract whom ?

One of the benchmarks of a good golf course is the desire to walk off the 18th green and head straight for the 1st tee.

When presented with a difficult golf course, that's not the thought process for the great majority of golfers.
Few golfers, after getting beat up, want to rush out to get beat up again.

Who in their right mind would travel an entire day, each way, to play a golf course that isn't sporty or fun, but, instead is a brute that beats the golfer up.

If you think there's a strong demand for that product, I think you're kidding yourself.

As to low cost, perhaps in construction, but, I'm not so sure that the maintainance budget is significantly lower than any other club, interpolating for the length of the season.

And, with substantive mileage between them, I don't see these clubs benefiting one another in their present structure.

For a man who was lost and stranded in the Denver airport for three days because he lost his ticket, I can't see you traveling to Nebraska or Colorado anytime soon, at least not without a chaperone.

« **Reply #73 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:07:13 AM »

"However, I don't understand how these courses will help each other in any way ... members of Dismal River are not going to be welcomed with open arms at Sand Hills. There may be a modicum of crossover play but that's all."

TomD:

If there's little cross-over play amongst the courses around Sand Hills then of course these courses won't help each other. But somehow I have a feeling golfers from afar who go out there will have a way of playing all of what's out there. God knows how many non-members from afar play the likes of NGLA, Shinnecock and Maidstone when they go to Eastern LI and it doesn't get much more private than those three. Although maybe that doesn't apply any longer with the recent inclusion out there. Do you know anything about that one, TomD?

« **Reply #74 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:10:39 AM »

"TEPaul,
You're starting to make progress, but, very slowly."

Patrick:

If I'm in any way starting to think like you do I'm definitely headed in the wrong direction. Your threads and posts and thoughts are becoming more and more bizarre and bumble-headed every day.

News:

Forrest Richardson

A_Clay_Man

Mike Nuzzo

Mike_Cirba

Michael Moore

Patrick_Mucci

paul cowley

Marc Haring

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Tom_Doak

SPDB

Jimmy Muratt

Mike_Cirba

Garland Bayley

George Pazin

Jason Blasberg

Forrest Richardson

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

TEPaul

TEPaul