[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

You may need to buy a compass for Xmas partner.

Tim, I sincerely believe you have to consider how the architect maxes out the property. The routing is his way in which he answers the essential puzzle.

I don't doubt that certain piece of property don't lend themselves to the fullness of changes in terms of direction, but in my book it means plenty because it demonstrates the full measure on the skill of the architect to incorporate all aspects of the property and at the same time ensure through skillful positioning that no wind can help / hinder the actual play of the course to a tipping point that is excessive or worse yet redundant.

Tim -- there's no "perhaps" about it in my book. If you want to know why Muirfield in Scotland is thought of so highly is that no more than two holes go in the same direction and you have a routing scheme that takes in the fullest range of both holes and how the wind impacts upon them.

In my mind -- after the actual site / land itself is reviewed -- the totality and complexity of the routing is where the architect demonstrates his sheer command in not only getting top quality holes but in using the land to maximum gain.

Ballyneal does that big time -- no doubt I still enjoy and rate highly Pac Dunes but when a routing is simply along the dimensions I previously mentioned there you have a blip on the radar screen that should matter to you. It does for me.

[Adam Clayman]

The brilliance was apparant today, as Ed Peck, of Black Mesa fame, got a sneek peek.

On the 171 yard fifth, to a front left pin, Ed was blessed with his first ace, and so was Ballyneal.

The spirituality of the moment was felt with goose bumps on several of the eight witnesses.

The moment the ball left the club, one astute observer noticed the quality of the play and was quickly seconded by yours truely. What seems like nano-seconds now, the ball took two-three bounces, rolled up and disapeared.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Did Eddie buy an ample selection of drinks for all the witnesses?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Way to go Eddie -- like the old chants at Madison Square Garden in Ranger games of old ... Eddd-e, Eddd-e, Eddd-e !!!

[Adam Clayman]

Matt,
 Since Ballyneal is a cashless society, It was my pleasure to pay the tab for the entire house.

I think his caddy had a good day, though.

[Jay Flemma]

Lemme tell you, I jumped as badly as Phil Mickelson when I saw that ball disappear.  Eddie was so low key about it too...just smiling and soaking up the vibe.  There were only five of us on the course, so the drink ritual was intimate.

ballyneal is every bit as holistic, rugged, and epic as we have been told.  I cant wait to hear what the rest of you think of those greens...I two putted form 96 feet on number 12!  I got REJECTED by the buried elephant hump and rolled all the way to the back.  Eddie yelled to me, "Jay I'll buy you another drink if you two putt."  It finished 6 inches from the hole.

That and I made a sandie out of the E bunker!  I left it on the lip form the bunker.

Run, don't walk, guys.  With scissors if you have to.

[Tim Bert]

Adam - the day I played one of my buddies hit the pin on 11 and it came to rest a couple feet from the hole, so he almost beat Ed to the punch.

Congrats to Ed on a great Ballyneal first!

[Matt_Ward]

What club did Eddie use ?

The truth please !

[Matt_Ward]

One of the aspects of Ballyneal that adds to its quality is the overall pacing of the holes -- you are constantly asked to do different things in different directions with different land forms encountered.

Too often the pace (overall routing) of many courses I play can be quite rudimentary and as a result you can dial in on the type of plays you want to execute.

Not so at Ballyneal.

As I mentioned a bit earlier I salute Tom D and his team for being able to raise the ante for the better player while still preserving the wherewithal of the higher handicap to enjoy themselves.

At Ballyneal you encounter a course that mirros a great baseball pitcher -- it's not only the core pitches it masters -- but the command of different speeds and locations. In golf terms the layout constantly shows you a different side of itself and with that the game of adjustments is never ending.

In my mind -- that's the highest of compliments I can offer.

[Jay Flemma]

8 iron, emmas!

[Tom Huckaby]

As I mentioned a bit earlier I salute Tom D and his team for being able to raise the ante for the better player while still preserving the wherewithal of the higher handicap to enjoy themselves.


That right there is one of the main reasons I have always clearly stated my contention that Sand Hills is the best course on the planet.  It challenges the scratch big time and allows the bogey to still have massive fun.  From all I've read and heard, it would appear Ballyneal does the same. But I still get the impression Dismal River may be a bit too much for the bogey, no matter what tees he plays.  Fair assessment?

In any case, Matt we remain patiently waiting for your take on Sand Hills, or at least some comparison between these three.  You know you always press others for contextual comparisons like this... well, the time has come.  These individual reports are fantastic and well-appreciate... but put it into context.  Do it however you want... but how do each of Ballyneal and DR really compare to Sand Hills?

TH

ps - I may have missed it, but did you ever give any thoughts on or assessments of Sand Hills specifically?

[Jim Franklin]

Huck -

I will be playing Ballyneal and Dismal River within the next month and will compare the three for you. I look forward to seeing the outcome.

Jim

PS Now get back to changing diapers!

[Larry_Keltto]

Tom:

Matt said this earlier in this thread:

<<Nonetheless, even without a body of water the totality of what you find at Ballyneal demonstrates first rate design (the look) alongside the equally important characteristic of first rate execution (how it plays). Kudos to Tom Doak for a winning effort -- the best of his considerable efforts I have played to date (not including the aformentioned courses I listed at the outset) -- a design, I believe, frankly from my time there is even better than that glorious gem in Mullen.

Given the bar Sand Hills has set -- Ballyneal has met the stakes and pushed even further ahead.>>

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

You have to avoid the deep left field seats commentary on a course you have not played -- e.g. Dismal River.

There is too much speculation from people who glean their info simply from pictures or other second hand accounts.

The playability feature is alive and well at Dismal River. It clearly depends upon the smarts of the individual player to play from tees that best shape what their game can CONSISTENTLY produce. I have mentioned this particular aspect a good number of times and bears repeating -- people will play a demanding Nicklaus course from the tips with a pop gun tee game and other less than stellar aspects of shotmaking and then bitch and moan later that the course is IMPOSSIBLE. That's bull.

Now on to the other item you mentioned the shwodown between Ballyneal v Sand Hills.

Let me say this that the three courses (Ballyneal, Dismal River and Sand Hills) remind me of another famous troika on the Monterey Peninsula. I'll let you figure out which one plays which role.

I've been giving the subject matter of Ballyneal, Dismal River & Sand Hills quite a bit of thought from the standpoint of how they far when grouped against one another.

Trust me Huck -- given the sensitivities involved and no doubt the sniping / parsing that will come forward I am still putting together my thoughts.

Suffice to say -- any person who is able to play all three of these unique courses will not be disappointed -- especially when DR changes the unfairness of the 13th hole. They are indeed a must play from the standpoint in giving any architectural enthusiast a full education on what can be done in such a fantastic area for golf in the USA.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Re Dismal - I didn't make any left field commentary.  I read the words of others, made a summary assessment based on that - and made that very clear -and asked if it was correct.  I'm not judging the course -OBVIOUSLY - I'm asking if my summary of the takes of others is correct. I gather you would disagree with the summary.  Thanks!  But I'm guessing Jay would agree.  As I feel very confident I will never see this course in person, questions like this are the best I can do to try and understand the course.

Re the rest... well, it's a sad day when you play the politician -  but I can absolutely understand why you must do this.  Sensitive this is.

As for which course plays which in a comparison to a Monterey troika, well... for one I can't determine which three courses in Monterey you want to call a troika!  There are at least 5 of a certain level of greatness.  Pebble-Cypress-MPCC Dunes-MPCC Shore-Spyglass.  And others do trumpet Poppy Hills and yes, Spanish Bay.  So your assumptions might not equal mine...

But I guess the bottom line is that if either or both of DR rise to the level of any of these Monterey greats - not to mention Sand Hills itself -then great they are.

I just take all that as a given.  That is I have zero doubt each of Ballyneal and DR are truly great.

Just HOW GREAT is what I am trying to get a handle on, and that is proving difficult minus the context.  I trust your take on courses completely... thus I guess I will have to continue to wait.

But how long does it take to prepare a political speech?

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

There's plenty of info to pull together partner -- it will be coming and if you know me that well -- it won't be politically correct to the point of being so watered down to be useless.

Let me say the Monterey troika would be PB, CP and SH. I like the others you mentioned but those are the big three to me there.

Re: Dismal River's difficulty -- Jack's name is what causes so much of the downplaying of what is there. Put someone else's name on the exact property and the same people would be tripping over themselves with hosannas on how grand the course is.

I have played a fair representation of the Nicklaus portoflio -- 70+ to date -- I think I am in a better position than most to give some sort of idea on where Dismal River rates when compared to other works by team Nicklaus and how the evolutionary process of Jack's style has worked so well at DR -- again -- minus the changes to be made to the 13th hole.

Huck -- I only wish you could play the other two given your love for Sand Hills. But realize this the other courses are not just appendages to the Sand Hills fame -- they are rock solid in so many ways and are now competing in the immediate neighborhood where Sand Hills resides. In sum -- that good for the region and good for golfers everywhere.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Many who have played each multiple times would assert that MPCC-Shore and Dunes are each easily the equals of Spyglass.  So what's a cool word for a five-some?  

As for the rest, well.... I didn't see Jay mention Jack's name in his take on DR.  But perhaps that does play in.  In any case I don't care - nor do I care at all how this fits in with the rest of Jack's courses.  That might matter to you, but it doesn't to me.  What I do want to know is how these courses compare to Sand Hills and other greats.  And I shall continue to wait, impatiently.

In any case, like I say, I have no doubt each of these courses are great, and I understand they stand well on their own and are not appendages to Sand Hills.  But just as comparisons of the Monterey courses are inevitable given geographic proximity, so it will go with these.

Thus the world waits....

TH

[Steve Lapper]

Matt,

   I'll reiterate it again.....when was the last time you played Sand Hills? Did you play it on your past trip that included BN & DR? If not, how long ago were you there? What were the conditions?

   I'm most interested to see if your impressions note the difference in scale between the three courses. Do you really think they are similar in scale, or different?


PS...As Jay Flemma notes, DR seems to lack ground game options...is that important to you? Is it fair to say that your personal "power & aerially-oriented" game goes better rewarded at DR & BN?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim - thanks.  No need for political correctness either.  And of course you know who the little diaper-producer was named after.  

Larry - aha!  I hadn't caught that.  So the overall assessment is pre-ordained... now it's clear why Matt has to take so much time to craft his answers....

Wow, better than Sand Hills.  That's tough for me to even imagine...

But I don't doubt the possibility.  For some reason it does just make me sad.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

With all due respect ...

I answered your question a while back. Might it best to look things up before asking me again and again the same thing.

I played the course shortly after it opened -- August 31, 1996. 45 total holes in one day. The conditions were sunny and wind anywhere from 10-20 mph out of the southwest if I recall. I can contact Weather Channel and have them forward you a report if it helps.

I did not play Sand Hills this time around because of a full plate of courses I needed to play.

I never commented on scale. Frankly, I'd like to know how you define scale and where you place it among the chief items you apply when assessing a course's qualities. Mine are quite simple -- the actual land the course occupies, the complexity of the routing and the degree by which shot values are asked of the player throughout the round. Those are my core items.

I found each of the sites to be impressive for what they provide. Given the fact that no housing intrudes and you are alone with your thoughts when playing, to cite just one item.

Steve - you seem to take Jay at gospel that no ground game features are at DR. I disagree with that and can cite instances where that is flat out wrong. Why do you assume when someone posts such a statement it must be 100% true? I also like to see if an aerial / ground game can be linked in the actual design.

In regards to your question about personal styles of play and how they might impact my comments / re: evaluations of courses. I scored quite well at Sand Hills from the lone time I was there. The integration of the ground and aerial games works well with my game no less than if I'm called upon to deliver strictly an aerial game if needed.

[Steve Lapper]

Matt,

With all due respect:

I suspected you haven't played there for quite some time. I wasn't being devious, just curious because SH has eveloved quite a bit since your last visit and I think it's no less than fair to suggest than making any fresh comparisons (and you did say that you think BN might surpass Sand Hills) is awfully difficult without recently seeing SH. Looking at two new courses a decade after seeing their inspiration is no way to make any vaild comparisons.

For your edification, the green speeds there now are kept very, very, very fast and many of the bunkers have shifted and reshaped themselves along with providing very natural "new" hazards both in and near the original blowouts. These "new" features are nature's way of bunker restoration and include natural appendages and growths that redefine the playability of the original sand hazards.

As for scale, like comparing Somerset Hills to Baltusrol or Mountain Ridge to Plainfield, it does provide a very legitmate category for helping to assess the course's qualities. Both scales, large and small afford their architects opportunities as well as limitations. For example, I think Tom did an outstanding job at BN of lending it just enough scale to find and build the best holes on that property without making the green-to-tee walks difficult. Perhaps JN did the same...I can't say without having seen it, but I have heard from several of those who've played DR that it's "scale" is quite big and as such serves as a demonstrable detriment to walking there. Obviously, it's tougher to build a great course on smaller property than a larger one, but if walking is a valuable part of the experience, it should get some consideration, should it not?

I didn't take Jay at gospel, instead saying that "IF AS HE SAYS" the ground game was lacking there, it would do little to appeal to my senses, especially set in the terrain of Hooker County. You constantly cite the semantics of others, yet it appears you didn't take the time to read my post(s) close enough yourself.

As for your personal style of play....please don't try to sell us all a bill of goods and tell us that a rater (for any purpose) doesn't incorporate his or her's personal game into a factor of review. If you didn't have 20+mph winds with greens stimping at 12+, and get to launch it from the double diamonds, you didn't play today's Sand Hills. I'm no playing slouch and have years back, shot my absolute greatest round of golf ever at Sand Hills, but since then, it's kicked my butt fairly frequently, even with my "A" game. What it has NEVER done (even in the worst weather and poorest control of my game) leave me with anything but a cheek-to-cheek grin walking off 18.....anxious to tee it up all over again as soon as possible. That, btw, is my test for greatness.

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

With even greater respect ...

I answered your question previously -- try to acknowledge the fact you missed it and then I'll cut a bit more slack in my reply.

Would love to know the core specifics, beyond what you mentioned, of how the course has evolved.

One other thing -- what is your statute of limitations concerning when courses can be compared? If something has evolved to the point where fundamental changes have been made (ergo, like Augusta's inclusion of second cut and the sweeping changes made at #7 & #11) then I beg your pardon and will certainly make a return. If, however, the changes are minimal then frankly the evolution is more limited in scope than actual for the purposes of reassessment.

If there's a standard I and others should be using before we compare courses please let me know. Geeze, I'm still trying to get over the fact that people opine only from photos and I've heard precious little from others on this superb manner of analysis.

Steve -- you make it sound like I had to make a shoulder turn to get the ball to the hole on the greens when I played. The greens were clearly in the 11-12 range when I was there. Next time I play courses I'll be sure to get the superintendent to sign a verification note to confirm.

Partner, what is the idea that walking only is an absolute for a course to be great. If you are lumping the "scale" argument with a walking dynamic that's new one to me and likely others. People can walk DR if they choose to go that direction -- no one told me that walking is o-u-t. The main hike is getting from the clubhouse to the 1st tee -- if I recall and maybe you can tell me -- what is the distance from the SH clubhouse to the 1st tee and how does one get there generally ?

I read your post well Steve -- you embrace the version of a narrow bunch -- your choice obviously -- but I think the world traveler you are would not leap into some discussion about another course until you have played it. Forgive me for thinking you would withold comments until such time.

One other thing -- please don't lecture me on how I assess a golf course. I have opined on many courses that are far less in length than DR and considerably lower from a CR and slope perspective. I have embraced a number of classic style courses that are in NJ as being well worth seeing for those who come to the Garden State -- notably Morris County GC in Convent Station, to name just one. I try to keep my senses open to what others face and to ask them direct on what they feel about a certain shot, hole or course. My range of courses that I personally like spans the spectrum -- of course -- the stereotype is far easier to repeat.

I played Sand Hills in specific weather conditions which I outlined previously. I did play from the tips and the wind fluctuated from 10-20 mph when there -- I'm sorry there wasn't a tornado in the neighborhood when I was there to add to the experience. Let me know I can have a contact at the Weather Channel forward to you the exact specifics to confirm.

Do yourself a favor -- play DR and strip away all the stuff others, including me, have said about the course. But go there with an open mind -- if the book is closed simply say so and we can go from there.

One last thing -- I am a big fan of Sand Hills but no course, including it, is free from robust analysis and where warranted appropriate critiques.

[Steve Lapper]

Matty,

   Far from me to not give you the verbal rope with which to hang from .

Okay here we go:

1) You played SH in decent conditions  but I guarantee you the green speeds were substantially slower in 1996 (course was just barely open. Trust me when I tell you they are mucho quicker these days. Every other evolutionary feature is sublte and mostly the work of mother nature. (She is, afterall, the game's senior architect, no?) Also, I'm not sure, but I don't think the double diamonds  on #'2, 4, 5, 8, et.al were present until after 1997 or 98?

2) As for statue of limitations, you ain't no spring chicken so tell me your memory is 100% perfect?

3) Does the phrase "walking is a valuable part of the experience" equate to "an absolute for a course to be great"?
Perhaps it doesn't in your mind, but nearly every other course in the last ten years of the WORLD's top 50 gets points for walkability. I've heard from multiple players of DR, it ain't very walking friendly (even after you've hit your first tee shot).
BTW...why is Ballyneal promoting itself as "Walking Only?" Is it unimportant to them?

4) I hardly "embrace the version of a narrow bunch." I've played all over this planet, in every hemisphere and most who know me would say I approach every course with an open mind and would plan on doing that when and if I get around to playing DR. Remember, I used to belong to a JN signature and generally enjoyed my rounds there...hardly the stuff of a narrow bunch of JN detractors.

5) I hardly would lecture you on anything, least of all golf course assessment, as I know you are simply the only "docent" and "doyenne" of all things golf. I am humbled to appear in the same thread as you! Also, last I checked I was allowed to ask questions about something whether or not I've played it...and my comments simply address how it can be judged next to SH. Any other comment is fully qualified by an admission of not having played it yet.

6) I agree with you about about seeing it for myself (with no preconceived notions)...I'd like to do that and I actually 100% agree with you about warranted and appropriate critques of existing courses.....that just get's a little tough when the last time you laid eyes or club on the property was 10 years back and you are essentially beginning the judgement of it's spawn...

As is the case out there in those barren sand hills of Nebraska and nearby Colorado, the more the merrier, but lets not try to dethrone the penulitmate reason they were birthed without going back first hand and revisiting the parental gene pool.

[Adam Clayman]

Re: Dismal River's difficulty -- Jack's name is what causes so much of the downplaying of what is there. Put someone else's name on the exact property and the same people would be tripping over themselves with hosannas on how grand the course is.

That is a falsehood of epic proportions.

[Jay Flemma]

I have to agree...I have never said anything before negative on GCA about a Jack course and actually like some of Ocean Hammock...uit had nothing to do with it being Jack's name.  It could have been Barney Rubble and I'd feel exactly the same way.

Ballyneal however was eminently walkable, fascinating 1-18 and while extreme in its contours, was properly conditioned to give you a fighting chance to attack the hole.  You walked on eggshells every shot at dismal river.

[PThomas]

maybe Jack wanted a more demanding test at DR than SH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()