I sure hope intelligence and game aren't directly correlated....

 

Well, George, the two greatest golfers of our time are also considered the smartest.  Throw in Bobby Jones, and you start to see a disturbing trend...

By chance I just spoke with an old friend who is a Sand Hills member who is quite a good player (a really good 2 handicap) who brought a group to play that consisted of a plus handicap and a 13 and 17 handicap.  The 13 handicap was looking into membership at Dismal River so they got to play both.

It turns out that Dismal River was a great surprise that exceeded each of their expectations.  I specifically asked my friend about the ground game and playability of DR for each of the players in the group. He noted that the course was eminently playable and indeed the ground game was very much a part of the repertoire of required shots depending on conditions. The higher handicap players had great fun bumping the ball along the ground as did my friend. Jay- their views seem to be 180 degrees apart from yours. Yes there is an aerial requirement at DR but so too is there at Sand Hills.  Frankly, the pictures look great and I look forward to seeing it for myself. I could not care less if they moved more dirt then they did at Kingsbarns and neither did the prospective member that played with my friend. He is the one plucking down the cash rather then writing nonsense without consequence. If the end product plays well and looks natural then that is the bottom line.

Jay –  here is a quote from Adam Clayman “Jason, We did not partake in SH. After our day at DR we turned back onto hwy 97 and I was struck with this notion that Jay deserved to at least see it. So I called and asked if we could tour. We were allowed to go to Ben's porch but no farther.”  

Yet – here is a quote from you replying to Jim Lipe “Now your loyalty to Chris and jack commands respect.  But looking closely for four days at what the natural land looks like,  I saw how two other courses that looked really natural were presented - wild horse and ballyneal.  I also got a look at major portions of Sand Hills as well.

How can you state here that you got to see MAJOR portions of Sand Hills.  You got to see the view from Bens Porch.  You saw nearly nothing of Sand Hills and it really strains your credibility when you put such ridiculous exaggerations into writing.  You apparently write for the golf observer and I heard you are a Golf Magazine Rater. Maybe John Kavanaugh is right about his rater rants if this is how you interpret events. Were you comped for these rounds at DR that you subsequently bash in a public forum?

Paul

You must be joking.  What is the implication of saying you got to look at major portions of Sand Hills?  This is the guy who got on the marketing ploy of DR because of the amount of dirt moved and said they were posssibly falsely advertising to prospective members. He looked at the place from Bens Porch.  Can he tell if the ground game or aerial game works and on what holes from the porch?  Can he see if the turns in the fairway landing areas work from the porch?  Can he see if the 2nd green is over the top or possibly not naturally fitting into the surrounds from the porch (as he says about some at DR)?

You can see lots from Shinnecock Clubhouse too.  Same for NGLA, Oakmont, Royal Dornoch and Cruden Bay.  I would never say I've seen major portions of the course (and therefore imply I know something about it) from those vantage points. Jay apparently can  

Adam - I don't think so!

Read the quote.  "I saw how two other courses that looked really natural were presented - wild horse and ballyneal.  I also got a look at major portions of Sand Hills as well."

He was talking about two courses he played and then one he ALSO saw MAJOR portions of.  Now his writing skills leave something to be desired but still this case is obvious.  He is exagerating his experience.  It leads me to conclude that everything else he writes is subject to question.

Kevin,
Since the subject is presentation, from Ben's porch I pointed out all the holes I could make out, to him. I was surprised at how many holes were visible. Since I was only there for one day, four years ago, I was shocked at how much we could see, but not at all shocked at how much I remembered.  

My impressions were that the evolution of the bunkers at SH, from Ben's porch, made them look exactly like the exposed sandy areas that captivate the eye as one anticipates their round on the drive up.

Tommy, I didn't use a lawyer's service, there's something new now, you can call information and ask for someone's phone number...they gave me the naccarato two towns over.  I notice you're still four months late on that phone chat we were supposed to have.

While we're at it, its rude to put personal, offlist things on the list.  What business is that of the list...except you trying anything you can to discredit me in front of my peers.

And no Kevin, I paid full boat for my round at DR.  $237.50...and its none of the lists business for whom I write.  While we're at it, anybody looking from Ben's porch can easily see the difference between sand hills and dismal river.  Go out there some time and lok for yourself.

 Kevin, this is the third thread where you've attacked me and my credibility out of the blue for no reason.  With your track record, I know I must be doing something right.  You sure were wrong in your supposition I got comped now, weren't you?  Get your facts straight.

In fact...its a similar refrain on every thread of mine...Jason, Kevin and Tommy hating on me...yawn...old news.

Jay

You apparently can’t discern the difference between an attack and pointing out faulty logic, different opinions and inaccurate statements.

 Did you see MAJOR parts of Sand Hills Golf Club? Yes or No
 
 There are apparently differing opinions about the ground game options at Dismal River from players ranging from plus handicap skilled players to 13 and 17 handicap less skilled players. I would tend to dismiss your opinion on this topic though I will certainly make an effort to see Dismal River for myself. Personally I don’t think you are a skilled enough player to realize the full scope of shot-making options that an architect needs to build into a golf course but that is a different topic entirely. Do you have a USGA handicap?

You made a huge case out of the movement of 15,000 cubic yards of fill when it doesn’t make a touch of difference in the quality of the end product. The photos look splendid to my eye as do the bunkering.  This is a brand new course and Sand Hills has had a decade to evolve and its bunkering changes quite a bit each year. I suspect that Dismal River being exposed to the same elements of mother nature will also evolve.

Jay:

Also, for what it's worth, observe the thought and energy that Matt Ward puts into his posts about new play . . . Matt has an incrediby perceptive mind and ability to recall fine detail as is evidenced by his analyses and while I may not always see things the way he does I respect his views and read his observations carefully because I believe truly that they are unbiased, candid and very well informed.

I think we could all learn a bit from Matt re: the thought that goes into analyzing a course we've played for the first time.

I think there's great opportunity to have challenging and candid discussions and debates about the sand hills region projects as they are so unique to American golf course architecture and I hope that people are objective enough to put their personal associations and/or biases with any particular course aside and have a candid and unbiased discussion (and if we have relavent biases or associations they should be identified up front).    

Jason

Jay:

I didn't say you were biased against JN, it's evident to me you're biased against DR.  

Your posts speak for themselves and I'm done with this unproductive banter . . .  if you've got substantive gca issues to discuss I'm game but just not at this hour and, btw, go get some sleep (I obviously have insomnia too).

Jason

Jim, what I can say is this...when you look around at the surrounds at ballyneal and sand hills then look at the vertical movement in the fairways and greens they seem to fit naturally with the land.  The greens look as though they were merely draped over ther natural surroundings and so do the fairways.

The greens at DR are absloutely insane...the hills in the greens are very sharp, very steep and have a sculpted look.  Loot at a picture of the 10th green.  The kitchen sink, dresser, armoire and bathtub are all buried inder that green.  The hole played like a miniature golf course.  It did not look real.  When you look at the greens and fairways - the way the rise and fall, the way the fairways just shift in vertical climb sharply, then look at the surrounds, they clash sharply.

Jason no I am not biased against dismal river.  I have no reason to have any bias against dismal river.  I have no ulterior motive or hidden agenda.  I am not a member at Ballyneal or sand hills or any other club that is a competitor of theirs.  I dont own a course in competition with them, so I have no reason to wish therm ill.  I actually like some of the work there.  1-3 are good, and 4-6 amazing.  16-18 is a good finish, but the stretch of 7-13 it became clear that it was severe for severe's sake...and hard for hard's sake.  

Moreover, and this is a flaw that needs to be addressed, the speed of the fairways and greens did not fit
the contours.  At ballyneal, the greens were around a 7-8 on the stimp so all the contour could be in play.  At DR they were so fast it wasnt just "alot of run out," it was unplayable.

I simply asked an intelligent question about there being more earth moved than they DR rep claimed.  Then this thread turned into typical personal attacks on me by the same exact people that come out anytime I start a thread.

Jason You have not played DR.  You have only seen pictures.  I promise you...2D pictures of DR give very little representation of exactlly how severe the site is.  Now look at the way the bunkers pinch the front of the green.  Look at the way what little front entry there is (if any at all) and you'll see that if it exists at all, it is not flat and will carom a short, low trajectory shot away from its intended target.  You ask mayday or Jim Keever who saw me try to putt from 40 yards off the green at Yale or bunp and run a 5-iron form 110 on 18 at Yale...I know how to keep the ball low, out of the wind and use the rolls of the land and green to get those shots close.  I grew up on a links course since I was 8, so yes I do have a highly advanced ground game.  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.

Moreover, you are really wrong to just call me names like "unprofessional."  You have never played a single round of golf with me, nor have you ever seen me work.  You are merely sticking up for two of your buddies in a transparent attempt to ingratiate yourself with them.  That is not intelligent discourse.  That's taking a personal dispute between myself and other people and using the list for ulterior motives like furthering that agenda.  Moreover, your rhetoric of "I'd never allow you back again" is so inflammatory and unreasonable it borders on senseless ranting and anger and I have done NOTHING to you to deserve that.  I have never attacked you, I have never embarrased you on a thread, I have never spoken ill of you.  You and others are on a vendetta and other people are noticing that is a particularly unsavory one.  Nobody should have to endure that...that is not what GCA is about.

Jim Nugent:  I never said we moved a huge amount of dirt at Ballyneal, and if I implied that we did, then I'm sorry to have given the wrong impression.  We did have to move a lot more than Sand Hills, and I can't compare to Dismal River since I haven't seen it -- but it was nothing on the order of Stone Eagle, or even the average course built in America last year.

It was something like 15,000 cubic yards (not counting the bunkers, which would probably add another 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards).  There was hardly a hole where we didn't have to do a little bit of earthmoving in the fairway -- #18 was the rare one we could leave completely alone -- but the only holes where we did more than that were #2, #9, #13, #14, and #17.  

Jay

You did not address my questions - Did you see major parts of Sand Hills as you claimed?  

Jason makes excellent points in my opinion because your stated method of play certainly does not lead to intelligent critique of golf course architecture. I've played Yale once a long while ago but I do know that while the option might be there for less skilled golfers the best play will never be a putt from 40 yards off a green or a bump 5 iron from 110.  Was there a 40 mph wind on the day you played?  Someone might be playing that way for a bit of fun but not to evaluate a golf course. That is unless those are the only golfing skills the player possesses. If that is the case I don't believe that person should be in a position to evaluate golf course architecture anywhere but the bar after the round.  You said you were highly skilled in these shots able to work the ball close but frankly an aerial approach to a pin at a known distance will always be a more potent scoring method then a bump and run. It has also been my experience that decent players who enjoy those bump and run feel type shots also posess great short game and putting skills.  That said, they also might enjoy the challenges of the greens at DR for their contour and the imagination required to miss in the correct position and do the best possible from tough spots on and around the greens. There is a multilayered thought process involved in analysis of a golf course and I just find yours to be one dimensional and simplistic.