Hole-by-hole tour of Dismal River Club

[George Pazin]

Tim, just follow Huck's example and you'll be a YabbGod in no time.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim, just follow Huck's example and you'll be a YabbGod in no time.

 

Interesting comment coming from someone with 2000+ more posts than me.

 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Doak,

Is stabilization a problem ?

Is there anything you have to do at a highly windy site to insure that features remain as they were intended to be ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Is it just me, Or is there something odd about the look of the sandy areas?

As Pat said, on your way to SH, you see everything in it's natural state. The distant blow-outs don't look much like this photo. It resembles more of an Oceanside sandy area than this regions. Anyone else notice anything?

Now I will qualify all this by saying, I'm basing this on this one photo, and I have not seen the Dismal, yet played SH.

Adam,

I noticed it as well, but, I don't think it's a bad thing.

I don't see anything wrong with exposing the underlying sand.
I think it's a rather unique and appealing look.

However, as Tom Doak stated, the winds will have a dramatic affect on the landscape and thus those areas may be altered for better or worse.   Time alone will tell.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

First, I am a passionate walker, to the point where I frequently try to obtain exceptions to allow me to walk courses with mandatory cart rules.  I have walked Dismal several times, and I believe it is a very walkable layout.  

Of course, I also believe Sand Hills is very walkable, an opinion that may not be shared by others in this discussion group.  

I'd be one of those that don't share that opinion.
Anyone with a slight impairment will find walking SH difficult.
The tee to fairway walks can be difficult.
Walking in soft sand is always tedious.[/color]

(I've played at least 50 rounds at Sand Hills, and I've walked it the majority of those times; the only exceptions being second and third rounds played in one day).  

Tee to green distances generally are short at Dismal, but there are a few significant climbs to tee boxes, particularly the back tees on numbers 7 and 18.

I don't understand the comment.
Did you mean green to tee distances ?[/color]

One of the few absolute instructions we gave the Nicklaus design team, and something they wanted to do anyway, was make this a walkable golf course.  

Second, I agree it will be tough course from the back tees, particularly if the wind blows.  I think it will be very sporty and fun from the next set, and not overly difficult, though the bunkering near the greens will always make a big number a possibility.

I don't think golfers object to encountering difficult features at the green end because they usually don't require strength or length to overcome them.  Heroic carries and penal off fairway areas tend to be objectionable.[/color]

As you probably can tell from the photos, the fairways are quite wide.  As such, we are hopeful that there will not be a large amount of frustration from players hitting three from the tee.  

Wide fairways seem to be one of the principle features that allow a golf course to play difficult from the back tees but "sporty" from the middle or forward tees.
What's the average width in the DZ's ?[/color]

The big challenge at Dismal will be the approach shots to the greens and trying to make sure you don't miss it in the wrong place.  

There will be some frustrations around the greens, but I think those are the sort of frustrations that make golf interesting and challenging, not the kind that make you vow to never return.  

I agree with John Kirk that it can make for a long and unpleasant experience to be searching the native all day long for lost balls.  

It also affects every group behind you.
Long native grass may present an attractive appearance from afar, but, from a playability perspective, they can be counter productive.[/color]

I also believe it can be an amusing and interesting experience to watch a member of your own group, preferably your opponent, roll a putt off the green and fifty yards down the fairway.  I have seen this happen many times on both numbers 1 and 4 at Sand Hills, and, even when it happened to me, I actually thought it was a tad bit humorous.  


With strong winds buffeting a golf course wouldn't this be considered a design flaw, or, would it limit your green speeds ?
Or both ?[/color]

Very, very little dirt was moved for the green sites at Dismal.  They have a huge amount of natural undulation.   People will occasionally putt off the green.  Hopefully, they'll laugh about it later.  

Also, regarding degree of difficulty, I believe that the members at Dismal River, as they begin to learn the course, will create their own layouts which are most suitable to their abilities.  

By this, I mean there is certainly no requirement that a group play every hole from a particular set of tees.  I think even the very low handicappers may choose to bypass the back tees on number two.  Players will mix and match tee boxes freely, and, in essence, create their own course.

This seems to becoming a popular trend at many courses.
The custom designing of the course you want to play.
Wouldn't this also be considered a flaw in the design ?
Or, is it a philosophical flaw on the part of management ?

Shouldn't the architect forge a uniform test for the golfer ?
Or, should golfers determine, on a hole by hole basis, where they want to play ?  The 18 flavor test, with four sets of sub-tests ?

It sounds as if you're trying to appeal to everyone's desires, providing golfers with the ability to determine the challenge they will face on a day to day, hole to hole basis.  Doesn't this represent a significant departure from the roots and traditions of the game ?[/color]

Also, as most of you know, the course is above 3000 feet, and the fairways will play hard and fast.  So, the length is not nearly as much of a concern as it might be at another location.      

Regarding the photo of number 15, I am not entirely clear as to what the focus is regarding the "oddity" of the bunkering.  I think it will be an extremely fun hole and not tremendously hard.  There is room to run up the shot on the right side if needed, but, as pointed out previously, the hole is not so long that a run-up is necessarily the play (depending, of course, on the wind).  There also is more room directly in front of the green than you can tell from the photo.   I would guess that many players will aim for the far right side of the green.  If you miss a little to the right, you may end up right by the pin after you bounce down the bank.  You cannot see it from the photo, but there is a large collection area directly to the left and rear of the green.  The chip/putt/utility wood shot from that area is not particularly difficult as the green is sloping directly towards you and the ball will stop quickly.  I don't think this hole is nearly as hard as No. 17 at Sand Hills.  

I think Adam was referencing the removal of vegetation and the exposure of the native sand, which I think provides a unique and attractive look, a departure from other courses in the greater area.[/color]