changes at Dismal River?

[Mark_F]

finally, and most importantly, it raises questions about the original architect's ability to get it right on a second pass if he was so far off on the first.

Possibly the most important point.

Has there been a case of a club unhappy with their newly designed course and getting someone else in to redo it?

Was it a success?

[Rich Goodale]

"What's wrong with admitting you made a mistake and then trying to fix it?"

Well, let's see:

- someone has to pay for it;
- play is interrupted for existing members who paid their initiation fees only recently;
- the course is closed during the most important period for selling memberships;
- you get bad ratings from magazines for the first version;
- they may not come back to see the second version;
- if they do come back, the openning buzz is gone;
- your reputation as an architect is tarnished;
- questions are raised about how much time was spent on site - these sound like pretty big goofs;
- makes you wonder about the six holes they didn't fix.
- finally, and most importantly, it raises questions about the original architect's ability to get it right on a second pass if he was so far off on the first.

Other than the above, I can't think of any problems.

Bob

Cheezo, Bob

I'm tring to talk GCA principles and all you can come back with are crass marketing soundbites!  You must have had too much capiscum in your grits this morning!  Just breathe deeply and the bile will go away....

Rich

[Craig Van Egmond]

Mark,
            I don't know what the reasons were, but they plowed under a brand new never opened Greg Norman course in AZ and had Tom Fazio build a new one.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Craig

The Norman course in Arizona(I think it's name was Stonehaven) was bulldozed after new owners- Discovery Land Company- decided it was "too difficult" for a high end private club development. It is now Fazio's Mirabel.

[jeffwarne]

Rich,
If you were the developer of Dismal River,
would you be pleased that you needed to regrade multiple fairways and rebuild 12 greens?

Your typical Dismal River customer probably has some access to a private jet and/or discovered the Sand Hills area too late to get in and saw what a great place that was.
Lured in the marketing hype of the Nicklaus name and the success of nearby Sand Hills, (yet not near enough for the architect to visit) most had probably never even heard of Ballyneal and/or Tom Doak.

Comparing Dornoch's return to glory /improvement in 1946 after the most horrific war in history, to a large scale screwup on one of the great sites in the world, is laughable.

Members in this particular income category aren't particularly loyal and aren't tied to a geographic location.
Given the recent acclaim/rankings of Ballyneal (as well as the exponentially increased name recognition Doak has gotten in the last couple years), my guess is Ballyneal (just another remote location) is becoming quite appealing, at the expense of a club who may or may not get it right the second time.
Most such clients aren't really endeared with a lot of patience either.
The (second) product better be better than good, or many won't want to be associated with it-even as a second course while they wait for their guests to take them back to Sand Hills.

[Mike Sweeney]

Rich,

When you pay a $2.0 million design fee, where do you draw the line of tweaking vs negligence?

12 greens would be past my personal line if the 12 greens number is accurate from Tom Doak.

Oops, here come the lawyers.

[Rich Goodale]

Mike. Jeff, Bob, et.al.

Depends on who pays for the changes.  If it's the client, shame on them and on Nicklaus.  If it's Nicklaus, kudos to the client and to him.

Anybody know the answer?

Rich

[jeffwarne]

Rich,
the client pays either way.
regardless of who pays for the grading/seeding (probably the least of developer's worries)

loses a year of prime selling
angry/embarrassed members
credibility
magazine rankings/publicity
competition-Ballyneal is as (in)accessible as Sand Hills

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think you are defending the indefensible
not that there's anything wrong with that
And of course we could have our "facts" all wrong

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike. Jeff, Bob, et.al.

Depends on who pays for the changes.  If it's the client, shame on them and on Nicklaus.  If it's Nicklaus, kudos to the client and to him.

Anybody know the answer?

Rich

Rich,

You have been in Scotland waaaay too long, we all know the answer, and so do you!  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Dismal has on thing going for its future.......Sand hills is only a days ride away.  If you are travelling by wagon it might take a couple of days.  

The Dismal folks may be saved by those pioneers travelling to the middle of nowhere to see Sand Hills.  As for me, I really wouldn't be compelled to see Dismal if it were across town in its previous state.  That honor goes to Chambers Bay

[Rich Goodale]

Mike

Of course in Scotland all ****ups are paid for by the most gormless and vulnerable (usually the developer, but more lately the local government) but I thought things were different in the good old USofA?

What ever happened to "free enterprise?"  Does it not matter where golf is involved?  Can Niclkaus or Fazio or Palmer or Coore and Crenshaw just design crap indiscriminately and without any fear of recrimination?

For them, it must be a great country you are livnig in.......

[Tommy Williamsen]

I might be wrong but I got the Impression that JN was not involved directly with the changes being made.

[John_Cullum]

Who pays?

Ask yourself who wrote the employemnt contract. The other party will invariably pay.

Hint: Only golf course architects carry around fill in the blank course design employment contracts.

[Michael Dugger]

This thread is glorious, it's like the old days when people did not pull their punches.

If I was the owner of Dismal, I'd think about a lawsuit.

[Daryl David]

I would think a lawsuit is the last thing the owners need when they are trying to lure new members.  They probably just want the publicity to go away and sort of "start over" with the club.

[JWL]

Mr. Daley,

I don't like to have to come on this forum and defend anything, but I can't let just outright falsehoods be propagated for all to read without setting the record straight.

First of all, the only comments that I have ever made regarding DR was during a discussion about how much earth was moved on the site.    I didn't know, but the design associate that worked the project with JN told me at the opening that a very low amount was moved other than shaping.   I said I thought that was amazing considering all the contour I saw on the site.   That was my only contribution concerning DR.   I had never been on the site prior to the opening and therefore, I certainly didn't have anything to do with the routing or any knowledge of construction techniques, etc, that you said I should be aware of.
Bottom line is that you seem to want to question my abilities when I had nothing to do with the project.   I only know what I was told about the earthmoving and that is what I shared with this forum.
Please refrain from making any more false statements on this board.   There are many here that believe anything and everything they read.
Cheers

[Tim Pitner]

Please refrain from making any more false statements on this board.   There are many here that believe anything and everything they read.

Jim,

A little more credit, please.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is a tradition of revamping golf courses, sometimes early, substantial and often. Would you suggest that Tufts should have sued Ross or Jones sue MacKenzie because those courses were changed both early and often?  I would think that the more a course aspires to greatness, the more likely tweaks would be.

Seriously, I have often wondered why ANGC didn't pay Mac the last of his fees, when they had made arrangements to pay other vendors.  Could it be that early comments (from Sarazen and other early Masters particpants) got Jones or Roberts to thinking they didn't get Mac's best efforts, such as when he sent Marion Hollins over?  (albeit after they were in arrears)  

I believe the top gca's over time have always tried to get a "five year consulting" right, including rights to make changes at owner's expense.  Those are harder to come by, even for JN and others, but to a degree, I think most realize that a course isn't perfect at the beginning.

For that matter, how many times have we heard an owner gladly pony up to change one hole before opening (there was a well publicised $1M revamp of a par 3 at Dallas National, for instance)  perhaps just for the publicity, or to assuage his ego that he has built the best possible course.  I suspect the Owner is paying for changes at DR, but also that he had the right to tell JN no, or possibly even initiated them.

I don't know the facts, but I don't know of any lawsuits targeting "design quality" as it relates to golf since it would be hard to legally define.  Now, something that didn't drain would be easy enough in court terms, similar to a building just falling down, etc.  

I know I am biased against it for obvious reasons, but I don't think we really want to encourage an expansion of our lawsuit culture to include torts for "I don't like the 16th hole!"  Jeez, every gca would be in court after every bogey......  

I once dreamed that a golfer sued me over a design that caused him to lose a substantial bet, claiming it was a design related cost to him!  While that was just a bad dream, there are some real life lawsuits (like one against a gca claiming loss of sexual performance when he slipped on a steep bank) that do keep me awake at night.

[Jerry Kluger]

My serious interest and education in the area of golf course architecture began about 6 years ago.  Reading about the subject and attending GCA events/lectures surely helped my education as did a trip to Long Island and the opportunity to play some of the great architectural masterpieces.  

Finally, a trip to Nebraska and Colorado in '06 was what I viewed as the test I was waiting for. Sand Hills was acclaimed as perhaps the most significant course built in the last 25 years and I would be able to compare it with Dismal River and Ballyneal. (We first played Wild Horse which was the best value I have ever seen but the property is not as dramatic as the others.)

I came away believing that I understood at least some of what makes SH great - the routing and how the holes feel natural in the land, the green complexes and green contours, the angles of the drives and approach shots, etc.  BN gave me the same feelings but on a smaller scale - the course would be enjoyable, challenging and interesting in all conditions and never be boring.

We played DR twice in one day and I just never felt comfortable with the course.  It seemed to be forced into the land and I didn't know if I could find my way around without a caddie. My comparison would be to some of the courses that are built on tough mountainous property.  The green contours were beyond challenging as some greens were simply unputtable.    

[Michael Dugger]

There is a tradition of revamping golf courses, sometimes early, substantial and often. Would you suggest that Tufts should have sued Ross or Jones sue MacKenzie because those courses were changed both early and often?  I would think that the more a course aspires to greatness, the more likely tweaks would be.

Seriously, I have often wondered why ANGC didn't pay Mac the last of his fees, when they had made arrangements to pay other vendors.  Could it be that early comments (from Sarazen and other early Masters particpants) got Jones or Roberts to thinking they didn't get Mac's best efforts, such as when he sent Marion Hollins over?  (albeit after they were in arrears)  

I believe the top gca's over time have always tried to get a "five year consulting" right, including rights to make changes at owner's expense.  Those are harder to come by, even for JN and others, but to a degree, I think most realize that a course isn't perfect at the beginning.

For that matter, how many times have we heard an owner gladly pony up to change one hole before opening (there was a well publicised $1M revamp of a par 3 at Dallas National, for instance)  perhaps just for the publicity, or to assuage his ego that he has built the best possible course.  I suspect the Owner is paying for changes at DR, but also that he had the right to tell JN no, or possibly even initiated them.

Jeff,

Spin it however you want, but to my mind there is a large difference between tweaking a few holes here and there over the course of a few decades and redoing 12 greens and regrading numerous holes only one year after completion.

I would think any logical person would agree something was not done right in the first place.

And I venture to guess that "something" was trying to adapt "Nicklaus" styling to a parcel of land which it is not suited for.

IMHO

[David Stamm]

There is a tradition of revamping golf courses, sometimes early, substantial and often. Would you suggest that Tufts should have sued Ross or Jones sue MacKenzie because those courses were changed both early and often?  
Seriously, I have often wondered why ANGC didn't pay Mac the last of his fees, when they had made arrangements to pay other vendors.  

Come on Jeff, the course wasn't even opened yet before AM died. As to the other point, it was a depression. That club was operating on a shoestring in the early days and I'm sure anyway Roberts could put off AM, who resided on the West Coast, he'd do so. Jones had the utmost respect for Hollins and in fact Hollins concept for Pasatiempo was a blueprint for Jones and Roberts.

[Adam Clayman]

Jim Lipe, I can't speak for Dick Daley, but I'm sure he meant no disrespect to you, personally. He obviously mixed-up who made the claims he remembered reading. It was likely one of the owners, Tim Kratz(?) who came on here and answered questions about the project. Your comments about the earth moving were made more recently, and he likely got them confused.
 I'm sure he'll respond when he reads your post because Mr. Daley is just not the type of guy who goes around making factual errors intentionally.

[Jeff_Brauer]

M Dugger,

Oh, I agree that if 12 holes were changed completely something was probably wrong, but it isn't necessarily so.

For that matter, based solely on Brad's comments, it sounds like JN tried a new style based on the site and his learnings from TD at Sebonac, not tried to force his "typical style" on land unsuited for it. If that is the case, any design mistakes might be a result of trying, and possibly overdoing, some new wild stuff he is not exactly known for doing.

From the pix I saw here, JN's course still had a more formal, hard edged look to it than SH, but I felt that was okay, even if I think I like the SH look better. He may have deliberately wanted it to look somewhat different than SH, rather than trying to copy something that has already been done just down the street.

BTW, based on some of Matt Ward's reviews of newer Nicklaus courses, his style seems to have been changing away from what used to be typical, and what I sense many people here are projecting as typical for him now.  Hard to say, though.

[RJ_Daley]

Mr. Lipe, I'm sorry if I kept you waiting on a respectful response ( I was out squeezing the last drops of golf out of the soon to be frozen tundra).  

I did shoot from the hip before- or in lieu of- trying to use the darn inadequate "search" function of GCA.com, to get exact quotes and attributions to the previous discussions that took place about DR, pre-construction, during, and during grow-ins.  As a matter of fact, back then,  I asked one of the moderators who JWL was, as I didn't know.  I have at this moment a search going to find some of the stuff written under DR thread titles.  But, I can not find that you said anything about the construction at all (as I eroneously reported above) and when you say you didn't even work the site, well that is good enough for me, my apologies, sir.

Just for the record, I did find this thread, where I vigorously defended the "rumormongering" that had been placed on GCA.com about the over the top degree of difficulty of DR, and I said how it was unfair to say those things as a third party told by someone who posted the information as hearsay, prior to the course even opening.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=24316;start=0

As I defended DR from the stink of the rumor at that time which was at or prior to official opening, I just want to be clear that I tried to be fair minded about the whole issue then.  

As it now appears, there is mounting evidence that only one year out of the box, DR does have enough design problems to require significant rework, which could indicate a certain amount of lack of care and research into completing a sand hills design by the JN team.  It ties in with the thread of who you read, respect, study, to learn about the craft.  And, that being a player, even the best, and having seen most of the great courses, still isn't enough if you are a craftsman and serious about your work.  I believe you need to study the craft from the cradle and ground up and pay proper respect, or it will show in the quality, IMO.  

As unfair as it was to drag JWL into the matter mistakenly on the minor point of who was overseeing the project, my greater point is that it would appear a great degree of arrogance was in play when JN&co did not seem too interested to review issues and conditions at SHGC by paying a visit and talking to folks involved out there.  What could it have hurt?  And I am now coming to an understanding of what DR. Klein referred to - that a routing which only took 2 days - is one more piece of evidence that JN&co mailed it in.

In my humble opinion, if JN&co received 2 million dollars for a signature design fee above actual cost to build, it makes me a bit sick to think there are proven experienced sand hill design/builders that could have done the whole damn course, design and build, for that and would have studied SHGC, talked to everyone they could about issues encountered, and respect the craft, not just themselves.    

[Gene Greco]

From the pix I saw here, JN's course still had a more formal, hard edged look to it than SH, but I felt that was okay, even if I think I like the SH look better.

He may have deliberately wanted it to look somewhat different than SH, rather than trying to copy something that has already been done just down the street.

Jeff:
 
  Though it is hard to "copy" something which you haven't seen.


Roberto, Sweens, Tom, Scott and Escobar:

    FRAU BLUCHER