[JNC Lyon]

Okay, so this thread needs to happen.  It just has to be here.  And I am going to start it out with a question that has been bugging me all week: How can Dismal River, with its rugged, dramatic sand hills landscape, dynamite bunkering, and first-class greens, not be ranked in the top 200 in Golfweek, or on any list anywhere?  

I have played some seriously underrated courses this year, but, with the exception of Inniscrone in Philadelphia, this is the most underrated golf course I have ever seen.

Convince me that Dismal doesn't belong in the same discussion with the best modern courses.  I dare you!

Also, let's talk about the greens at Dismal, which contain more fun sideboards, back boards, and countering slopes than any set of greens I've seen.  Moreover, let's talk about how these greens, on a Nicklaus group layout, are completely different from the greens at another Nicklaus group layout, May River.

Also, talk about anything else you want to about the CURRENT GOLF ARCHITECTURE at Dismal.

Feel free to post photos and use great arguments as evidence.

GO!

[Richard Choi]

I will be able to tell you in about a week...

[RJ_Daley]

Well, I can't say much that would have any merit since I've yet to see DR... not that Chris hasn't been most inviting to come out and have a look.  I'll do that ASAP, just couldn't for this last invitation he extended for the 'fifth major'.  But:

Moreover, let's talk about how these greens, on a Nicklaus group layout, are completely different from the greens at another Nicklaus group layout, May River.

I can't see how one could expect the design of greens and green complexes or bunkers out there to be anything but different from design and setting of most golf course sites (whether by JN or any other archie).  By definition of the geographic uniqueness, they'd almost have to be in tune with the sand hill prairie and not tideland or parkland, or faux links efforts on unnatural ground, etc.  The very construction techniques are unique.  While they may have had some tweaking to do, and some sort of learning curve on working with the routing and specific siting of greens, it isn't as if they screwed it up beyond adjustment.  The fact that it is getting some very positive and enthusiastic commentary after the tweaking seems to me to indicate it is a course that as Ross or MacKenzie said; "can hold its head up in the company of the very best".   I've said often I couldn't care less where in the ratings courses fall numerically, but would rather hear commentary of their merits and descriptions of the features that make it 'among' the very best, regardless of arbitrary placing on the scale of 1-100 best modern, classic, or whatever.  

I think it is fair game to comment if one of these windy sites abutting thick native is too narrow for firm fast and windy usual conditions, and one experiences lost ball too frequently issues, etc.  But, it is also important to note if such tweaks are undertaken and yield a very good golf course after trial and error.  It sounds to me like DR has adjusted very nicely.

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I think you bring up some good points.  To me, it is clear Dismal is a Top 200 modern course.  Frankly, I think it is solidly in the Top 100...but I am aware that is my opinion.  Is the course perfect?  No.

But I think the issue might be the rating process and how the data is sorted out.  Here is what we know...Dismal opened up, flopped, adjustments were made, and it is a better golf course.

Here is the issue...if during its initial configuration 50 raters got out to see it and rated it on average 4, how many new votes at say 7 or 8 would it take to get it to an aggregate rating of 6.5 (approximately the cut for top 100 modern)?  I don't have my calculator with me, but I think that concept illustrates how difficult it is for a course to overcome a "flop" of an open.  UNLESS, the rating entity in question throws out all the older votes due to major rennovations that essentially yields a "new" course.  Think Pinehurst #2.

Good points John...perhaps an issue with the system of rating is at the core of what you are talking about.  But, hey, that is okay...it makes the hunt for hidden gems that much more fun.  Crystal Downs and I think Fishers Island laid in the weeds for awhile.

[Keith OHalloran]

Mac,
Can you give those who have not played Dismal River an idea of where you rank it overall? Compared to some of the courses you played this year? I have not been out there, and would like a reference point.

[Chris Johnston]

Patron...Dismal River is a ton of fun and the greens are both unique and special.  The layout is terrific and is certainly very challenging from the back tees.  Where should it rank?  Thats subjective and I'm far less concerned about rating than I am about delivering a really great experience.  On that front, it really is among the best I have seen...ever.  The place may have been pretentious but those days are now gone.  To see Mark shoot, what, 68 yesterday, was very cool.  To see Doug's Hole in One on 15 was very cool.  One of my matches, we had three ball within 10 feet on the same hole and each took a different route to get there.  It was also fun watching you play - you should be a surgeon!

Here is a fun tidbit for everyone that should amaze and maybe sort out the "why".  When we arrived, due to lack of continuity, the irrigation system had never been fully calibrated.  That's after 4 years!  Many holes were still in grow-in irrigation mode and, out here, irrigated native quickly becomes a jungle.  Water is critical but it must be balanced - and we now have that under control.  Today, the course is green with yellow hues as the old girl is on a diet.  No more lost balls just off of fairways - few lost balls at all.  The variety of shots required, the Sand Hills bunkering, and shots into greens are very cool.  The "too hard" rap is over.  Like SHGC, to score, you do have to golf your ball.  Good shots and "playing with your eyes" are rewarded.

The underlying layout is interesting, unique, and is terrific - I watched Eric Smith play the ground game the 5th Major and that option is certainly available.  AC is a wizard at putting at 45-90 degree angles away from the cup and the greens offer variety, are fun, but not absurd.  The green speeds are right where they should be, especially when windy.

Mac - I agree with you 100%.  I have yet to see a perfect course - variety and fun are my bag.  I eagled 8 yesterday (not quite in JC's league) and our foursome went on a birdie tear.  That was a blast.

[Adam Clayman]

Mac Plumart has nailed the likely reason DR is not on GW's list.

JNC is correct that the golf course is now worthy of National recognition. It took several attempts, but the key differences are the greens, and the surrounds. That's not to say that there might have been better choices for some holes, on a totally different routing, but, the course that's there now, is fun, varied and plenty challenging.

Here's a picture of the 4th green, with Michael C. putting for his birdie.

[Jim Tang]

One of these years I would like to get out and see Dismal River.  It sounds like the course has made a lot of strides in the right direction and I give everyone associated with the facility a lot of credit for having the courage to change.

[Chris Johnston]

Jim

Come on out.  Bring the camera.  We need some prints.

While DRGC is unique wrt topography, each of the 18 holes holes are quite good - then again, I like variety.  Not an not very good hole in the bunch  Every hole has something (or many things) quite special.  It was always good, it just needed some soul.

Horse - great pic - I think I was looking for my third putt!  The Chef has an idea for the routing. 

[Mac Plumart]

Mac,
Can you give those who have not played Dismal River an idea of where you rank it overall? Compared to some of the courses you played this year? I have not been out there, and would like a reference point.

Keith...those are some tough questions you ask.  It is so unlike anything else, it is hard to desribe...but I'll give my best effort.

Where do I rank it?  On my list of favorites, prior to this trip I had it at 13...but when I update my site and list it will be moving up to 9, just behind Shinnecock.  It looks like some maintenance practices have been tweaked, most likely watering.  The fairways are even more firm and the rough is less thick which reduces the frustration with ball searches and lost balls and increases your chances for recovery when you find your ball.  This is a big plus.  The greens this time around were PERFECT, not that they bad last time (in fact far from it) but this time they were perfect.  Nice speed, great undulations, flawless putting surface, interesting attack angles and options.  So, that is my favorite ranking and reasons for the bump.

On my list of best courses, I don't feel it would do any good to say it is as good as Course X because the reasons courses are "good" is so varied.  The landscape and features are like Sand Hills, probably because they are neighbors.  But I think Dismal it is routed to be more dramatic and this produces more heroic moments and shots.  Not do or die moments because there is almost no water on the course.  But you still have seriously dramatic shots.  Think Shinnecock 9, 10, 11.  The greens have serious movement and undulations.  They probably remind me most of Sebonack's greens.  The opening holes are really tough with a lot of blindness, which makes for great golf on subsequent plays...but can be overwhelming and intimidating on your first play.  Then the course goes on a run of holes that is thrilling and, in my opinion and per my taste, great!  The par 3 3rd, the par 5 4th (which Adam has posted a picture of the green site), the saddle greens at 5 and 6, the long dogleg par 4 7th hole (great hole...great test of golf), the drivable par 4 8th with optional bailout area left, the long par 5 9th, and then the bunker in the green 10th.

This bunker in the green 10th could be a point of diverging opinion.  I love it and look forward to playing it.  I think it is fun, exciting, and something unique to the course and something worth traveling to see.  But could people criticize it...sure.  It is different and, therefore, openness itself for criticism.  Also, something that could be criticized is the windmill on 4 (again pictured on this thread).  People could say, "A windmill on a golf course.  It just doesn't belong."  And, you know what, I'll accept that.  BUT that critic better be consistent or they loose all credibility with me.  Windmills are all over that area of Nebraska, they are a natural part of that landscape.  Criticize it and you better criticize the stone walls at North Berwick or Rennaissance Club and all the other stone walls on golf courses in Scotland.  "A stonewall on a golf course.  It just doesn't belong."  I disagree and loved those naturally occuring features on Scottish courses, but I'll accept those critics opinions...as everyone is entitled to their opinion...I just hope they are applied consistently across the board.

The stretch of great holes and interesting features continues with the green on 11...WOW!!!  Perhaps the best green on the course.  The next few holes are good as well (But I'm burining out on typing   ), so I'll skip to the par 3 15th.  Great par 3.  Angled tee shot across massive and classic Sand Hills area bunkers to a great angled green.  

So...where does it rank on my best list...firmly within the Modern Top 100.  The course can be criticized and it is certainly not perfect.   Sorry Keith, that is the best I can do.

The bottom line is that during your round at Dismal River, you will playing a round on a golf course set on terrific land with dramatic routing, you will experience very unique shots and challenges, and attack and putt on very cool greens.  It is FUN golf.  

Chris...I am actually shocked that the reputation of Dismal was pretentious.  That is not the "vibe" I get there at all.  I get a "fun" vibe.  I look forward every morning to my round of golf.  At the conclusion of my days golf, I look forward to the showers (man, they are great!!   ), after the shower I look forward to a great dinner, and when dinner is winding down I look forward to sitting by the fire pit.  After the time by the fire, I look forward to heading to the amazing cabins.  As my head hits the pillow and I begin to fall asleep, I look forward to my morning coffee back at the firepit and checking out the amazing views.


I'm constantly looking forward to something.  Whether it is fun golf, dinner, whatever.  It is a damn fun and memorable time at Dismal.

[Chris Johnston]

Mac - not so much the club but definitely its very early leadership - his "vibe" was boastful and arrogance early on and I hate that stuff.  The members have always been a good bunch.

That windmill certainly is a unique feature - after you left, the Commish clanked one off one of the supports with one of his patented "low runner" shots - that one was particularly low and would probably still be running!   He still made par!  We all died laughing.  That was  right before the posted photo.

It was great to see you again, my friend.  I don't disagree with your "ranking" - and you have played a bunch of the good ones.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know anything about DR, but am happy to defer to the opinions of gents like Mac and JNC.  What strikes me, though, is how DR is an example/early victim of the dark side of modern communications (tweets and blogs and sites like this one), and of our idiotic obsession with rankings, and of our ever-increasing tendency to make (and to crave) instant judgements and bold pronoucements.  Nothing has time to breathe and to grow and to evolve anymore, everything (even our own experiences) must immediately be compared and contrasted to something else, as if, god forbid, any of us should ever risk even once playing a golf course that isn't top-notch or a classic or the best-in-state. We're like a bunch of high-school freshman constantly looking over our shoulders and turning our heads to see what the seniors are doing so we can copy them, and then nervously walking home wondering if the seniors think the way we dress and the music we listen to is cool enough. Ah...

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...nice post.  You are spot on regarding a lot of what you say. 

[Mike Hogan]

Here are a few photos from this weekend.






More to Come.

[Jim Colton]

Congrats on what sounds like a successful event.

Was it Jack's team that made the changes to the original version? What were the major design changes (I know the 13th hole & 18 green)?

[Scott Warren]

The second-last photo - can someone give me some context? Hole length? Is that pic from the direction of play?

[Mark Saltzman]

The second-last photo - can someone give me some context? Hole length? Is that pic from the direction of play?

Scott,

that picture is from the direction of play.

From the square tees (where the picture looks to have been taken from), the hole plays as a 155 yard par 3.  There are sideboards short left and long right, but short of the green is bad (as the picture shows) and long of the green faces a similar type run-off as the front.

[Chris Johnston]

Congrats on what sounds like a successful event.

Was it Jack's team that made the changes to the original version? What were the major design changes (I know the 13th hole & 18 green)?

Jim

Calibration of the water was key.  We also mow a few bands of native a time or two a summer to mimic cattle grazing and to keep the native healthy.  The greens are just terrific.  Several were softened before we arrived to make many "buried elephants extinct" - that or the green speeds would be compromised and the members don't like slow greens.  With an open mind, we also welcome and listen to a lot of feedback.

18 in particular was a great change - you can see it from tee to green and us older guys have a chance to consider going for it - rare indeed with the arrival of middle age.  it is now a very nice and visually stunning uphill finish.  13 may get a redo of the current green complex after we open the new green - For one, I love the current green setting.

The layout was always interesting, it just needed some love. I found Jack's team was fairly receptive to input.

[Mark Saltzman]

Alright I throw a couple pictures onto this thread.  Didn't get too many pictures - was having way too much fun playing in the 5th Major!

Hole 1




Hole 3




Hole 4








Hole 7




Hole 8




Hole 9




Hole 10




Hole 12




Hole 13




Hole 14






Hole 15






Hole 17




Hole 18

[JNC Lyon]

RJ,

Regarding the green complexes, I saw a key difference between most of the greens at May River and most of the greens at Dismal River.  May River's greens are, for the most part, pushed up above ground level, falling off into hazards or chipping areas on all sides.  The golf has less trouble when he gets on the green, but a missed green will require a deft recovery shot to make a 4.  On the other hand, the greens at Dismal tend to be set down in bowls.  In many cases, the greens are elevated, but they feature back boards and side boards that allow the golfer an opportunity to get the ball close after missing a green.  I think the greens at May River are a function of the property (how do you make a flat course tough? build up the greens), but the greens at Dismal could have been a lot different.

My point is that the two courses contain greens that are almost polar opposites in the types of recovery options you will face, and this goes beyond where the two courses are located.  Both sets of greens are phenomenal, though I may have preferred the ones at Dismal River.

Scott, the second to last photo is of the 5th hole.  It is a great example of a hole needing only one bunker to be great.  It is also one example of the good use of centerline hazards at Dismal River, which we also see at the 4th, where a windmill (which is very prevalent structure in the sand hills and therefore fits well) creates an array of strategic options on the second shot.

Chris J,

I, too, like the current 13th green a great deal.  What an epic green site!  It took me a few days to figure out that the best look into the green is from just right of the left hand bunker, while the right hand side provides a better angle but forces the player to hit a blind shot into the green.  I don't care for the new green.  It appears artificial, and it is too far from the 14th tee.  For what it's worth (probably not too much), I'd leave the current greensite fully intact.  The back nine needs one good short par four, and the current 13th is it.

[JNC Lyon]

Mac,

I agree, that 11th green might be the best on the course.  The waves on that green look like they are in motion, and the punchbowl nature of the green is very well done.  Also, the green is angled perfectly to accept shots challenging the riskier right side of the fairway.  What a great par four.

I can't imagine a less pretentious atmosphere at Dismal River.  Three things really stood out: 1) I've never been to a club where I could where jeans in the clubhouse, and I could do so at both Ballyneal and Dismal.  Of the two, Dismal felt more relaxed.  2) The fire pit.  3) I talked to the owner once or twice.  He seems like a nice guy 

[Sean_A]

I don't know anything about DR, but am happy to defer to the opinions of gents like Mac and JNC.  What strikes me, though, is how DR is an example/early victim of the dark side of modern communications (tweets and blogs and sites like this one), and of our idiotic obsession with rankings, and of our ever-increasing tendency to make (and to crave) instant judgements and bold pronoucements.  Nothing has time to breathe and to grow and to evolve anymore, everything (even our own experiences) must immediately be compared and contrasted to something else, as if, god forbid, any of us should ever risk even once playing a golf course that isn't top-notch or a classic or the best-in-state. We're like a bunch of high-school freshman constantly looking over our shoulders and turning our heads to see what the seniors are doing so we can copy them, and then nervously walking home wondering if the seniors think the way we dress and the music we listen to is cool enough. Ah...

Peter

Pietro

I guess its golfing nature for hard core guys to want to play the best as much as possible - no?  Plus, GCA.com is a fairly small group with many generous contributors covering a few different cliques so guys get a chance to hit the well worn trail of modern and classic courses alike.  I see this as a positive if only because like minded guys get an opportunity to meet up and have some fun on some of the most interesting (and sometimes not) golfscapes in the world. While I lament the fact that some stupid threads rabbiting on about nothing garner more interest than threads about neat little courses with plenty to offer, it is simply the way of the world rather than any shortcoming of GCA.com members.

How much elevation change is there?

Ciao  

[Michael Whitaker]

Mac - I think you are correct about the numbers stacking against a course that opens to poor reviews. There should be a way courses that make significant changes can petition the major ranking panels for a "do over." Wipe the slate clean, invite 30-40 panelists to visit for an outing and let the course make its case.

Dismal River definitely has got the playability of the course figured out. The playing surfaces were as well presented as it gets. And, as for the rough areas... I sprayed balls all over the place and never lost a single one. Well, I did temporarily lose one of my yellow Bridgestones, but Drew found it the next day and returned it to me, so I my inventory remained intact.  

There are a lot of thrilling holes on this course that require multiple plays before a golfer can choose his primary plan of attack. As a result, the layout deserves to be played a minimum of two times before someone tries to pass judgement or "rank" the course. Anything less would be rater malpractice.

IMHO, the one factor that DR needs to focus on is making the course more walkable. I watched Patron walk the course (twice) and for a 21 year old that weights about 120 pounds he was able to get around, but it was tough. Now, I'm sure he will say the walk was a piece of cake, but he was huffing and puffing on most tee boxes. Someone in less than John's lean condition would not fair so well. I'd like to see the course put some serious effort into cutting walking paths through the thigh high grass areas between tee boxes and greens... and, give some thought to maybe pushing a little dirt to open some walking routes where golfers are now forced to follow the cart paths up, over and around the hills between holes. IMO this is the only thing that will hold the course back in getting significant national recognition.

I don't know anything about the previous pretentious attitude at Dismal River, but today it could not be a more welcoming place. It's obvious that this change is a reflection of Chris' personality and business acumen. Not a better host can be found anywhere.

As for the windmill... it is a very cool feature, properly placed to screw with your head at the end of a par five. If someone has a problem with that feature (on this course) they have never seen some of the truly wild stuff in the UK. The windmill works and the experience would be less without it. It should be the club's logo.

Adam - you made a good point... with so many possible golf holes staring at you from every angle, it could be argued that a better routing choice could have been made here or there. But, the course that is on the ground is a very very good one and deserves another shot from the national panels. A lot of panelists are frustrated course designers. They often criticize a course by pointing out how they think a hole should be improved, or routed in a different way. The problem at Dismal River is that the surrounding property offers a virtually endless array of possible golf holes in every direction you look. Nicklaus said it himself on the club's promotional video (available on their website). He said there are a million golf holes on the property and they tried to identify the eighteen that in his opinion offered the best course and experience. Not many courses in the US have to complete head to head for attention with its surrounding undeveloped property the way Dismal River does. That is why I think some raters get frustrated... a creative person is going to see hundreds of possible routes and will, on occasion, wish to go in a different direction. If Dismal River were by the ocean, without miles of dunes stretching out in every direction, I think it would fair better with some panelists. There are just too many opportunities for second guessing from those so inclined. It's a blessing and a curse.

Sean - there is a LOT of elevation change. On first play I thought the shape of many holes most reminded me of courses I have played in the Carolina mountains. Holes climb up, over and around hills... then plunge down sloping fairways. It is a roller coaster ride. I was truly shocked by the mountainous nature of the course, as that was not at all what I expected. The closest thing I could compare it to in the UK would be Cruden Bay or the front nine at Portstewart.

Chris - thank you for the opportunity to sample the fabulous menu being created by your new chef. I'm sure the raters from Bon Appetit will be duly impressed with the finished offerings. With the little bit I know about fine dining I can't wait to sit down to a meal. Maybe at next year's 5th Major you can arrange a sampler platter for the group?

[Jim Colton]

Wasn't DR part of Brad Klein's GW rater bus tour of Nebraska last summer? I thought I remember reading a blurb he wrote about the changes there. I'm guessing there was a bump in the numbers from the recent visits, but obviously not enough to overcome the slow start. I wonder if Brad (or Chris) has specific numbers it could disclose.

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, I don't believe DR was part of that Rater Retreat. But, I was not on the trip. I think they did SH and PC, not DR. Again, the major design changes are the greens and the surrounds adjacent to greens and fairways.

As for the previous atmosphere at the club. I never felt it was pretentious, other than those billboards in Tryon. On my initial visit I thought it was really unprofessional. On that initial visit, one of the people in the shop, said something to someone (a former old time poster who was friends with an original owner) and within 24 hours of my visit, rumors had spread from coast to coast. They weren't so much rumor, as factual mis-statements to undermine a certain persons credibility. Very unprofessional. I think their 2nd head pro was Rob Brown. He certainly was a very welcoming personality. After him, I believe Troon had Rocky as the face. Again, pretentious was never what I felt, but, I could be oblivious to attempts to be holier-than-thou.

On another note;
 I didn't quite understand the title of The 5th Major, until, Eric s'plained it all. But now my thoughts are runnig towards something along the lines of "The Fifth on Fourth"  How bad is that?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()