News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #125 on: July 11, 2011, 12:45:57 AM »
Chris, I may be wrong, but my guess would be that Holyoke site had 50X per acre more yucca than is found in your neck of the prairie...

Robb, I still think Josh at WH has the best FWs in Nebraska with his dwarf blue grass.  I imagine they won't do it, because there is this thing about private clubs seeming to prefer the bent grass lies in FWs and the occasional projects to try to manage fine fescues in FWs, like Chambers Bay, and the blends they have at Bally and the original attempts at SHGC tha evolved to something other than the original intent.  Of course Bandon is a special climate and probably has the best place to grow the fescues.   I have no idea the current sward and percentage of species at Bally, currently.  They have oceans of turf to evaluate at Prairie Club on both courses, now a couple years old.  So there seems to be enough data for evaluation.  But Tom and all these principles in the decision making process know the history and I'm sure they will make the best decision for what they are going to do out there.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #126 on: July 11, 2011, 01:35:19 AM »
RJ  The entire region is plastered with Yucca. Ballyneal could well be the epicenter. Myself, I don't like them much.

The Jack course is fescue - both tees and fairways, with really good A1-A4 greens.  Turf conditions are excellent.  I don't want to speak for Tom and Don but I'm certain we will use fescue again, maybe with a different bent for the greens.  We have to be a bit mindful of consistency on site with green speeds from course to course.  Fescue does quite well here too.

As to Don's post, I'm lucky to be surrounded by really great people who understand the mission and are dedicated to the experience.  Key members of our team have been together, in one form or another, for between 11 and 16 years - we all live on on site.  Each of them have assembled terrific people on their own teams.

I can't say enough about Tom, Don, Brian, and Eric - they fit right in.  That said, Tom and Don may need to knock the rust off of their jump shots to make the cut at nightly maintenance basketball.  Don's son, Ryan, is a force.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #127 on: July 11, 2011, 06:19:58 AM »
When I brought up the boys from Bayside, we discussed the difference between pastures and why some had tons of Yucca and others did not. It was speculated that Longhorns eat yucca and explains the difference. Of course, that could've been a myth spread by a rancher who just poisoned the things. Maybe get a few Longhorn on site for a few weeks/months and find out?

Then we could name the one course Cincinnati Pulled Pork and the other Longhorn   ;D

or, The Sous, and The Chef? The Bull and The Bear...
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 06:24:25 AM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #128 on: July 11, 2011, 06:27:36 AM »
Have Tom, Don and team decided on the grass(es) they are going to use for the Lariat/River course? Fairways, rough and greens?

If so, how does that compare to what was used on the Jack?

I thought that one of the most interesting differences btw SH and BN was the difference in grass choices that C&C vs RGD decided to use. Obviously the topography is not the same but there are similarities in the potential manner in which the architects could have chosen to use grass type to influence play in terms of ground game vs aerial game and also green speed and boldness of the greens.

I have heard that the Jack greens are really pure and quite fast but interesting making me think they are probably bent or a blended bent?

I know Tom isn't afraid to go in a different direction based on PD, OM, BN, etc.

Rob:

Personally, I love fescue as a playing surface, not only for fairways but for greens.  We've done the greens in Bandon and at Ballyneal and Barnbougle that way, and I think those places prove that it works -- as if we needed to "prove" it when many older courses in the UK have fescue-dominated greens.

However, my rule for fescue greens is that they only work if your neighbors are also on board.  All four courses in Bandon are fescue greens, so if the greens are a bit different in speed or texture than what you are used to, you adjust quickly and you're done.  Same for the two courses at Barnbougle.  However, at Spanish Bay, the same surface was never acceptable, and part of that was because people were coming off playing Pebble or Spyglass the day before and having trouble adjusting to the difference.

I think Ballyneal's greens are excellent in season, but it has always suffered a bit because so many people come from playing Sand Hills the day before, and Sand Hills has super-fast bent greens.  Likewise, with the first course at Dismal having bent greens, it would be very difficult for the members to go back and forth between the two different grasses.  That makes the decision on what grass to use easier than it might have been otherwise.


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #129 on: July 11, 2011, 09:50:07 AM »
However, my rule for fescue greens is that they only work if your neighbors are also on board...However, at Spanish Bay, the same surface was never acceptable, and part of that was because people were coming off playing Pebble or Spyglass the day before and having trouble adjusting to the difference.


Tom:

I don't quite get this. Your course will certainly be different -- maybe not on a macro level, given you're building in the Sand Hills, but certainly in many ways on a micro level -- than Jack's first course at DR. Players will have to adjust to different approach shots, different uses of fairway corridors, a different approach to green contouring, a different approach to the variety of holes and how they can be played. That's the whole (well, most of it, anyway) point of building multiple courses on similar grounds, ala Bandon.

So why are green speeds the third rail of golf-course design (involving multiple courses at the same site)? Players adjust to varied conditions all the time -- presumably DR has days when the wind is blowing one direction at 30 mph, and days when it's coming out of a different direction, or dead still. Rain can impact how F&F a course plays; it does to some extent in the UK (where reports are that Sandwich may not play as fast this year for the Open as it did in '03). Part of the great appeal of Bandon is the ability of the architects there to design four distinct courses on similar soils and terrain. Players adjust to that; in fact, they seem to embrace it.

What is it specifically about greens that puts them off-limits, when everything else about the course is an attempt to offer something that's different than the original course? Not trying to be argumentative; genuinely curious why this is so.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #130 on: July 11, 2011, 09:53:32 AM »
Phil,

A lot of guys at these destination clubs, particularly GCA knuckleheads  ;D, play 36-54 holes per day.  If you've got an ongoing match for $$'s or a tournament situation, it's tough to transition after lunch to greens rolling a couple feet faster/slower on the stimp.  
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 09:57:50 AM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #131 on: July 11, 2011, 09:56:44 AM »
Jud:

Isn't that like the baseball coach who complains about an ump with an unusually tight (or expansive) strike zone, when the ump is calling it that way for both teams? All you ask for is consistency, not necessarily adherence to a pre-determined thing (be it a strike zone or green speeds). If two guys or a foursome has a money game going that extends to both courses, what's the big deal with both sides having to adjust to that one thing (green speeds)? They have to account for all manner of differences in the two courses anyway...

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #132 on: July 11, 2011, 09:59:31 AM »
No, it's like facing a closer in game 1 of a doubleheader who throws 97, then facing the same closer in game 2 except now he's throwing 105...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #133 on: July 11, 2011, 12:03:45 PM »
Tom,

That certainly makes sense - it seems like in "most" climates fescue greens can be a bit of a challenge to maintain consistently throughout the season and bent can be played as fast as necessary and roll very pure if maintained properly.

The sand base will probably make it easier to maintain consistency from the fairways to the greens for bump and run shots and that is the main thing - providing options.

I can understand where a standard speed between the courses makes sense - but even at Bandon Dunes I find the speeds between Trails (which I believe has some colonial bent in there?) and Bandon Dunes (for example) can be a little bit different - not drastic but a little bit - especially after the Pacific Am a few years back where Bandon's greens were really distressed and "patchy" while Trails greens were as pure as ever.

10 vs 11 is one thing but 11 vs 8 is certainly another - the agronomy aspect is quite fascinating in relation to desired playing characteristics, maintenance, consistency between courses, etc.

Watching Chambers suffer through "bad press" on their fescue greens has been painful and I believe Ballyneal took some slack early on as well - bent seems like a safer option.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #134 on: July 11, 2011, 12:08:47 PM »
will the grassing choice for the greens affect the green design at all?  i.e. will they be less severe as a result of the target speeds?  Are there any natural green sites that will have to be softened as a result of this decision?
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #135 on: July 11, 2011, 12:16:01 PM »

Watching Chambers suffer through "bad press" on their fescue greens has been painful and I believe Ballyneal took some slack early on as well - bent seems like a safer option.


Rob,

There is nothing safer about this project.  Safer would be not to build anything at all.  So tell me, do you think Sand Hills would be a better course and or design using fescue greens?

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #136 on: July 11, 2011, 12:49:36 PM »

I absolutely hate when golf courses are named after the architect.  I don't blame the architect.  I blame the course.  Let the course stand on its own merit (rather than the architect's name).  I don't think there are any GCA'ers that need the name of the architect on the course to know that he designed it. 

Where are the courses named after Morris, Simpson, Colt, Alison or MacKenzie?  I am sure that there are some, but it cannot be like it is today.  Clearly, Bobby Jones could have called Augusta National, the Bobby Jones Golf Club and it would have been widely accepted.  However, he didn't - Thank God. 

The trend is based purely on a commercial basis and that concerns me.  What is the next thing - golf courses that sell their naming rights for 20 years like NFL, NBA and MLB stadiums.  I can see it now - Berkshire Hathaway Prairie Dunes.
 

Michael,

This has already started at the TPC San Antonio with their AT&T Oaks and AT&T Canyons courses.

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #137 on: July 11, 2011, 01:04:16 PM »
will the grassing choice for the greens affect the green design at all?  i.e. will they be less severe as a result of the target speeds?  Are there any natural green sites that will have to be softened as a result of this decision?

Jud -  Our greens speeds are in the "Goldilocks" range.  The "porridge" is not too hot...not too cold....they are really great and just right. Bentgrass works very well here and like others, I have found fescue can be both slowish at times and a bit temperamental.  I'm guessing that fescue greens at Bandon are terrific with an ocean keeping things cool.  For us, consistency will be important between the 2 courses - I'm one of those guys who is naturally slow to adjust.  The bump and run will be available, just as it is at the Jack course today.

I will leave it to Tom to elaborate if he wishes, but I recall him saying the new layout has several greens that will require little shaping at all - these greens are already there.   He may also choose share the plans going forward.  From my vantage point, things are moving along quickly.

Update - the frost free main for the Doak course is already installed so we are well ahead of the curve in that regard.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #138 on: July 11, 2011, 02:32:08 PM »
I see where two posters have attempted to steal my entirely 1000% original idea of Old and New Courses... You'll have to pry those blueprints out of my cold dead hands!

Nice post, PP. Is that irony? Or just being prudent? Bit 'o both, I guess.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tony Weiler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #139 on: July 11, 2011, 03:11:37 PM »

Anthony Gray

Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #140 on: July 11, 2011, 05:05:05 PM »


  I like Dismal River and Dismal Dunes.Of course the Doak course would be Dismal River.

  Anthony


Anthony Gray

Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #141 on: July 11, 2011, 05:09:45 PM »


  With all that land the question is will they stop at two courses.

  Anthony


Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #142 on: July 11, 2011, 05:12:57 PM »
Quote
The arc of a career as cosmic joke.

The career of Glen Ford:
1 - Who's Glen Ford?
2 - Get me Glen Ford.
3 - Get me a Glen Ford type.
4 - Get me a young Glen Ford.
5 - Who's Glen Ford?

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #143 on: July 11, 2011, 06:03:50 PM »



5 250 yard par 3


6


10 tee Par 5


second at 10


13


Anthony Gray

Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #144 on: July 11, 2011, 06:07:24 PM »


  I like Dysmal River for the second course.

 Anthony


Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #145 on: July 11, 2011, 06:20:56 PM »
Anthony - Dismal River has no plans, thoughts, or goals to build a third course, although we certainly have the infrastructure in place to do so. The only reason we are doing a second is the involvement of Tom Doak and the fact that the site is very special and truly unlike anything out this way. 

Shivas - I'm afraid there is no hell here.  The Jack course is wonderful.  The Doak course will be completely different and, I believe, it too will be wonderful.  Also, I feel your pain, I can't even hit a putter solid these days! 

Eric, I love the backdrop on 13...and the cow.  Makes me hungry.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #146 on: July 11, 2011, 06:27:30 PM »
Eric:

Thanks for sharing your pictures.  As it turned out, I took zero photos this weekend, I was trying to get my brain around a construction sequence.

The problem with photos of the site is that the scale is so big that you can't focus on the actual golf hole very well.  Your pictures of #5 and #6 and #13 are probably the best of the bunch as far as giving a sense of it.  #5 plays over a valley that's probably 30 feet deep to a green in a 3/4 bowl on the far ridge.  But your picture of #3 that you posted earlier fails to capture the scale -- that's a 175- to 200-yard par-3, and the shadowy thing to the right is a blowout that's about 20 feet deep.

I suspect Chris can't get enough of this thread, but for me it is now about getting to work.  We are hoping to start up some work in early August.  We have enough water for +/- ten acres of grassing, and instead of just building one or two holes, we are going to try and build 5-7 approaches and greens while I've got the talented guys available to do it -- I'm afraid they may be more spread out next spring.  So, we will start with the par-5 tenth and the par-3 eleventh, and then do 13-14-15, and maybe 16 and 17.

I love the high loop early in the round, but I think my favorite stretch of holes right now is 13-14-15.  Thirteen is a big dogleg with the tee shot over a small ravine and the second shot playing down to a plateau green with the river bluff in the background (Eric's picture with the cow is looking down the second shot from the forward tee).  That green may be one we can leave entirely alone, it's slightly crowned and wrinkly.  

The fourteenth and fifteenth were two of the last holes we found on the property.  Fourteen plays diagonally up across a valley, with small hills pinching the landing area first right and then left, and then another big hill just at the right front of the green, which we will hollow out to make into more of a punchbowl ... it's a big like a diagonal Alps hole, you can see the green from the tee, but you could be blocked out from view if your drive is very much to either side of center.  Then #15 plays back down parallel to 14, a drivable par-4 with an approach full of moguls and a very small raised green that will make for a scary wedge shot.

The two finishing holes are still spectacular, but we will only do a little earthwork in those fairways this year, and probably not get back to build the greens until next spring.  I might build #17 green if we think we have plenty of time to finish and grass it ... not much to do on that one, either, other than take a little bit of the tilt out of it.

Someone asked earlier how many greens there were where we might not do any shaping at all.  In thirty courses total, I've only built maybe half a dozen greens like that.  I could probably double my lifetime total here if I wanted to, but the only ones I'm pretty sure I will leave alone are the short par-4 fourth, and the thirteenth as mentioned above.  #2 and #3 and #6 and #10 and #11 and #18 are other possibilities, but most of them are fairly flat and I suspect we will add a wrinkle or two before we are through with them.  #5 is essentially there, too, but the slopes are big and broad and there probably isn't enough flat space in the bowl yet.

Brock Peyer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #147 on: July 11, 2011, 09:37:03 PM »
Looks like a great piece of land, I look forward to seeing the progress.

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #148 on: July 11, 2011, 10:30:54 PM »
Tom - when you leave a green or fairway untouched, how do you maintain all the little wrinkles and nuances prior to putting in the drainage and grassing. I worked on a few green wells where they were already dug out and shaped. I was putting in drainage. We kept the countours that were dug out but i am trying to imagine how you would keep what wad originally there in tact.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Next Big Thing
« Reply #149 on: July 11, 2011, 11:00:33 PM »
Call me simple but Dismal River Nicklaus Course and Dismal River Doak Course work for me....and both share the same emblem.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca