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.


Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #125 on: March 12, 2012, 10:17:50 PM »
Sven,

Assuming all your points are correct:

The course was mediocre when it opened
Jack's not having gone to Sand Hills prevented DR from being great in it's inception
It can't be truly great because it needed work/softening to get to it's current state
Etc.

My question to you is, so what?

Pay attention JC.  If you read back through the thread, all of my comments focus on the following statement made earlier today:

"You guys don't get it. The architecture was always great. The critics were wrong.  Proving them so has been one of the great joys in my life."

I'm not waving a flag for Ballyneal, I'm not deriding Dismal.  I simply challenging a statement, one that the author of has not attempted to substantiate with any kind of reasoned analysis.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #126 on: March 12, 2012, 10:18:36 PM »
Sven

I think Jim had some help there, huh?  After yesterday, I'm glad this one was pulled from the fire.  Props to Jim and all who contributed.

I agree with JC, I still don't know what the point is.  Dismal was never mediocre, except for the very penal roughs.  That is hardly Jack's fault.  I think we have determined that many who don't like Dismal have never even been there.  I liked Rich Choi's post.  He had fun.  

And, the perception is incorrect.  Chris Cochran visited Sand Hills several times.  I think Jack avoided SH due to the original manager, who poisoned alot of things out this way.  Funny how that works.


JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #127 on: March 12, 2012, 10:20:59 PM »
Sven,

Assuming all your points are correct:

The course was mediocre when it opened
Jack's not having gone to Sand Hills prevented DR from being great in it's inception
It can't be truly great because it needed work/softening to get to it's current state
Etc.

My question to you is, so what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmSXewHr-j0

THE MAN'S A MENACE!!!
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Tom Dunne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #128 on: March 12, 2012, 10:21:26 PM »
Mac:

You're right, without Jim this would have devolved into the GCA version of Team Gay Werewolf and Team Pasty Vampire, or whatever those SparkleFang Movie fans call it.

Don't front, Sven. I know the real names. You know the real names. We all know the real names.

 

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #129 on: March 12, 2012, 10:23:22 PM »
Sven,

Pay attention?  You're a better man than that, Sven.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #130 on: March 12, 2012, 10:26:50 PM »
The Nicklaus course was simply too far ahead of its time.  The only thing that has changed is perception.  

That has to be the most ignorant statement I've ever seen you make on here John. Welcome to my club.

While I have not read this whole thread yet, There seems to be an error in the record of changes.
 The greens, for the most part, were not softened as much as they were altered (several times from my experiences) by adding internal contours, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR MOST OF THE FUN.

CJ, You widened 2 fairway too.

Adam.  I did not widen # 2.  Not to quibble in a quibblefest but I haven't touched that hole.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #131 on: March 12, 2012, 10:28:08 PM »
Sven,

Pay attention?  You're a better man than that, Sven.

That's not how I measure myself with other golfers.

And to Tom, I honestly don't.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #132 on: March 12, 2012, 10:28:50 PM »
 I think Jack avoided SH due to the original manager, who poisoned alot of things out this way.  Funny how that works.



Specifically, that included putting up Billboards in Tryon that read "The Bear is the Sandhills" and statements that they were going to build a better course than Sand Hills.

CJ, You personally showed me where you had been recovering native into fairway, up in the 150 yard post range.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #133 on: March 12, 2012, 10:32:37 PM »
 I think Jack avoided SH due to the original manager, who poisoned alot of things out this way.  Funny how that works.



Specifically, that included putting up Billboards in Tryon that read "The Bear is the Sandhills" and statements that they were going to build a better course than Sand Hills.

CJ, You personally showed me where you had been recovering native into fairway, up in the 150 yard post range.

Adam, I don't recall that, right side or left side?

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #134 on: March 12, 2012, 10:37:00 PM »
Mac:

You're right, without Jim this would have devolved into the GCA version of Team Gay Werewolf and Team Pasty Vampire, or whatever those SparkleFang Movie fans call it.

Don't front, Sven. I know the real names. You know the real names. We all know the real names.

Did a Werewolf or Vampire start this thread?  I need to get some team t-shirts or golf flags printed up.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #135 on: March 12, 2012, 10:43:59 PM »
Right side, before the pot.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #136 on: March 12, 2012, 10:44:59 PM »
Right side, before the pot.

Cash crop out there?  Why wasn't I shown this after I became a member?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mark Smolens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #137 on: March 12, 2012, 10:45:29 PM »
Leaving aside some of the snarky attacks on motives, I can only conclude after reading this post that I am even more excited about my upcoming excursion to Dismal River for this year's 5th Major.

Thanks again for the invite Eric and Chris.

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #138 on: March 12, 2012, 10:47:52 PM »
Leaving aside some of the snarky attacks on motives, I can only conclude after reading this post that I am even more excited about my upcoming excursion to Dismal River for this year's 5th Major.

Thanks again for the invite Eric and Chris.


Me too Mark!

Mac - Gold.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #139 on: March 12, 2012, 10:50:49 PM »
Right side, before the pot.

Cash crop out there?  Why wasn't I shown this after I became a member?

Do you think that second course is paying for itself?  Sometimes daddy does things he ain't proud of in order to pay the bills.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #140 on: March 12, 2012, 10:55:32 PM »
Sven,

Assuming all your points are correct:

The course was mediocre when it opened
Jack's not having gone to Sand Hills prevented DR from being great in it's inception
It can't be truly great because it needed work/softening to get to it's current state
Etc.

My question to you is, so what?

Pay attention JC.  If you read back through the thread, all of my comments focus on the following statement made earlier today:

"You guys don't get it. The architecture was always great. The critics were wrong.  Proving them so has been one of the great joys in my life."

I'm not waving a flag for Ballyneal, I'm not deriding Dismal.  I simply challenging a statement, one that the author of has not attempted to substantiate with any kind of reasoned analysis.

Sven,

My reasoned analysis of why I have earned the right to say Dismal was great before Chris bought the place lies at the feet of my canceled initiation fee check.  That should be all the proof anyone needs that I believed the course was great at that time.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #141 on: March 12, 2012, 11:13:59 PM »
John:

There are plenty of not so great golf courses that have plenty of members who each wrote a check that was cancelled when cashed.

Perhaps you could expound.

Did you see a great course as it was, or did you see a course with the potential to be great?

Do you like the changes?  Do you think they make Dismal better?

Did the critics you speak of change their opinion on the original version, or did they change their mind on the course after seeing its evolution?

I'd be interested in knowing if you had any input on any of the changes that took place.  Have you ever been asked for your input on what should be done out there?  Did you make suggestions?  Were those suggestions implemented?

If you're not willing to participate in the discourse, that's your option.  I hope you do, there's no one else here with the insight into the evolution of this club that you have (except for maybe Adam, who has been very open with his thoughts).
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #142 on: March 12, 2012, 11:16:42 PM »
Sven,
I may have missed it since I haven't read every post, but have you been to Dismal River Golf Club?

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #143 on: March 12, 2012, 11:24:37 PM »
Sven,

I don't know the answer to any of your questions. All I know is that I think the course was great when I joined it and think it is great now.  The only change I would consider architectural is the location of the 18th green.  I don't think it is any better than the old green or any worse.  I have never seen a hole cut in the newest green on 13 and I hope I never do.

Like I said earlier I am glad the new Doak course is being built if for no other reason it will keep Chris from feeling the need to change the Nicklaus course any further.

Look, it is this simple.  I thought the course was great when I joined it despite everyone who posted on this site saying otherwise.  Surely you do not think I joined Dismal on the last day of the golfing season thinking some miracle was going to change everything.  I really didn't have a clue how right I was until Mac and Eric joined after one visit themselves.  Me saying the course is and was great is only my opinion.  Why fight it, maybe I was wrong.  Maybe we all are.

I hate to pull back the curtain but just because I believe Dismal was and continues to be great does not make it so.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 11:27:39 PM by John Kavanaugh »

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #144 on: March 12, 2012, 11:36:40 PM »
No, Don.

Nor have I made any judgments as to the quality of the course, other than to say that it sounds like it is a better course now than when it opened.  I hope to one day be able to make the trek to Mullen to see the place for myself.  I'm pretty sure I'd really like it, as it looks like the kind of golf I enjoy.

In general, in anticipation of the question, I happen to think that any course that goes through a series of "improvements" of the type described for Dismal could not have been great when it opened.  It may have had the bones to be great, but until the time when its potential was reached it was not a great course.

Your post on the other thread was very insightful regarding the intangibles that can lead to a club's success.  Please keep in mind that my comments here have been limited to the architecture, not the people or the amenities.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #145 on: March 12, 2012, 11:39:40 PM »
No, Don.

Nor have I made any judgments as to the quality of the course, other than to say that it sounds like it is a better course now than when it opened.  I hope to one day be able to make the trek to Mullen to see the place for myself.  I'm pretty sure I'd really like it, as it looks like the kind of golf I enjoy.

In general, in anticipation of the question, I happen to think that any course that goes through a series of "improvements" of the type described for Dismal could not have been great when it opened.  It may have had the bones to be great, but until the time when its potential was reached it was not a great course.

Your post on the other thread was very insightful regarding the intangibles that can lead to a club's success.  Please keep in mind that my comments here have been limited to the architecture, not the people or the amenities.

Sven,

Just to make this obvious, I guess you do not think Augusta National could have been great as originally designed by MacKenzie.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #146 on: March 12, 2012, 11:58:33 PM »
Interesting question John, why don't you check back in when I get to 18 on that thread.  I'm still in the learning process on all of the changes made there.

Feel free to chime in there as well if you have any insight.

[Just as a guess, I'm probably going to tell you that the changes at Augusta were made for very different reasons then the changes made at Dismal.]
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #147 on: March 13, 2012, 12:10:25 AM »
There seems to be a presumption that any change in a golf course is for the better.  For instance, if a green is softened, it must be too severe.  If a green is made more severe, it must have been too soft.  If a fairway was widened it must have been too narrow.  

A change can be made by one person with the authority to do so.  It does not always make it right.  So I won't assume that changes in Dismal River were made for the better.  Maybe they were received by more people as better, but that does not make it better in my or another's mind.  In fact, I often think changes that appeal to the masses diminish the uniqueness of golf courses and make golf much more boring.  They may improve your rankings on Golf Digest, but that means little to me (although I definitely understand their importance to the average golfer).

For instance, I ran a trip of 28 guys to Bandon last September.  Afterwards, I asked most everyone what they liked and disliked about the golf courses.  Thankfully Mike Keiser is not prone to making suggestions based upon complaints, because I thought some of the changes would have been harmful.    

At Pacific Dunes, the fairway bunker on #4 would not encroach the fairway so much as many guys complained that the drive was too narrow and #16 would not have as severe of a green complex because people thought it was unfair.   At Bandon Trails, the second bunker on #6 would be gone and the green complex on #14 would be less severe.  In my opinion, none of these changes would make the courses better, but several reasonable people made these comments.  Meanwhile, I did not hear a thing about #9 at Bandon Dunes which I think is the weakest (and most boring) hole at the resort.

As Mackenzie said in response to the lack of criticism toward Cypress Point - "I had been so accustomed to having our best holes torn to pieces that I was actually disturbed at the lack of criticism"  Thankfully architects take chances with their designs.  Without them, the uniqueness of some golf courses would be lost.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 12:16:52 AM by Michael George »
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #148 on: March 13, 2012, 12:22:45 AM »
Some other changes that I also recall have been made;
 Chris didn't you add some bunkers on a few holes? As I recall there was a cluster on #7 and a another on 16. Both, as I recall are out in the native. I believe I remember your justification, was to give a visual clue, as to the direction of the green?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dismal River: A Case Study
« Reply #149 on: March 13, 2012, 01:43:35 PM »
My next question would be...why is the clubhouse/lodging so far from the course?  I think this is the case at Sand Hills as well.

Is there something unique about the Sand Hills region that necessitates this or is it just merely coincidence?

P.S.  Is the swimming pool going in this year or next year?  ;)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back