[Mark Saltzman]

13 is a birdie hole? I guess I didn't get the memo.

[Eric Smith]

There I go again, applying my game to the rest of the universe. Let me rephrase. It is a short iron approach.

[JNC Lyon]

WHAT DOES THAT SIGN SAY?!?!

no bare feet?

What does THAT sign say?

[JNC Lyon]

I do wish the DR guys would settle down and let the architecture speak for itself.

I think, for the most part, we do let the architecture speak for itself.  However, most of the criticism of the golf course and the club comes from people who have never been there, so that distorts the discussion a bit.

[Sven Nilsen]

JNC:

Please show me one bit of criticism on the current state of the golf course from someone who has not been there. 

Its statements like this that have taken this discussion of track.  This thread is littered with disingenuous claims along this line.

Sven

[JC Jones]

WHAT DOES THAT SIGN SAY?!?!

no bare feet?

What does THAT sign say?

No Fighting?

[John Kavanaugh]

WHAT DOES THAT SIGN SAY?!?!

no bare feet?

What does THAT sign say?

No Fighting?

No Feeding the Trolls

[JC Jones]

JNC:

Please show me one bit of criticism on the current state of the golf course from someone who has not been there. 

Its statements like this that have taken this discussion of track.  This thread is littered with disingenuous claims along this line.

Sven

Sven,

In all fairness, you did change JNC's statement.  He made no reference to the "current" state of the course and he also included criticism of the club.

I think something interesting to learn would be how many of the threads about Dismal have been started by Dismal members.  In looking at Clayman's links on the first page, I think only one or two were started by someone affiliated with the club at the time and even that was in response to another thread.

Therefore, to Tiger's statement, much of the discussion about Dismal is not being originated by Dismal guys.

[Sven Nilsen]

John:

That comment makes me feel like my pants are too tight in the seat.  I'm still smiling, however.

Just so we're all clear on the tactic here, you are diffusing my statement regarding the fallacy of the claim made of Dismal hate with humor and personal attacks.  Seems to be a trend.

If "those that think there's a group out there that are spilling Dismal hate" could leave that thought to the side for a second, "those that might be lumped into that group" just might be able to show you that they are honestly looking to pursue a line of dialog that might produce some value.

I still have questions regarding why you thought Dismal was great when you first saw it.  You're one of two people I know that have seen the course go through its changes.  I'd like to know what, specifically you like about it that caused you to send in your check.  Was it the routing, the shot values, a course that fit your game, the challenge, the locale, the vibe, a combination of any of these?  

If you can lay down your shield for one second and work with the assumption that these are honest questions, I would greatly appreciate it.

JC:

You know what I was getting at.  And for statements made on the first version of the course, is that not what this thread was designed to discuss? 

As for the old threads, I would be interested to know how many members from the 2007 - 2010 time period were members on this site other than Kavanaugh.  The recent string of threads on the course (other than this one) seem to have a particular genesis.

I think you're well aware that I had a particular stance on the motives for CJ's use of this site.  Chris and I have discussed this between the two of us, and its in the past.  It may be hard for some to think that a bias does not linger, but in this case it doesn't.  I've tried very hard to not let my opinions on how this site should be used alter my opinions on Dismal, especially since I haven't even seen it yet. 

My issue here has to do with the mischaracterization of motives and statements.  Its pretty easy to say I won't respond to you because I think you're up to something.  Perhaps its a question of trust.  I hope that's not the case.  I hope you don't think I have an agenda here.  We've met, and in addition to a shared interest in certain McDonald's drive-through employees I thought that we (along with just about everyone else I've met from this site) shared a keen love for playing and discussing interesting golf courses.  Consider this an attempt to further that conversation.


 

[John Kavanaugh]

Sven,

Send me an email with ten specific questions of why I think Dismal was a great place for me to join and I will answer them in private.  All I ask is that you keep my answers 100% private no matter how much you will be offended.  I am happy to satisfy your genuine curiosity about this boring subject.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Send me an email with ten specific questions of why I think Dismal was a great place for me to join and I will answer them in private.  All I ask is that you keep my answers 100% private no matter how much you will be offended.  I am happy to satisfy your genuine curiosity about this boring subject.

John:

If you answer sincerely, I assure you I will not be offended.  Appreciate the willingness to respond and promise to keep your responses under wraps.

Sven

[Chris Johnston]

13 is a birdie hole? I guess I didn't get the memo.

Saltz = is is a birdie hole for the Callaway2woodlowsligshotdrivethatrundslikeacatwithitstailonfireyodafanaticwhileynottippingoverthebucketofBudweiser golfer.

For he...the hole gives up birdies.  We call him "skywalker", and in him the force is very strong.

[Mac Plumart]

Birdie hole?!?!?  Shoot, one of my guests last year eagled that thing from down the hill near the new green!!!   

[Bruce Wellmon]

The feedback generated on the night of June 29,2012 should tell the tale.
64, give or take, case study rounds.

[Michael George]

I have read every post in this thread.  I think the entire discussion comes down to 2 pretty frank questions.  They may not be clearcut answers, but it seems people are centrally asking and discussing 2 things.

1.  Was Dismal River initially criticized on this site at least partially because it is a Nicklaus golf course?  Was it some people's attitude that with Sand Hills and Ballyneal, this region of the country should be reserved for the beloved Doak and Coore (or their proteges) and that the hated Nicklaus and Fazio could not build a good course in such a natural setting?  

I think it is indisputable that this site has a "group think" problem.  I love the Doak and Coore courses that I have played - for this I am one of many in the group.  However, I sometimes think that I am the only person that likes courses that Nicklaus and Fazio have done (or at least that will admit it on this site).  Have they done some average work? Yes.  Is their group average of all courses designed below that of Doak and Coore, I again would say yes - - but they take so many jobs, how can they not.  But their best work is great in my opinion.   I have recently called this the "if there is any problem at Sebonack, it must be Jack's fault" syndrome and I don't think it is always right.

2.  Is Dismal River as good as the hype it is currently getting on this site?  It currently is not ranked in the US top 100 - is that a glaring omission or a recognition of some problems that are not being discussed?

This same question can be asked about Kingsley, Rustic Canyon, Eastward Ho!, Lancaster, Lost Dunes, Mountain Ridge, Dormie, Brookside and others.  I don't know the answer to this question.  I will provide my opinion once I play Dismal River.

For those that have played it, I would love to hear your responses.

[Jim Colton]

Michael,

  I didn't look at all the old threads, but one thing I noted was for the most part, the collective view leading up to the opening was positive and anticipatory, including it in the same breath with the others in the area. Remember, basically all we had was Sand Hills and Wild Horse, so the prospect of three courses in that region of the country (including Gil's original plans at PC) had folks drooling. It's too bad some of the early pics are no longer visible. Of course there were some anti-Jack remarks, but I wouldn't classify that as general sentiment. I'll take a closer look again.

  It seems to me that a lot of it was just getting it dialed in so the course presents well for its members and their guests.

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

I believe Dismal suffered initially because it was so different then Sand Hills. While it would have been difficult to replicate Sand Hills, it would have been possible to mimic it in some ways. Instead JN went for a completely different type of design. back at the beginning, pretty much anyone who was playing DR was probably playing SH as well. SH is great, and everyone knows it. So how can a course that is in the same region, but very different, be any good? That was basically Tiger Bernhardt's premise when he said he'd played for a full week at SH, and after leaving drove over to DR, took one look and left wondering how anyone could possibly like the place. That's a severe reaction, and although I understand Tiger's feelings, I don't understand the "how can anyone like the place" attitude.

To me that's really what it boils down to. JN went big, and it is very easy to miss the nuance when the features in front of you are slapping you in the face. But nuance is there, strategy is there, and it really is a minimalist approach, just laid over the largest features. Its a different approach, and when compared to SH it will always be viewed in a different light because its not like the "great" SH.

Put DR in Tiger's home state and there is a waiting list to join.
Stick it in Ohio, or FL, or AZ r many other regions and its highly ranked. Put it next door to what many consider the greatest course in the world, factor in that DR is very different then SH, and you get very mixed reviews. I think its great we have variety, others think JN should have studied SH and tried his best to do something similar. Whatever the case, what's there at DR is very cool and fun.

[Sven Nilsen]

A question for everyone, not just John:

Would you call Dismal a penal, strategic or heroic course?  Do different holes exemplify different theories?  On the whole, with respect to the canted fairways and quick greens, is it a shotmaker's course, in that shaping the shot is a necessity?

[Chris Johnston]

A question for everyone, not just John:

Would you call Dismal a penal, strategic or heroic course?  Do different holes exemplify different theories?  On the whole, with respect to the canted fairways and quick greens, is it a shotmaker's course, in that shaping the shot is a necessity?

Sven, Ill take a stab.  With the rough now under control, Dismal River isn't "Penal".  It is very strategic but also BIG and epic.  I don't know if its heroic (not sure what that is) but there are shots that require execution.  Like all of the Sand Hills courses, you have to hit a good shot to make birdie and a good number of holes allow a both aerial and ground options into greens.

Shot shaping isn't a necessity but a good imagination does serve you well.  Adam Clayman has a good imagination and is right at home.  You can chip short of a hole or, in some cases, well past it.

[Sven Nilsen]

Chris:

I would define heroic (with respect to a golf hole) where the player has the option to take on a longer carry in order to gain advantage.  Think of this along the lines of a drive to a diagonal fairway, where the easier approach is gained if you bite off a bit more of the ground that needs to be covered in the air.

With respect to penal, I was more focused on the placement of hazards as opposed to the recovery from them.  Are most of the fairway bunkers placed in spots where a miss would end up?  Or are they placed to offer the golfer an advantage if they successfully take on a line close to the bunker?

Happy to discuss these schools of thought more and would suggest taking a look at Tom's write-up in The Anatomy of a Golf Course on these subjects, as they're not only a great read but will probably help a great deal in comprehending his goals as the second course starts to take shape.

Sven

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am deleting my post. I spent 20 minutes writing it to provoke nothing but positive thoughts and discussion on the merits of the work done here and our opportunity on this site to learn from it.   Instead I get a hey did you even see a hole? It is a mile from the clubhouse to the course. No John I am an F----- idiot who writes about things I did not do as part of a disclaimer that I should have done more before forming an opinion on a course. Another DR person wrote me the same thing in a private message. I just answered him with "I am sure you know better than me."  Yes I road out to the course John. I just did not look at the entire course as I have said on here before. And I did not play it as I have said before. It frankly was not a big moment. I had just left Sand Hills before that.Sand Hills provided a rare moment in life to see and enjoy golf at its best. DR deserved more from me as i have also mentioned. Good luck to DR and may nothing but pleasure and success come to you that are part of it and to the club in the future.

[JESII]

With respect to penal, I was more focused on the placement of hazards as opposed to the recovery from them.  Are most of the fairway bunkers placed in spots where a miss would end up?  Or are they placed to offer the golfer an advantage if they successfully take on a line close to the bunker?

Talk about slicing it thin...Sven, I've enjoyed your conversation here and think you've asked alot of interesting, and pertinent, question. I have to wonder, however, if you could possibly add a little more air between "a bunker where a miss would end up" and 'a bunker that catches a shot that's not successfully pulled off"?

I've long thought the distinction between penal and strategic is indefinable and your attempt at it there just might prove my point...or it will prove your point depending upon your answer. Thanks.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

Perhaps its best if we discuss this with examples. 

Penal:  A fairway with bunkers on either side of the fairway near the landing zone where a premium is placed on hitting the dead center of the fairway.

Strategic:  A fairway with one bunker on the inside of a dogleg near the landing zone where the ideal result is to skirt the bunker as closely as possible to obtain the ideal line to the green.

The first is "penal", as any miss at that distance will be punished.  The second is "strategic" as the player has the option to play away from the bunker resulting in a second shot that may be more difficult, but is certainly less difficult than playing from the bunker.

Of course, in both cases, the player could try to be heroic and just blast it over all the trouble.

I agree that there's a bit of a thin line, even in extreme examples.  For instance, the player could play a strategic shorter shot in either example to completely take trouble out of play.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tiger,

Did you see even one hole?  The course is a mile from the clubhouse. That is a distant visual.

The course has not changed anymore than has been explored on this thread. It is time for those who want to learn to visit. The heroic while not being penal is evident on the first tee shot of the day.

[Chris Johnston]

Chris:

I would define heroic (with respect to a golf hole) where the player has the option to take on a longer carry in order to gain advantage.  Think of this along the lines of a drive to a diagonal fairway, where the easier approach is gained if you bite off a bit more of the ground that needs to be covered in the air.

With respect to penal, I was more focused on the placement of hazards as opposed to the recovery from them.  Are most of the fairway bunkers placed in spots where a miss would end up?  Or are they placed to offer the golfer an advantage if they successfully take on a line close to the bunker?

Happy to discuss these schools of thought more and would suggest taking a look at Tom's write-up in The Anatomy of a Golf Course on these subjects, as they're not only a great read but will probably help a great deal in comprehending his goals as the second course starts to take shape.

Sven

 

With that definition, there a several heroic holes.  Among them is #8, a drivable par 4 with a line to the green over nothing but native.  The far easier shot is to a fairway to the left.  Another one is the initial tee shot where taking a left line and carrying the bunkers leaves a wedge to the green...if you go too far left, you are in native.  #16 rewards a carry over native but it isn't particularly long.  Like Ballyneal and Sand Hills, if you miss widely, you are in native.  We don't have trees, streams, or ponds, other than a cow tank under the windmill on #4 but we do have wind.  Now, Tom's course will be different on the closing holes.

wrt penal, there are several holes with humongous (acres of) bunkers either left or right and the closer you are, the better the next shot.  You don't have to carry them but they are very much "in the eye.  #'s 4 and 18 are examples.  There is a nasty bunker on the uphill 11th but I have no problem carrying, or going around it to the left.  Most fairway bunkers can be challenged but there is always an easier alternate route and fairways are wide.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()