THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[Tom Dunne]

I respect that you joined a club that fit what you wanted, yet I would definitely change some things there if I became the third owner.

[/quote]

Chris, I've always enjoyed your company, but c'mon. Don't needle a guy on his way out the door.

[DMoriarty]

Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$  we got to get back from whence we came.  Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on?  At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying.  It's just about the convenience.

It probably was just about convenience to the golfers.  But from the perspective of the development of gca and standards of quality of the golf courses, I think it matters very much that they eventually had to turn back and return to the same spot they started. It may sound odd, but returning to the same spot led to some semblance of variety and balance.  

For example, if they had simply played down the coast they would largely be playing in the same wind the entire time. Turning back meant that for half the round the prevailing wind would effectively be reversed.   Likewise, returning to the same spot means that the golfer spent as much time going uphill as downhill.

I know you mentioned that with your base camp idea you would "turn[] a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition," but I am not sure that reducing repetition and creating a balanced course are the same thing.   If 14 holes play downhill, you could place the other four to try and reduce repetition, but that wouldn't really be a balanced course, would it?  

I guess the flip side is that golfers tend to like golf holes that are downhill and down wind, so why should we care about variety and balance?  The trend in golf seems to be away from such concerns.

[Michael George]

As the current day "Merion" thread, the Dismal River-Ballyneal threads were due to claim their first victim.  Sorry it was Jim, but fully understand his thinking.  I often question the time that I dedicate to this and other sites when I should be spending more time at work and with the family.  In fact, I have been lurking much more of late rather than posting and find that I have enjoyed it much more.  

In the end, I wish that many in this Discussion Group would understand one fact - this is fun for 90% of us here.    We are not in the industry.  We don't have any personal stake in the discussions.   We start threads because we think they will be fun to discuss.  We post on a thread because it may actually be one of the few threads that we have some knowledge.  And most importantly, we don't think we know more than everyone else on the issue.....we just want to discuss something that we really enjoy.

I understand that some on this string make a living in the industry.  These folks, like Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, Jeff Brauer, Mike Nuzzo, etc... know more than the rest of us.  I thank them for their participation as it does provide interesting discussion and a greater opportunity to appreciate golf course architecture.  These people are rarely the problem.  

However, there are others on this site who want to believe that they know much more than the rest of us, even though they are not in the industry or have just been involved on a very limited basis with the industry, giving them some sense of self importance.   I don't get these people.  They regularly take silly discussions on golf courses to the extreme, placing way too much importance on it.  I have news for these people - there are a lot of different kinds of courses...a lot of different kinds of routings.....a lot of different kinds of greens and there are few right or wrong answers.  Believe it or not, I actually like taking a cart sometimes and I do think that I am still playing golf.  In fact, I actually like playing golf at Firestone CC - blasphemy.   These people need to develop some perspective.  Here is a simple rule - if you are making enemies based on a golf course discussion group, you really need to self examine yourself.

Believe it or not, Eric Smith started the Red v. White thread because he thought it would be fun.  He loves both courses and thought it would be fun to discuss both of them hole by hole.  It is a shame that some turned something so simple into this.

[Chris Johnston]

I respect that you joined a club that fit what you wanted, yet I would definitely change some things there if I became the third owner.

Chris, I've always enjoyed your company, but c'mon. Don't needle a guy on his way out the door.
[/quote]

Tom,

There was no intent to needle my friend Jim...at all.  I hope you would agree pulling one piece from a comment removes intended context.  There was no criticism intended, just that a new owner would probably make changes as is fully his perogative.  I would also guess that if Jim became a third owner, he would likely make changes too.  

Jim, if I offended you at all, please accept my sincere apology.  It wan't my intent to offend.

Too much judgment and contention for my tastes, my friend.  I'll likely be joining Jim soon.

Peace.

CJ

[Michael George]

Chris - I don't think Tom was being judgmental or contentious.  I read it the same way and always give you the benefit of the doubt, as I know you to be a good guy.

[Tim_Weiman]

Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$  we got to get back from whence we came.  Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on?  At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying.  It's just about the convenience.

It probably was just about convenience to the golfers.  But from the perspective of the development of gca and standards of quality of the golf courses, I think it matters very much that they eventually had to turn back and return to the same spot they started. It may sound odd, but returning to the same spot led to some semblance of variety and balance.  

For example, if they had simply played down the coast they would largely be playing in the same wind the entire time. Turning back meant that for half the round the prevailing wind would effectively be reversed.   Likewise, returning to the same spot means that the golfer spent as much time going uphill as downhill.

I know you mentioned that with your base camp idea you would "turn[] a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition," but I am not sure that reducing repetition and creating a balanced course are the same thing.   If 14 holes play downhill, you could place the other four to try and reduce repetition, but that wouldn't really be a balanced course, would it?  

I guess the flip side is that golfers tend to like golf holes that are downhill and down wind, so why should we care about variety and balance?  The trend in golf seems to be away from such concerns.

David,

Those are several good points. Here is another: if you take a close look, not every links property could have been extended further in either direction if the objective was to keep building holes in sand dunes.

For some reason nature concentrated the sand in a limited area. Doonbeg in Ireland is a good example.

[William_G]

Tim,

That is so true, that once you get to the ocean, you know you are there!

Whereas in CO and NE, you just keep on driving and you wonder how many golf courses could be built there and everywhere.

It really is a different feel.

[Scott Warren]

Chris,

Your comment to Jim ignores that alterations to the golf course at his club have been minimal. Has a single hole been significantly altered?  Isolating the quote didn't remove context, it just highlighted how misguided that was and how nasty it was to poke at its history of financial issues.

It's impossible, I understand, for someone in your unique position not to spin and spruik every time you post about your investment, and those who know you rightly cut you slack for it and defend you when you're criticised for it, but it continues to grate.

Separately, everything I have heard about Dismal White is that it is the antithesis of a "championship" golf course. That's what appears to make it attractive to those who like it. More spin.

This thread is an absolute car crash (& was always going to be), and it's a shame that out of all the people who posted in it, it's Jim who has decided the best bet is to leave the site.

[Chris Johnston]

Thanks, Scott!  I'll graciously respond to your comment.

I'm as disappointed as you are that Jim left GCA, and I did nothing to drive that decision.  Good grief, I complimented him on his critical post and count him as a friend.

I didn't raise the topic of changes, Jim did, and I made no comment about any changes made, minimal or not.  

The point of my post was, having thought about (a part of) what Jim wrote, third (new) owners sometimes drive change to comport to their vision.  Owners change things all the time, be it course (as already discussed), menu, join fees, rates, and season.  That's not spin, young man, it's reality.  Do you really find something unnatural about that?  I didn't mean to poke at all, I simply said that if I were the third owner, I would make changes as I would then be entitled to do.  I'd bet both you would too if you believed the change was for the better.  What, exactly, do you find wrong with that?  

I suppose it noble to lash out for your friend Jim, yet I merely responded to something he wrote.  And Scott, I made no comment to their past financial issues, you did.  Nobody is more thrilled than I am that Ballyneal is doing better.  It's a great place with some great people, and deserves every success.  

From everything you have heard?  Seriously?  Care to tell us who have you heard everything from?  I merely stated what I know to be true about the initial White course and the expectations set at the time...nothing more...and you call that as spin?  Do you have any reliable information to counter it?  It wasn't spin, it was fact, but please don't let that interrupt your rant.  

Your post here seems to show you didn't read my post at all.  I also love critical comments from people who have never seen a place, who then accuse people who do have knowledge as somehow being wrong.  The thread has has a ton of comment and I have done nothing at all to limit it. Kind of like democracy, things can get bumpy at times, but it sure beats the alternative.

CJ

[Scott Szabo]

As the current day "Merion" thread, the Dismal River-Ballyneal threads were due to claim their first victim.  Sorry it was Jim, but fully understand his thinking.  I often question the time that I dedicate to this and other sites when I should be spending more time at work and with the family.  In fact, I have been lurking much more of late rather than posting and find that I have enjoyed it much more.  

In the end, I wish that many in this Discussion Group would understand one fact - this is fun for 90% of us here.    We are not in the industry.  We don't have any personal stake in the discussions.   We start threads because we think they will be fun to discuss.  We post on a thread because it may actually be one of the few threads that we have some knowledge.  And most importantly, we don't think we know more than everyone else on the issue.....we just want to discuss something that we really enjoy.

I understand that some on this string make a living in the industry.  These folks, like Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, Jeff Brauer, Mike Nuzzo, etc... know more than the rest of us.  I thank them for their participation as it does provide interesting discussion and a greater opportunity to appreciate golf course architecture.  These people are rarely the problem.  

However, there are others on this site who want to believe that they know much more than the rest of us, even though they are not in the industry or have just been involved on a very limited basis with the industry, giving them some sense of self importance.   I don't get these people.  They regularly take silly discussions on golf courses to the extreme, placing way too much importance on it.  I have news for these people - there are a lot of different kinds of courses...a lot of different kinds of routings.....a lot of different kinds of greens and there are few right or wrong answers.  Believe it or not, I actually like taking a cart sometimes and I do think that I am still playing golf.  In fact, I actually like playing golf at Firestone CC - blasphemy.   These people need to develop some perspective.  Here is a simple rule - if you are making enemies based on a golf course discussion group, you really need to self examine yourself.

Believe it or not, Eric Smith started the Red v. White thread because he thought it would be fun.  He loves both courses and thought it would be fun to discuss both of them hole by hole.  It is a shame that some turned something so simple into this.

Well written, Michael.  I agree with everything you said.

[Terry Lavin]

These threads are the antithesis of DR, which is one of the most unabashedly fun places in American golf. And I'm sure that Eric was thinking fun when he started the Red v White thread, but in this environment we are dealing with a dosage-related commodity. And we've been overdosed on Dismal. This degenerated into an internet moot court on the merits and demerits of two courses that the leading "critic" had not ever played!  It's like two platoons in opposing foxholes, well out of their shooting range. Eventually, somebody stops wasting bullets.

[JC Urbina]

David M

The idea of balance I agree is important but I have another theory on golf that pushes the balance theme to the side.  It's called Perfect Yardage.

I am not saying the idea of Base Camp was the answer to all routings, but after visiting a string of properties that others may have forced a conventional routing onto, I thought why keep forcing a round peg into a square hole. I appreciate your in depth analysis of what makes a good routing.  Two Loops, Out and Back, The Muirfiield routing and others,  I am going to try this some day " Triangle Golf" routing.  If I ever get a chance to lay it out I will reach out to you and ask you to walk it with me.

Niall,

I never knew they actually played from Troon to Prestwick, it just made sense to me.  Thanks for that info.  Us Scottish guys think a like 

David E

The game of golf has evolved so much from what it once was.  I keep trying to take it back to that.

 "Keep it Simple"

[DMoriarty]

David M

The idea of balance I agree is important but I have another theory on golf that pushes the balance theme to the side.  It's called Perfect Yardage.

I am not saying the idea of Base Camp was the answer to all routings, but after visiting a string of properties that others may have forced a conventional routing onto, I thought why keep forcing a round peg into a square hole. I appreciate your in depth analysis of what makes a good routing.  Two Loops, Out and Back, The Muirfiield routing and others,  I am going to try this some day " Triangle Golf" routing.  If I ever get a chance to lay it out I will reach out to you and ask you to walk it with me.

Anytime, Jim.

I'd love to hear more about "Perfect Yardage" and "Triangle Golf."  But you should start a new thread.  Your post on your Base Camp concept is too good to get lost in this pile of rubbish, and there is no use burying more of your ideas here.

[Neil_Crafter]

Jim, just a comment on the base camp thinking of an 'out and out' routing.

I recently was asked to give a conceptual layout for a submission by a group in Malaysia for a very hilly site within a proposed residential development adjacent to the ocean. They had already come up with the idea of having a hilltop clubhouse and an oceanside clubhouse and I routed two nine hole loops, each starting out from the hilltop clubhouse and finishing at the oceanside one. When you finished one nine you would take a shuttle back up to the hilltop clubhouse and tee off on the other nine. This avoided the drastically uphill holes that would be needed if you were to get back up from the oceanside. The holes were a combination of downhill, some level, and the odd one slightly uphill - as you mentioned in your comment - to get a nice comfortable balance without the slog of a number of serious uphill holes. The developer did like my idea :-)

[DMoriarty]

Neil,

That is fascinating.   Would the nines be designed to be walkable, except for the shuttle?

It is just like I suggested the beginning of this thread, except no chairlift.  I'm telling you, there is a trend here in the making . . .

 

In short, I think that Jim Urbina might have been onto something, at least if he was looking for the next possible trend in golf.  The first cart ball mountain course was probably seemed like a pretty cool "one off" too.  But the trend caught on, and this trend could be catching on, too.  We could be witnessing the beginning of the next trend in cart golf.  If it seems like the great Tom Doak is on board, who wouldn't be?

Imagine a property like Rock Creek only with both nines running down hill, and maybe a chairlift in between, along the scenic creek  One could ride up, and go left or right, just like off a ski lift.  Play down one nine, then ride up and play down the other.   Mechanized walking golf, with no or few pesky uphill holes.  The hundred hole hike would be a breeze.

[Neil_Crafter]

Yes you could walk it I think David but in the tropical heat of Malaysia nearly everyone takes carts.

[DMoriarty]

Makes sense Neil.  You mentioned a shuttle up so I was wondering.  Is the project going forward?

[Chris Johnston]

Jim, thanks very much for contributing on the routing side of things.  I think I can get my head around the triangle concept and, obviously, think it a terrific idea to route a course creatively to take best advantage of what a site offers.  As to Base Camp, it is a great idea if it gives you great golf.  Even better opens up some great sites for golf.

Neil, the two clubhouse ideas sound interesting as well to avoid a string of uphillers on a steep site.  Routings face many challenges and it's pretty cool you thought outside the box on an ocean related site.  I'd enjoy seeing this one "in the ground".

[Josh Bills]

While I admittedly have no experience routing a golf course, I have played Makalei Golf Course on the Big Island which has an over 1000' elevation change and while certainly not walkable, it is an interesting layout that is playable.  (I know it sounds like I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night)  Believe it was designed by Dick Nugent & Associates and does a pretty fantastic job with an extremely elevated piece of property.  Would this be considered as a great routing for the terrain because they were able to get you back to where you started?  Also it appears to be on a relatively small parcel considering the land available.  Here is a link to their website. 

http://www.makalei.com/course/ 

The base camp idea might have worked there as the elevation change is significant, and allowed a few easier holes are some are basically straight up the mountain.  Between the peacocks, wild turkey (animals) and the views though, it was a pretty cool spot for a reasonable price on the big island. 

[Michael George]

 I did play the first 7-8 holes on the White course and the par 3's on the back, and carted the rest as that was all I had time for.

I was reading through this string last night and really got stuck on this quote from Jim Colton.  I don't know the reasons for not having time, but I would have hoped with all of the discussion about the White course that you would have found time to play it. 

[Tom_Doak]

 I did play the first 7-8 holes on the White course and the par 3's on the back, and carted the rest as that was all I had time for.

I was reading through this string last night and really got stuck on this quote from Jim Colton.  I don't know the reasons for not having time, but I would have hoped with all of the discussion about the White course that you would have found time to play it. 

Michael:

As Jim is no longer watching this thread (or the site), I will reply to this with a simple question:  Why?

I did the same thing he did, on my first visit to Dismal River.  We were only there for a little while, and I was hoped to get out and see the course without anyone knowing I was there, because otherwise I'd be compelled to comment and people might not love what I had to say.  [And if you want to take me to task for that, remember, that's the same reason Jack Nicklaus did not visit Sand Hills while building Dismal.]

When I went to the trailer outside the clubhouse to ask if we could borrow a cart, I found myself face to face with the second owner, who had just taken over.  He was a friend of Dick Youngscap's, so he knew my name, and he insisted on having me borrow his clubs even though we didn't have time to play 18 holes.  So, I went out and played the holes that most interested me ... either the ones I thought were cool, or the ones I thought were crazy and wanted to see if they played like they looked.

People often criticize The Confidential Guide on the grounds that I printed opinions of many courses I didn't play, as if I couldn't possibly understand them otherwise.  I've seen enough to prove to myself that's not so.  Sure, there are things I might miss -- but there are things people miss after ten plays, and more to the point, things that people misunderstand because their one play of a hole was misleading in its immediate result.  [Just because you three-putted a green doesn't mean it's severe.]

Anyway, it's not anyone's DUTY to play a course they don't like the looks of.  And it doesn't make their opinion worthless, especially if they are asking questions about what they perceived as problems -- as Jim did -- instead of pretending to know the answers.

[Lou_Duran]

People often criticize The Confidential Guide on the grounds that I printed opinions of many courses I didn't play, as if I couldn't possibly understand them otherwise. 

Mostly seeing a course from the 10th tee, more than 20 years ago? Can't imagine what powers you must possess today. 

[Michael George]

Tom:

It's not anyone's DUTY to play a course they don't like the looks of.

Likewise, it is also not anyone's OBLIGATION to comment on a course that they didn't have the "time" for.  I doubt that any of the magazine panels accept ratings based on a "drive-by".

[Chris Johnston]

.

[Jud_T]

Likewise, it is also not anyone's OBLIGATION to comment on a course that they didn't have the "time" for.  I doubt that any of the magazine panels accept ratings based on "drive-byes".

What a relief.  Pardon me while I retire with the the following language and a bottle of Vaseline Intensive Care...

1. Shot Values
How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. Resistance to Scoring
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

5. Aesthetics
How well do the scenic values of the course (including landscaping, vegetation, water features and backdrops) add to the pleasure of a round?