THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[Bruce Wellmon]

Off the top of my head, I cant personally recall ever playing an 18th without the clubhouse featuring in part of the hole in terms of its location.

Harbour Town does not finish at the clubhouse.,

[Keith OHalloran]

Tim, Jim,
I agree. I think the sand hills present a lot of unique factors. We have the architect on the site saying that he is confident he got the best 18 holes. I don't see a problem with this type routing.

[Jim Colton]

Jim,

The 18th green at Victoria National is more than 400 yds from the 18th green to the 1st tee. The clubhouse in between discounts the distance.

How many of your hundred hole hikers take carts between each 18?  Who doesn't like to sit down for a few minutes between rounds and settle bets or wait on friends. Even a security guard can use a chair now and then.

JK,

It's a similar story at Ballyneal, though I haven't measured the exact distance. I'm often carrying two bags up that hill after losing my match, our typical stakes.

Yes, HHHers (including me) often get a lift back to the house in between rounds. We allow for one lift per round.

 I thought Doak coined open-jaw, at least the first time I saw it mentioned.

[John Kavanaugh]

How is stating that the open jawed routing of Dismal is a threat to all future architecture not a criticism of the course?  The fact remains that if we just built another clubhouse in the valley it would no longer be open jawed. 

Is an open jawed routing less than ideal?  That is a simple question. Yes or no?  If yes then you are criticizing the course. I just want you to stop lying.

Btw.  Congrats on coining the term open jawed. I would have been proud of that myself back in the day. It is discreetly insulting on so many levels.

The reason I put the term "open-jawed" in quotes was because it was a quote.  I think it is Tom Doak's term, not mine. Reply #16.    I switched to using it because I figured people would get testy if I used my own.  Predictably, you got testy, anyway.

As for the rest of your post, I think Tom Doak already addressed whether or not an "open-jawed" routing is ideal both in regards to Dismal River and in regards to Rock Creek.   Are you going to take him to task for criticizing your course, too? 

This is exactly the type of bizarre over-sensitivity that makes these discussions impossible with you guys.  Even the simplest most basic observation is taken as some mortal criticism. 

David,

I have spent the last two days golfing only to get home and find you with dozens of posts concerning Dismal River, most edited. Yet you claim that you have never criticized either course. Would you agree with me that if we built a clubhouse between the 18th green and the 1st tee the routing would no longer be flawed in your opinion. If not than why?

[Tim_Weiman]

John K:

I am not sure it makes sense to say criticism of a single feature is a criticism of the course.

Many people observed the green on #13 at Dooks is kind of crazy. I might say that too, but you sure as hell won't hear me criticize the course.

The place is heaven. Anyone who doesn't like it can go to hell!

[John Kavanaugh]

John K:

I am not sure it makes sense to say criticism of a single feature is a criticism of the course.

Yes Tim but what if you say it multiple times for days on end?

[Mark Saltzman]

Tim, Jim,
I agree. I think the sand hills present a lot of unique factors. We have the architect on the site saying that he is confident he got the best 18 holes. I don't see a problem with this type routing.

Keith,

There is no problem with this type of routing.  Tom says he is satisfied that he [paraphrasing] got the best 18 holes he could while minimizing green to tee walks.  I'm sure most would prefer he produce the best 18 holes even if that means having the course end somewhere other than where it starts over some lesser holes and a shared start/end point.

I think David's point, and I understand what he's saying, is that it is hard to argue the routing is great (or at least comparable to other great routings) since the need to start and end at the same place / clubhouse has been removed.  This must often be a limiting factor so by removing this limitation it doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison.

Do all great courses start and end at the clubhouse? No.  Crystal Downs' 18th hole must be 400 yards and one hell of an uphill walk to the 1st tee / golf shop.  But I've also read that is a criticism of the course.

[Keith OHalloran]

Mark,
When did returning to the first tee become a requirement? Shinnecock was built a few years before Dismal, and it does not return to the first tee.
I guess Tom said it was not ideal. I don't have to agree with him, I think getting the best 18 holes is ideal, and I personally don't see an overriding need to return to number 1.

[Tim_Weiman]

John K:

I am not sure it makes sense to say criticism of a single feature is a criticism of the course.

Yes Tim but what if you say it multiple times for days on end?

John,

I haven't followed every Dismal thread, but generally would say the distance from 18 green back to the clubhouse is a fair point to note yet not dwell on.

On the other hand, suppose someone feels a generally undesirable golf architecture feature has been proliferating (e.g., island greens), it would be quite fair and make sense to start a thread and spell out why that feature is bad and should usually be avoided.

The crazy Dooks green isn't showing up on many new courses, so it can be charming in its place and not an undesirable trend in golf architecture.

Likewise, the walk or ride back to the Dismal clubhouse might be enjoyable given the setting and that perspective might be shared by people familiar with the course.

[David_Elvins]

David Elvins:
What does "cheating" mean?

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the question, I am struggling to keep up with the pace of the thread.

I think cheating means breaking or disregarding the rules.  

In the context of routing a golf course, I think that there has for a long time been a number of 'rules'.

-A course consists of 18 holes,
-Each hole starts near where the last one finishes,
-the course returns to where it started.

A great architect shows his skill by creating a course that features a variety of holes with different lengths, playing characteristics and green sites.  It's no easy task to do this within the physical confines of a site and adhering to the rules above.

The architect can no doubt break the rules above if he thinks it suits the site.  He could design a 16 hole course, he could accept that carts would be used and use this to ignore the principle that each hole should start near where the last one finished.  or he can justify not starting where he finished if the clubhouse is detached from the course.  

But if he does any of these, I do not think it can be considered a great routing, because he is not operating within the rules and constraints that most comparable courses have done.  Compared to these routing efforts, its cheating.  

[Brian Finn]

FWIW (little), Open Jaw is a term borrowed from the travel industry.  If you have a round trip ticket  where you don't come back to the same city from which you departed (or vice versa), they call it open jaw. Seems to be well-used in this context. 

Anyway, I am curious...for those critical of this type of routing especially...hypothetically, if every other aspect of a particular course were at/near ideal for you (100 out of 100), how much would you 'deduct' mentally for not returning to the clubhouse?  Is it negligible (1-3 pts), meaningful (5-10 pts), or even stronger?

I am not trying to turn this into a rating for a particular course, but rather just get a sense of the degree to which this matters to you.  I love a great, walkable routing as much as the next guy (here), but I can't see this even registering on my radar, especially if the course I just played was top notch.

[Jim Colton]

The other piece of this discussion goes back a bunch of years, to a conversation Jim Urbina and I had while driving through New Mexico, on our way to Apache Stronghold.  We were on a road down a very long and steep valley, and Jim mentioned that it would be cool to build a golf course along a site like that, starting at one end and playing all the way to the far end, since it was clearly too steep to provide room for holes out and back.  He "trademarked" a name for his concept which I won't reveal.  Anyway, I thought it was a great idea; I would love to play a course like that, whereas apparently you would rule it out of

Out-and-out (TM)?

[DMoriarty]

I have spent the last two days golfing only to get home and find you with dozens of posts concerning Dismal River, most edited. Yet you claim that you have never criticized either course. Would you agree with me that if we built a clubhouse between the 18th green and the 1st tee the routing would no longer be flawed in your opinion. If not than why?

Kavanaugh,

As for your question, I don't believe I have ever said or implied your course was "flawed." That is your strange take on my discussion of a general issue, but I don't buy into your stretched logic about how a general comment automatically translates to a specific criticism.   Tom Doak tells me he provided the best routing he could given the limitations, and I have no reason to doubt him.  I couldn't speculate on what impact building a clubhouse would have.  I haven't been there.

 As for the rest of your post, I think it is pretty pathetic that you are scouring my posts looking for a criticism of your course, hoping to trip me up. And I love your innuendo about the edits, as if I have gone back and rewritten history.  If you look at the time of the edits, you'd see that they all take place almost immediately after I post.  I am not a good proof reader, and I sometimes clean them up.  (I did immediately delete some profanity in a post to Don yesterday, written in response to his profanity to me. Sorry for you, though, there was no criticism of your course.  

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,
When did returning to the first tee become a requirement? Shinnecock was built a few years before Dismal, and it does not return to the first tee.
I guess Tom said it was not ideal. I don't have to agree with him, I think getting the best 18 holes is ideal, and I personally don't see an overriding need to return to number 1.

Keith, most classic courses start and end at a fixed point -- the clubhouse.  Remove the need to start and end at that point and, I'm guessing (I've never routed a golf course!), routing the course with great holes and shorter transitions becomes easier.

I agree, I'd prefer the best 18 holes.  I'm just trying to say I understand what David is saying.

Let's just keep in mind that we're talking about this mythical job of evaluating routings.  I think we've both agreed that such a thing is above our intelligence level.  I'm just hoping Huckaby will explain it to me one day.

[Tim_Weiman]

David Elvins,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You have explained your point quite well.

But, wow, "cheating" seems a bit harsh. It is long forgotten, but in its day Tom Fazio's Wild Dunes was considered something of a landmark course. The 18th green does not return to the clubhouse. It remains by the ocean, a routing decision I never heard anyone criticize and had the pleasure to experience many times.

I haven't been to Dismal but it sounds like Tom Doak did what Tom Fazio did at Wild Dunes.

I am ok with that even if it isn't "ideal".

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes Tim but what if you say it multiple times for days on end?

Don't make things up Kavanaugh.  You've been searching my posts for evidence of criticism of your course, so you know this isn't true.

You guys are a kick.  You ask questions you don't want answered, and then yell and scream when they are answered.  You start threads demanding I participate and brow-beating me for not participating, then when I do you brow beat me for that, too.   You claim you want frank discussion, but then when you get some it is back to the overly-defensive nonsense. 

David,

You have known me for years and read thousands of my posts. I have never been more calm than tonight. I am sorry that I don't buy into your logic that you have never criticized either course. And sorry, I don't read your edited posts, I just note that they have been edited.

I honestly don't see the harm in you criticizing Dismal. You must love the place considering it gives you the best opportunities for discussing the general principals you find so dear.

[Sam Morrow]

I think this is really sad, when did we all become children fighting over crayons? If you don't want to talk about Dismal then ignore the thread. If you don't want to see what a poster has to say then don't read it. Dismal is a great and unique place with an atmosphere different than most other places. With all the CJ bashing I'd love to have someone tell me they've ever met Chris and he's been anything less than a joy to be around.

[Jim Nugent]

David Elvins:
What does "cheating" mean?

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the question, I am struggling to keep up with the pace of the thread.

I think cheating means breaking or disregarding the rules.  

In the context of routing a golf course, I think that there has for a long time been a number of 'rules'.

-A course consists of 18 holes,
-Each hole starts near where the last one finishes,
-the course returns to where it started.

A great architect shows his skill by creating a course that features a variety of holes with different lengths, playing characteristics and green sites.  It's no easy task to do this within the physical confines of a site and adhering to the rules above.

The architect can no doubt break the rules above if he thinks it suits the site.  He could design a 16 hole course, he could accept that carts would be used and use this to ignore the principle that each hole should start near where the last one finished.  or he can justify not starting where he finished if the clubhouse is detached from the course.  

But if he does any of these, I do not think it can be considered a great routing, because he is not operating within the rules and constraints that most comparable courses have done.  Compared to these routing efforts, its cheating.  

David, what you call rules I would call traditions.  They have generally/mostly been true, but not always.  CPC e.g. features at least one long green to tee walk (15 to 16), and maybe more.  Barnbougle as I understand it has a long walk.  Highland Links has a walk of several hundred yards (450 to 500?) at one point.  

All considered among the best designs/courses in the world.  All greatly admired for their routing.  

They aren't entirely unique, either.  Looks like the 1st tee at NGLA is a couple hundred yards from the clubhouse... and the 18th green sits a good distance away as well.  When the course opened, the 1st tee was 300 yards or so from what acted as the clubhouse.  

Cheating is not counting all your shots... or handling a football into the nets (ala Maradona's Hand of God 'goal', though still genius).  Not following a tradition -- that itself is not universal -- is cheating?  

[John Kavanaugh]

I think this is really sad, when did we all become children fighting over crayons? If you don't want to talk about Dismal then ignore the thread. If you don't want to see what a poster has to say then don't read it. Dismal is a great and unique place with an atmosphere different than most other places. With all the CJ bashing I'd love to have someone tell me they've ever met Chris and he's been anything less than a joy to be around.

You think it is sad. I wish I had never heard of Dismal River. Everyday it's the same story, I f-ing hate the place. It's my fault for admitting in a public forum that I loved something. David has latched on to my weakness and drilled me into submission. Honestly, I deserve it for all the times I did the same to others in my own sorry and jaded way. I had it coming.

[Sam Morrow]

I think this is really sad, when did we all become children fighting over crayons? If you don't want to talk about Dismal then ignore the thread. If you don't want to see what a poster has to say then don't read it. Dismal is a great and unique place with an atmosphere different than most other places. With all the CJ bashing I'd love to have someone tell me they've ever met Chris and he's been anything less than a joy to be around.

You think it is sad. I wish I had never heard of Dismal River. Everyday it's the same story, I f-ing hate the place. It's my fault for admitting in a public forum that I loved something. David has latched on to my weakness and drilled me into submission. Honestly, I deserve it for all the times I did the same to others in my own sorry and jaded way. I had it coming.

It takes a strong man to admit that, I admire you my friend.

[William_G]

this is a sad thread unfortunately...online banter can be sad no doubt, personal interaction is where it's at

can't wait for my family to get home from the airport

I think that DR is great and CJ is a great guy, and I have not actually met him, LOL...it is for sure the most remote place I've been for golf and look forward to going back

I prefer walking, DR is the last round I rode, and I like Red better than White by far...same with wine...

I wish the courses were closer to the clubhouse, yet that does add something different while also losing something I prefer

I wonder how many different people have actually been there? It's also interesting that DR is at elevation...3300 feet.

[DMoriarty]

David, to answer the question you pose to Keith, from my POV, it is because you have no desire to go see it in person. No desire to actually see what Tom saw that motivated him to do what he did. You can dismiss that from afar, but this is not an urban course, and what Tom did works at DR, but may not work everywhere.

My question to Keith was about the way you guys have behaved when this issue has come up in the past.  While I understand what you are saying regarding me not seeing the course, and why that would be frustrating from your perspective, your explanation in no way justifies the way your buddies have behaved regarding this issue.  So what if I asked some questions about a course I haven't seen? Some of the questions I asked were because I haven't seen it!   Others of the questions have nothing to do with whether I have seen it or not!  

Do I need to see NGLA to know that it is an out-and-back routing?  I don't think so.  Do I need to see NGLA to wonder about the impact of that out-and-back routing on other golf courses of the era, and later?  I don't think I do.  Do I need to see it to explore whether there was a conscious emulation of TOC? Nope.  Is it untoward of me to dare to generally discuss the impact of an out-and-back routing on aspects of the golfer's enjoyment of the game?  Of course not. Likewise, there is no reason I shouldn't explore this issue here. Both have significance to gca generally.

I readily accept Tom's reasoning for routing it the way he did.  I am not second guessing his judgment.  I am not criticizing his course. I am sure that it is great.   Yes, seeing the course would probably help me understand why Tom did what he did, and it is my loss for not seeing it.   But I have questions and interests, nonetheless. And they aren't dependent upon me seeing it.

As for me supposedly insinuating that the course doesn't work, I've done no such thing.

[DMoriarty]

I can only comment on my own thought, and experiences. The Sand Hills are a very expansive place that make great distances seem small. The guests at Dismal river takes carts to both course whether they are walking the course or not, and it seems like they have unlimited property. All these factors make the experience out there unique. In addition, most guests are at Dismal for a few days and will be playing their second 18 at The Nicklaus course. To me, all these factors mean that not returning to the first tee with the 18th green is not that big a deal.
Now that we are discussing the merits of it, why do you think I it is a big deal?

I appreciate your description, Keith, and understand something about relative spacing in expansive spaces.  It makes sense why Dismal uses carts to get around, and I am not second guessing Tom's routing decision.   As I thought I wrote above to you, I don't think either of these things are a "big deal" so far as your course is concerned.  But I do think it matters when considering Tom's total body of work and his evolution as a designer, and when evaluating the routing, as David Elvins has mentioned. Whether it is a "big deal" so far as gca is concerned, time will well I guess.   At the very least it is an interesting topic to explore.  For me at least.

I will go ahead and admit that I may be biased. My favorite course is Shinnecock, and the 18th green is further and possibly more down hill from the first than Dismal.

I don't know about the elevation change, but I think you may be mistaken about the distances.

[David_Elvins]

David, what you call rules I would call traditions.  They have generally/mostly been true, but not always.  CPC e.g. features at least one long green to tee walk (15 to 16), and maybe more.  Barnbougle as I understand it has a long walk.  Highland Links has a walk of several hundred yards (450 to 500?) at one point.  

Hi Jim,

The long walk at Cypress Point is about 160 yards, the longest walk at Barnbougle about 110 (7 green to 8 tee).  The walk from 18 green to 1 tee at Dismal is about 800 yards. I do not think the comparison is reasonable.  

They aren't entirely unique, either.  Looks like the 1st tee at NGLA is a couple hundred yards from the clubhouse... and the 18th green sits a good distance away as well.

The first tee is next to the 18th green at The national.  They are less than 150 yardsfrom the clubhouse. Again,  I don't think it is a reasonable comparison.  

Cheating is not counting all your shots... or handling a football into the nets (ala Maradona's Hand of God 'goal', though still genius).  Not following a tradition -- that itself is not universal -- is cheating?  

I see where you are coming from, but when it comes to evaluating routings, I think the 'editing' counts.  

Take Sand Hills for example.  Coore and Crenshaw famously stated that they 'found 130 holes' during the routing process.  Surely a large part of the genius of the design process at Sand Hills was to edit these 130 holes down to 18 complimentary holes that started and finished in the same place?   That's what routing genius often is. Editing.  If Coore and Crenshaw had ended up building a 23 hole golf course that ended 3 miles from where it started, that is sloppy editing, and an easy way out.  Sure it may have had more great holes, and sure, there are no official 'rules' that must be followed, but the best of the best are the ones that take on the challenge to not break the rules/traditions, because this the hardest thing to do.  

[Jud_T]

David,

What about the walk from 11 green to 12 tee at Crystal Downs?  Have you played Diamante?