THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[JC Jones]

HarbourTown
Diamanté
Crystal Downs
Dismal Red

Pretty good company.

Streamsong Red

Kiawah Ocean

[Bruce Wellmon]

Doesn't Kinloch have a "hog hole" par 3 between 18 and the clubhouse as Olde Farm?
Brights Creek does. Forest Creek does.

[JC Jones]

So does Forest Dunes.

[Bruce Wellmon]

Going to the game tomorrow Sparty?

[Tom Dunne]

Diamante is the 52nd best course in the world according to Golf Magazine and 55th best in the world according to Golf Digest.  As I recall, they shuttle you to the first tee, between nines and up from the 18th green.  
[/quote]

Jud, that's 1/3 accurate. Diamante starts and finishes right at the clubhouse--there is, however, a transfer between the nines for which many would want to hop in a cart. (Kapalua Plantation is like this, as well.)

Mark me down as an admirer of the routing for Dismal Red. The "open-jawed" routing stuff is pretty irrelevant to me. It probably wouldn't work most places, but it works for this club, in this location. The whole point of hauling your clubs out to the middle of Nebraska is to explore the Sandhills, and the Doak course covers a huge amount of cool/diverse ground. It's also an easy and highly enjoyable course to walk, which is a box that weaker routings are often unable to check off.

[DMoriarty]

Earlier in the discussion Don Mahaffey said something like he didn't believe in rules. David Elvins, IMO, went to the opposite extreme suggesting the DR routing was cheating.
. . .

Tim, I think it important to keep in mind the context of David Elvins' comments regarding his rules.  He was speaking about whether the routing at Dismal River was great in comparison to other great routings.   I won't speak to the routing at Dismal River, but I think that generally his point has merit if we keep in mind that context. 

Let's say we were are track geeks and we want to compare world class milers based on their times, but since no one runs the mile anymore we have them all go out and time themselves.   All the runners but one mark off a traditional quarter mile track, run four laps, and submit their times.  The last guy times himself in a straight line, running downhill and downwind.  Wouldn't it be unfair and unreasonable to compare the last guy on equal terms with the rest?   The last runner might be the best miler of them all, but we cannot reasonably compare him to the others because he wasn't subject to the same limitations as the rest of them.  Likewise, when a course designer chooses to disregard proximity between holes and/or when he chooses not to make ends meet, he is isn't subjecting his design to the same limitations as have long applied to golf courses.

But, the rules aren't cast in stone. The specifics of the site have to be considered. Other factors may also be important: Don makes a point about maintenance costs. That's quite valid, IMO.

I agree that there are many factors which might lead a designer to discard or stretch the time tested, traditional constraints. And so doing might result in an extremely enjoyable golf course that perfectly meets the needs of the members, customers, and clients.  Sometimes he might even stretch the constraints (starting on the high side of the clubhouse and finishing on the low side, for example) without breaking them, and might even be credited for so doing (see the long walk thread, for example.)  Nonetheless, if he does completely discard one or more of these traditional constraints, it wouldn't really make sense to try compare his routing to the great traditional routings, would it?

[Tim_Weiman]

David M:

I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.

Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.

It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.

The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.

Why did RTJ fire all his bullets right at the start at Spyglass Hill? Did that make sense? Was it the best option? I really don't know.

What about Merion? Lots has been written here about the course and many aspects of its development, but I don't recall a good routing discussion. Ditto for NGLA. Ditto for Royal Melbourne. And, how did Crump and his gang of supporters put things together at Pine Valley?

Again, I haven't a clue.

We have a long way to go to improve and it would be really cool if we did. I like greens and bunkers, but isn't routing really the most interesting part of the art form we all here love?

[DMoriarty]

Tim,  I agree.  Tom wasn't trying to win a routing contest.   But David Elvins was trying to evaluate a routing in comparison to the great routings.  The traditional constraints matter in that context, don't they?

As for the rest, I agree that routing is the most interesting part, and the least understood by laypersons like me.  That is another reason why issues like this one interests me.  

[Ben Sims]

David,

I find it interesting that your tagline is a quote by the late MacWood that touts letting go of legends and finding truth. I would ask you this, are you willing to let go of traditional constraints and let the golf course's "truth" at DR Red take you where it will?

[Tim_Weiman]

David M,

I can't imagine a student of architecture not being interested in routing, but it largely remains a mystery because, to my knowledge, so little documentation exists on what was going on in the architect's mind when routing decisions were made.

There is only one golf course in the world where I was close enough to the design and construction process to have a clue: Sand Ridge. About 25 routings were done and, to be candid, several were much more appealing than what was finally implemented. Environmental issues (close to a third of the property is wetlands) really drove much of the decision making.

That gets us to a point this DG has addressed before: when we evaluate routing, are we really talking about the architect's performance? Or are we necessarily limited to just making observations about what we see in the final product?

Often the two perspectives get confused. Maybe that has been true with Dismal River, I'm not sure.

David Elvin's use of the word "cheated" implies to me he was making an "architect's performance" assessment and to me that requires inside knowledge for which we would have to rely on project participants. At least that is what observing things at Sand Ridge taught me.

Again, I am an old school guy who likes the traditional rules, but maybe getting hung up on that at Dismal River wouldn't have made sense.

 

[DMoriarty]

Ben, If I played Dismal River Red I am pretty sure I would love it.

I am also pretty sure that after I would still be wondering whether non-returning routings are a positive development in golf course architecture.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Tim,

As routing goes, I thought the amateur routing contest threads a while back were an interesting way to get into the issue. I wasn't following the website at the time, but I went back and look at some of the entries and found it interesting. I am not sure that much detailed discussion came out of it, but it seemed to be a good potential starting point at least.

As for David's use of the word "cheated," I think David defined the term as not following the rules, didn't he? I think it probably means a bit more than that to me, but I don't think I should get into critiquing David's word choice.

[John Kirk]

I agree that there are many factors which might lead a designer to discard or stretch the time tested, traditional constraints. And so doing might result in an extremely enjoyable golf course that perfectly meets the needs of the members, customers, and clients.  Sometimes he might even stretch the constraints (starting on the high side of the clubhouse and finishing on the low side, for example) without breaking them, and might even be credited for so doing (see the long walk thread, for example.)  Nonetheless, if he does completely discard one or more of these traditional constraints, it wouldn't really make sense to try compare his routing to the great traditional routings, would it?

First of all, one would have to define what a traditional routing is.  Is it returning nines, out and back, concentric circular nines?  There are several so-called traditional routings.

In general, the routing of the golf course is somewhat transparent to me.  I play the golf course, and tend to judge it on its merits of playability and beauty.  There are aspects of club and course design which one would like to have, but would you really sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place?  Is that a sufficient answer to the question of the day?

So many great courses have non-traditional routings.  I know Kinloch well, which essentially has two nine hole courses separated by a levee.  Sand Hills, like Dismal River, starts and finishes away from the clubhouse.  There are lots of examples.  Perhaps it is best to add them to the list of great routing solutions, rather than label them as non-traditional.

Ben Sims and I talked at length tonight about Dismal River's new course: the efficiency in which water is moved around the course, the efficiency in which maintenance machinery is allowed to move around the course, and the minimization of earth movement required to build it.  We live in an era of diminishing natural resources.  Maybe these considerations trump or even redefine so-called traditional routings.

[Jud_T]

Diamante is the 52nd best course in the world according to Golf Magazine and 55th best in the world according to Golf Digest.  As I recall, they shuttle you to the first tee, between nines and up from the 18th green.  

Jud, that's 1/3 accurate. Diamante starts and finishes right at the clubhouse--there is, however, a transfer between the nines for which many would want to hop in a cart. (Kapalua Plantation is like this, as well.)



[/quote]

Tom,

You may be right about the first tee;  they probably just gave me a lift from the range, but I clearly remember the shuttle from 18 green back up the hill to the house.  While one could certainly walk it, I wouldn't characterize it exactly as finishing right at the house.

[Jud_T]

Interesting side note-  what do the rules of the 100 Hole Hike say about catching a ride between 18s on the same course?

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
To me, the routing of DR-Red is wonderful because it meets my #1 criteria - it provides great golf, AND a great journey.

[Lou_Duran]

David M:

I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.

Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.

It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.

The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.

Do you have this one?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471434809/qid=1152908698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6015765-2055130?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Tom_Doak]

David M:

I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.

Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.

It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.

The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.

Do you have this one?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471434809/qid=1152908698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6015765-2055130?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

I am (slowly) starting to work on my own book about routing ... a case study of all the courses I've built and how the routing evolved.  I think maybe I can sell a few to the members of my courses, and perhaps to people interested in becoming golf architects.

It is a great way to teach my associates and interns how to route a course, just going back through the process I've used.  I don't think I could set down many "rules" to how I start to find what I think are potential great holes, and of course I have fewer rules for putting them together than most architects do.  [Not caring if par is 72 or something else, and not caring if the routing returns at the 9th green, are the two biggest sources of freedom.]

I used to think I would NEVER build back-to-back par-3 holes on a course, because I could think of so few examples where it added to a great course [really, just at Cypress Point and Pulborough, and none of us will ever see a situation like Cypress Point in our careers].  But when I saw the place where it was the best solution, and really the only solution, I'm glad I was able to rewrite my "rule" and convince Mr. Keiser to overcome his skepticism as well.  I've since done it one other time -- as the final change to get 18 pieces to fit together at Rock Creek, but only after Eric Iverson suggested it -- and that course turned out pretty well, too.  But I'm still not likely to do it again unless it's absolutely the best solution.

The above is very similar to the thought behind the open-jaw solution to Dismal, and why it's so ludicrous to me that somebody thinks I'm going to ruin golf by breaking convention there.  The sky didn't fall because I built back-to-back par-3 holes, and it won't fall because of Dismal's routing, either.

This whole discussion has really been about routing, and that's been the problem ... hardly anyone who participates here can really understand such a discussion.

[Mike_Young]

Under the test of time, the golf whole trumps the golf hole...

[John Cowden]

I'm intrigued by the evolution of Dismal White, one of my favorite courses.  Assuming there's not a separate thread that addresses this, to what extent were the architect or others involved in White's evolution?

[William_G]

Under the test of time, the golf whole trumps the golf hole...

The whole course is greater than the sum of it's holes, 

[William_G]

IMO the main value of the golf course architect/designer on bare/virgin ground is to establish the routing

(I still don't see how Jack having first shot at DR figured his routing) 

am I wrong?

[JC Jones]

I am (slowly) starting to work on my own book about routing ... a case study of all the courses I've built and how the routing evolved.  I think maybe I can sell a few to the members of my courses, and perhaps to people interested in becoming golf architects.

It is a great way to teach my associates and interns how to route a course, just going back through the process I've used.  I don't think I could set down many "rules" to how I start to find what I think are potential great holes, and of course I have fewer rules for putting them together than most architects do.  [Not caring if par is 72 or something else, and not caring if the routing returns at the 9th green, are the two biggest sources of freedom.]

I used to think I would NEVER build back-to-back par-3 holes on a course, because I could think of so few examples where it added to a great course [really, just at Cypress Point and Pulborough, and none of us will ever see a situation like Cypress Point in our careers].  But when I saw the place where it was the best solution, and really the only solution, I'm glad I was able to rewrite my "rule" and convince Mr. Keiser to overcome his skepticism as well.  I've since done it one other time -- as the final change to get 18 pieces to fit together at Rock Creek, but only after Eric Iverson suggested it -- and that course turned out pretty well, too.  But I'm still not likely to do it again unless it's absolutely the best solution.

The above is very similar to the thought behind the open-jaw solution to Dismal, and why it's so ludicrous to me that somebody thinks I'm going to ruin golf by breaking convention there.  The sky didn't fall because I built back-to-back par-3 holes, and it won't fall because of Dismal's routing, either.

This whole discussion has really been about routing, and that's been the problem ... hardly anyone who participates here can really understand such a discussion.

This is just another in a long line of book teases....

[Chris Johnston]

I'm intrigued by the evolution of Dismal White, one of my favorite courses.  Assuming there's not a separate thread that addresses this, to what extent were the architect or others involved in White's evolution?

Howdy John!

Mr Nicklaus has been heavily involved in the evolution and, understandably, some ideas take time to embrace.  From the operators side, ideas are borne from member comments as to playability, curiosity and observation, and very close interaction with (our superintendent) Jagger.
 
Among a host of list items today are bunkers, as some can be more than a challenge to maintain.  This is one place where maintenance may collide with architecture.  I don't really like filling bunkers with sand, only to watch them blow out in days or weeks, and filling them again.  In this case, we have to ask the designer if the bunker really is important, or if there is a workable alternative.  

Next, the White course also has some areas where turf is on rather steep slopes, making it a struggle to achieve the optimal turf conditions we all want.  If a mower beats up a fairway or green (e.g. scalping, tire spinning) simply my mowing, and if a change in methodology can't fix it, a change should probably be considered.

The third area is playability.  In short, is a hole fair for all types of player?  There is one hole in particular that is nearly impossible for a shorter hitter (man or woman) to execute the tee shot to the fairway.  That is on my list as we want to accomodate players of most all levels.  Quirk is fine if it meets that goal and change must be considered if it doesn't.

As Tom Doak stated elsewhere, after a few years, it may be a good thing to revisit the work to see how it's matured and to see if what was wanted is actually what is there.  Usually after some period, things like maintenance issues, grassing, or playability issues become more clear.  Then again, Tom is the best I've seen at getting things right from the start.  Although I've never asked Tom or Don, I'd bet we would have the same list of things to keep an eye on...wind exposed areas, wear area, bunkers, mowing lines, etc.  

I believe it unavoidable that architecture is closely tied to maintenance...simply, they must be together to work.

Hope it helps.

[Dan Herrmann]

BTW - Tom Doak is right.  Almost no "Civilian" has an idea what goes into routing a course (myself included).

[Jaeger Kovich]

One thing I think so many people here are overlooking is: The Dismal River property is NOT like Sandhills'. Aside from 1 or two places, nobody on the crew was looking just left, or just right of any of the holes and "finding" holes everywhere. There is the par-3 just past 12 green which would have cost a small fortune in pipe to build, along with a 2nd bridge and maybe 1 or two others. The property past #2 and #3 is too steep and a lot of the stuff in the middle of the front 9, doesn't really yield anything better.

CJ - Wear and wind erosion is certainly something to be mindful of, but to me the most important thing is the first 5 yards of transition into the native grasses. Its an ongoing battle and one that few get totally correct, but it makes such a huge difference in the playability.