In an effort to return this conversation to golf course architecture, I reviewed the prior posts and there seem to be three routing concerns/questions/criticisms (however you want to phrase it) about the Red Course. Here are my thoughts on each, having played the course about half a dozen times.
• Ski Slope Architecture – In post # 91, Tim Weiman poses the following question:
“Tim Weiman - Regarding the ski slope idea, I don't like it generally speaking. It certainly doesn't sound like a good way to encourage walking, so that is a big strike against it in my book.
Is Dismal really a ski slope course?”
Tim, my answer is unequivocally NO. I am defining “ski slope architecture” to mean a course that starts at an elevated point and plays significantly and predominately downhill. I too agree that this wouldn’t be an ideal design philosophy, and I would not want to see it utilized in any great degree. To me it would seem like little more than a gimmick. Any site that would require such an approach due to its drastic nature probable isn’t a site that should be utilized for golf in the first instance.
That said, I can’t see anyone who has played Dismal Red thinking that ski slope architecture is in use there. Yes the course does finish at a lower elevation that it begins, but it is not a significant a difference given the landscape and I certainly don’t feel like I am playing a predominately downhill course. Utilizing a topo map with an areal overlay, it appears the 1st and 9th tees are approximately 3450 ft in elevation and the 18th green is approximately 3340-50 ft. I actually believe the 16th green to be the lowest point on the property (it is down river from the 18th) at 3330-40 ft. That is 110 feet in elevation difference. My best estimate of the 5th tee (what I think is the highest point on the property) to be about 3520 ft for a total elevation change of 190ish ft.
(Tom Doak notes in post #101 that there is a 200-250 ft change in elevation, so maybe my line counting is off. You are welcome to give it a shot yourself. The map I created can supposedly be accessed at
http://www.mytopo.com/review.cfm?mytopoid=109045437CB by clicking on the Preview hyperlink under Print Proof. It has 20ft topographical lines, so it does leave something to be desired. What it does reveal is how challenging it is to route a course on a topo.)
More important than the raw numbers, at least to me, is the feel. After you cross the road following the tee shot on the 9th, many of those holes have an uphill component and a downhill component, leaving you asking yourself if the hole was net uphill or downhill. For example, the 10th is overall downhill, but there is a big swale in the middle of the fairway that you walk uphill to get to the green. The 11th is an uphill par three. The 12th is significantly uphill on the tee shot. 13 plays downhill to the green, and 14 and 15 seem fairly level to me. The 16th is a slight downhill par three, followed by a hugely uphill tee shot on the 17th. The 18th plays slightly downhill. Overall, the feel of the golf course is certainly not one of playing significantly downhill and, at least in my mind, does not come close to the “ski slope architecture” concept discussed.
Nest, I see two related concepts in much of the routing debate: First is the notion of starting and ending near the clubhouse. Second is the notion of starting and finishing in the same place. I will address each separately.
• “Proximity to Clubhouse” – It is obviously the norm that most courses start and finish at the clubhouse, for obvious reasons. Exceptions do exist, Lost Dunes for example.
At Dismal, I don’t think proximity to the clubhouse is an issue at all. First, the distance from the clubhouse to the first tees on the White and Red are longer than any other course I am aware of. That much is obvious. But the sandhills is as biggest and grandest environment in terms of scale that I have ever seen. That makes a huge difference. In Manhattan, five miles is journey. In Houston, it’s just down the road. In Mullen, five miles is literally next-door.
The same applies to the first tee. There aren’t many places that it would work, but Nebraska is one of the few places that it does. And here is the thing about that cart ride to the first tee. I love it. When you are at Dismal, you are essentially living in the clubhouse complex. You eat there. You sleep there. Your car’s there. You get drunk and gamble there. It is your home for the duration of your stay. I generally take large groups of guests when I go. I am organizing the day’s matches, making sure people know what the plan is, etc. When I hop in that cart, it is golf time. I love driving past the “Play Like a Champion Today” sign on the way to the White. I love driving down the valley with the Red Course in view. It builds anticipation and is a crescendo of excitement. You know you are about to go do something special. I love it and am glad those few minutes are there. In the same way, I get that feeling when I escape the office and jump in my car to head to the course. I have escaped. My mind begins preparing for the round. Eagerness and excitement build. I have gotten three speeding tickets on the way to the golf course. I have never gotten one on my way home.
I took an informal poll of my 9 guests from last year and asked them how they felt about the Red Course being far from the clubhouse. I basically got some version of the following response: “WTF are you talking about. The Red Course is the one that finishes below the clubhouse, right?”
• “Open Jaw” – Many have questions regarding the decision to end the 18th where it is, and I believe that is fair game for conversation. It isn’t something you see very often.
Tom Doak provided the best explanation of the rationale in Post #16, which was affirmed by Chris Johnson throughout. I don’t have anything to add to the “why” because I am neither the course designer nor the owner.
However, I can share some insight on the feel of the routing. Perhaps this is my own naivety or bias, but the thought that it doesn’t end at the first tee and somehow that is bad would have never entered my mind. When I first read that criticism before I had been out there, I had to go back and look at the routing map. I didn’t notice it. Again, I sent an email poll to the 9 guests I took out there last year and not a single one identified the 18th as being in an unusual location or oddity relative to anything. I got several WTF are you talking about responses as well. If anything, I think it is absolutely in the correct spot for the 18th green below the clubhouse high upon the hill. If anything, it would be the first tee that I would chose to relocate.
I think the same sense of scale is at play here too. Anywhere else, a 700 yard distance to the 1st tee would not work as well. In Mullen, it feels like a short par 4 as someone characterized it, even though it is not. Plus, it feels connected with the 9th hole in the vicinity, so it doesn’t feel as though it is off on its own.
I think routing, like designing an airplane or boat, is largely an exercise in compromise. There is no perfect routing. In reality, the best routing is one that solves a complex set of problems presented by nature, practicality, convention, and at times environmental or other regulations. Here, I think dispensing with convention highlights the genius of the finding the correct answer to the routing question, rather than somehow implying that it was cheating to do so.
Hope this at least returns the discussion on some level to the architecture if nothing else.
Cliff