Dismal River (White Course) profile is posted ...

[Jim Nugent]

White has always suffered because of the comparison to its next-door neighbor, Sand Hills, which is uniformly regarded as one of the most important courses built in America in the past 70 years or so.  How's that for competition! 

... If the White was the only destination course in the Sand Hills it would be in the Top 50 USA. 

I wonder if that last statement is true.  Pacific Dunes faces three other neighboring courses that are widely regarded as fantastic.  Yet it still established and holds onto its place among America's great courses.  Same with the other Bandon courses. 

Without having played Dismal, it seems to me a couple things hold it back in the rankings.  First, the course as unveiled to the public apparently wasn't just rough around the edges.  From what I read, parts of it were near unplayable.  While the club and Nicklaus have changed that, that's taken time, and it's hard to overcome those first impressions. 

Second is an idea I got from reading Michael George's post.  He said, "If the measure of a good golf course is one that gets better the more that you play it, then Dismal River fits that description.  I did not know what to think of it after my first round.  By my third round, I was hooked and have loved it since."

So it took Michael three rounds to 'get' DRW.  Similar, in a way, how it takes many golfers a number of rounds to get and appreciate TOC.  But how many magazine raters play DRW multiple times?  My guess is many do not.  If they base their ranking on one play, no surprise it doesn't do as well as it might. 

When DRW opened, lots GCAers criticized it.  I almost never see that any more.  I almost entirely see strong approval ranging up to near-total love. 

I really enjoyed the parts of the profile that told how involved Jack was in the routing process.  That sounds like a lot more than the 'editing' role I thought he fills on his courses. 

It does interest me that with all the kudos DRW now gets on GCA.com, most here seem to prefer Tom's course.  As Terry said, "Everybody is going to go hole-by-hole with the Red vs. White and Red will win every time.  That's reality."

Is that right?  If so, where would you guys rank both these courses? 
 

[Bob Montle]

This looks like a fantastic course, one that would be lots of fun to play.
And isn't that what it's all about?

Ran, I thought your pics were fine.  They reminded me a lot of Fraserburgh.

[Paul Gray]

Ok, so the average rise might not be 30 foot but I'd be reluctant to mark it down because of said feature, particularly not at 140 yards.   

Paul:


If I thought of the hole as being 140 yards I would probably not be as negative about it ... but, there is a back tee at about 200 yards.


Also, those sorts of shots are extra-harsh in an environment like the Sand Hills.  How do you hold the green when you've got a 20-MPH wind at your back?  [Going over the back is not so good, either.]  And how is the 200-yard shot when you've got a 20-MPH wind in your face?  One of my main observations about the course was that it didn't seem like Jack worried much at all about the effect of the wind on play.  Maybe he doesn't have to think about it the same way I do.


The course has come a long way from the first time I saw it.  I don't know why JC [or anyone else] would be surprised that I don't like it as much as I like my own, but it's certainly nothing personal towards Jack Nicklaus.

Your mention of Jack not having to think about the problems in the way you (or I) do is, of course, a recurring theme in Jack's work, not to mention any number of other pros who don't perhaps have the capability to perceive the game from the eyes of us mortals. In fact, purely based on the few pictures here, my overall impression is that a big carry could be a big advantage on the White Course. My low linksy drive might not be ideal, I thought.
 
Anyway, I suspect I'd agree with your assessment of the hole from 200 yards with a 20mph wind at your back, assuming then that there aren't sufficient contours to land on or just short of the green and run the ball in. I guess that 200 yard tee might not cause such a big issue for a Bubba Watson and a wedge, although that really just raises the bigger question of golfers playing the right tees. As a four handicapper (admittedly one with early onset arthritis who doesn't work on his game anymore and hopes to level out at five or six soon), that's a 140 yard short hole for me all day long.

[Mac Plumart]

White has always suffered because of the comparison to its next-door neighbor, Sand Hills, which is uniformly regarded as one of the most important courses built in America in the past 70 years or so.  How's that for competition! 

... If the White was the only destination course in the Sand Hills it would be in the Top 50 USA. 

I wonder if that last statement is true.  Pacific Dunes faces three other neighboring courses that are widely regarded as fantastic.  Yet it still established and holds onto its place among America's great courses.  Same with the other Bandon courses. 

Without having played Dismal, it seems to me a couple things hold it back in the rankings.  First, the course as unveiled to the public apparently wasn't just rough around the edges.  From what I read, parts of it were near unplayable.  While the club and Nicklaus have changed that, that's taken time, and it's hard to overcome those first impressions. 

Second is an idea I got from reading Michael George's post.  He said, "If the measure of a good golf course is one that gets better the more that you play it, then Dismal River fits that description.  I did not know what to think of it after my first round.  By my third round, I was hooked and have loved it since."

So it took Michael three rounds to 'get' DRW.  Similar, in a way, how it takes many golfers a number of rounds to get and appreciate TOC.  But how many magazine raters play DRW multiple times?  My guess is many do not.  If they base their ranking on one play, no surprise it doesn't do as well as it might. 

When DRW opened, lots GCAers criticized it.  I almost never see that any more.  I almost entirely see strong approval ranging up to near-total love. 

I really enjoyed the parts of the profile that told how involved Jack was in the routing process.  That sounds like a lot more than the 'editing' role I thought he fills on his courses. 

It does interest me that with all the kudos DRW now gets on GCA.com, most here seem to prefer Tom's course.  As Terry said, "Everybody is going to go hole-by-hole with the Red vs. White and Red will win every time.  That's reality."

Is that right?  If so, where would you guys rank both these courses?

Jim,


I think you are right on your points in this post.


As for the hole by hole, we tried this awhile back...


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58048.0.html


Red did not win on everyone's scorecard. 

[Chris Johnston]

Thanks to Ran for taking the time and making the effort on this review.  I've always been vexed by the lack of appreciation for the White Course, and believe it to be far better than its rankings.  Comparing it to Sand Hills, or Tom's courses, probably does it a disservice but that certainly seems to be the trend.  I have yet to understand the why that that is, as this course would be at the very top in most places.  It could be Jacks most unique course and I agree that should alone be appreciated.  A stunningly beautiful course, very good flow and variety, and a number outstanding holes!   Fun!


Wrt #5, probably 99% of players play it at 150 yards and here the hole is both interesting and fair - a hole you rarely see.  We've thought about decommissioning the back tee but that would limit options and, to me, options are good for members who normally play multiple rounds over several days.  I agree this hole is a lot less extreme than #13 at SHGC, and I like that hole a lot. 


Truth is, the notion of wind out here is real, and any hole can be a handful.

[Tim Pitner]

This is admittedly one from the cheap seats, but I find the bunker on #5 to be visually jarring from that photo (I haven't played it). The semi-volcano appearance of the bunker doesn't fit well with the hole, in my opinion. If the bump in the land was there, why not keep it without creating a bunker and perhaps add a bunker elsewhere? Or go bunker-less, that would be more unique. If the rise in the land was built, then I'm really at a loss. At least from that photo, it just looks odd to me.

[Rees Milikin]

I would be interested to read a comparison between DRW and Kinloch (NZ).  They appear to be outside the norm of what Nicklaus is known for designing and when both were in their first few years of existence were very, very tough.

If anyone has played both of these courses, please share your thoughts.

[Bruce Wellmon]

This is admittedly one from the cheap seats, but I find the bunker on #5 to be visually jarring from that photo (I haven't played it). The semi-volcano appearance of the bunker doesn't fit well with the hole, in my opinion. If the bump in the land was there, why not keep it without creating a bunker and perhaps add a bunker elsewhere? Or go bunker-less, that would be more unique. If the rise in the land was built, then I'm really at a loss. At least from that photo, it just looks odd to me.

This will give you an idea of the setting. There is bunkering/blow out to the left of the green. The entire ridge is not "smooth" with one jagged bunker.
 

[Josh Bills]

Ran,  Thank you for the write up, I thoroughly enjoyed the White course as well as the Red. 


I personally think 5 is a great hole and always felt it looked a lot like Shinnecock's 11th, and as someone whose ball rolled all the way back at Shinnecock, I think 5 is easier. 


Here is a photos form a few different angles.  Here is 5 (middle of the picture) from 4 tee box.





Here is a photo from green height showing there is plenty of surface up there. 





Here is a view from the 200 yard tee box and frankly I like the look of it with the blowout bunker on the left side coming into play and more of the green visible from that angle. 





By far one of my favorites is the 15th, just looks great with a storm rolling in...





A great spot with two amazing courses.  Nicklaus' course is well done and a fun to play.  I really need to get back out there!

[Kalen Braley]

Just to play devils advocate and needle Tom D a little bit while he's off to Alaska....
 
The 2nd shot into Pac Dunes #16 gives the golfer a similar kind of dilemma as #5, although its a par 4.
1) If you miss just a touch short it rolls all the way down the hill into a divot ridden wasteland and an almost impossible recovery shot to a green 20+ feet above you.
2)  The prevailing wind is usually directly behind the golfer on the approach so they have that dilemma of holding the green.
3)  While the green is wide, its not very deep from front to back, so making even a wedge approach stick can be tricky and must be accurate distance-wise.
4)  Going long over #16 results in either a nasty downhill long grass lie or a vicious bunker where one risks going off the front of the green...
 
Just sayin'   

[Kalen Braley]

I only played it once and got ripped a new one with a triple bogey....this after I was only 50 yards away from the green after my tee ball...

[Mac Plumart]

I only played it once and got ripped a new one with a triple bogey....this after I was only 50 yards away from the green after my tee ball...

 


Pretty sure I've made a triple there once or twice too!!  But I've been around 50, or so, times and things happen, like the occasional birdie!


Are you guys sure that tee shot from the back tee is 200 yards?  That seems long.  Pretty sure I hit my 170-180 club most of the time. 


I love that we have photos up of the back tee and middle tee on 5, as you can see the massive difference in angle, distance, and playability.  If you are playing back on the White, you better be good...or have the right mentality.  Frankly, that's one of the things I like about both courses...change in playability from different sets of tees.  If I'm playing my 3rd 18 of the day, it is fun to move up to the front tees on the White and bring just a few clubs.  Still fun hitting into those greens, but you don't have to horse power your long irons or woods.


Speaking of playing the tips...try the Red from back there.  Have fun on 7!!!!   




EDIT...Kalen, are you sure you don't mean 6 on White?  The short par 4?  Just making sure.  If you were "only" 50 yards from the hole on 5, you didn't hit a very good tee ball.   

[astavrides]

I only played it once and got ripped a new one with a triple bogey....this after I was only 50 yards away from the green after my tee ball...

too bad. sounded like a good layup.
 

[Kalen Braley]

I only played it once and got ripped a new one with a triple bogey....this after I was only 50 yards away from the green after my tee ball...

too bad. sounded like a good layup.

I knew not to get too close to the green with the drive and I thought I had laid back further, but I must have got a 1st big bounce or something cause I ended up in the big swale in front of the green.

[Bruce Wellmon]

You know, I have a fair amount of rounds on White and I have never hit this shot from this tee.
Next round, I'm hitting that.

[Sam Morrow]

Piece of advice, when you stand on 2 tee look back to 5 green. An amazing view, we played it from there several times and it's awesome.

[Michael Graham]

... under Architecture Timeline and Courses by Country.
 

Apart from it being a tough walk, I gleaned little. It reminds of a passage in 44 Scotland Street by Alexander McCall Smith that I am presently reading. In it, and I paraphrase, a long time resident of Edinburgh on his death bed whispers to his grandson, 'Don't ever trust someone from Glasgow.' The grandson asks why and the grandfather eventually responds, 'I can't remember.' 
 

Best,

Thanks for the tour Ran. Made me even hopeful over making it to the 5th Major one year. More importantly, as someone born and brought up in Edinburgh I wholeheartedly concur with Mr McCall Smith's character.


Michael

[Niall C]

That's the problem with Edinburgh folk, they have no idea what they are talking about. 


Tom D


Interested in your comments re the plateau green, 30 foot banks, windy conditions etc and you not being a fan. How does that chime with your rating of Dornoch in the CG ? To my eye the big weakness of Dornoch, apart from the back nine being more of a slog for average hitters like me, is the plateau greens yet you give it a 10 (if memory serves me right). I can't imagine that the White Course is any more windier than Dornoch either. So what is it about this green site that is different to those at Dornoch (and indeed elsewhere) ?


Niall

[Eric Smith]

Are you guys sure that tee shot from the back tee is 200 yards?  That seems long.  Pretty sure I hit my 170-180 club most of the time. 

[Jason Thurman]

You know, I have a fair amount of rounds on White and I have never hit this shot from this tee.
Next round, I'm hitting that.

This looks awesome to me.

[Sean Leary]

If there is a par 3 to criticize on the White it certainly shouldn't be that one I wouldn't think.

[Josh Bills]

If you go the tee box right behind the 4th green as where that photo was taken from, it varies from 170-200 depending on the pin.  R pin gets you 200.  I loved the play from over there.  It also serves as a means to cut over on 8, making it a great 280 yard hole, with a 250 carry to the fairway in front.  So many options on the White, though not as many as the Red, but still plenty of great cross country potential holes.   

[Dan Moore]

Kudos to Team Nicklaus for thinking way outside their box on this one.  Like others I have come to enjoy the White the more I have played it.  The par 5's are all excellent, there are a couple of fun short par 4's, a handful of great longer par 4's and great finishing stretch from 15-18.  Perhaps what holds DRW back is the fact the par 3's as a set leave a lot to be desired which is puzzling on such an expansive property.  From the Horseshoe Tees the par 3's in order measure 146, 141, 160 and 161.  Huh?  While 5 is not great its also not terrible.  Its weakness being in my opinion the fact it mandates only one way to play it via a high soft shot to the middle of the green regardless of where the pin is located. A pretty demanding shot (no surprise on a JN course) on an uphill, fairly blind par 3 often played in a stiff wind. If it were the weakest in a set of otherwise great par 3's I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. However then you get to Hole #10. One quirky par 3 I think you can get away with, but two doesn't work in my opinion and something I just don't get on a property where you really shouldn't have any weak holes.  And where is the variety?  I also think there is an easy fix for #10 that would improve all the par 3's as a set..  Just to the right and behind the ninth green is a ridge. From that ridge to the middle of the green its 225 yards and I think the green site would be pretty visible on a line over the snack hut about 30-40 yards right of the existing tee.  Blow out the bunker in the middle and make it a big two tiered green with a big punchbowl in the back and you'd have I think a great long par 3.  Play #5 fairly short maybe around 135-145 and spread #3 (155-165) and #15 (175-185) a bit apart and you'd you have really nice variety in the par 3's. 

[Mac Plumart]

Interesting comments, Dan.

Thanks for sharing.

[Matt Bosela]

Are you guys sure that tee shot from the back tee is 200 yards?  That seems long.  Pretty sure I hit my 170-180 club most of the time. 

Eric,


This looks like it comes from the Dismal River website.


Just curious - is there any reason why the website hasn't been updated to include the Red Course?  Perhaps there is something there but I couldn't find anything Red Course related when I visited the site recently.