[Brian Finn]

I played Dormie yesterday and enjoyed it as much as ever. I've played it several times, in different seasons, and the conditions have always been excellent for me.  I don't have time right now for a lengthy post, but I just had to comment on #10.  I think it is a really bad golf hole.  My three friends (including one who is longer than most) agreed. I love Dormie, but the 10th is terrible.  Of course, I also think both #3 and #12 are outstanding, but what do I know.

[David_Madison]

Erik - the distance sure seems longer than 110 yards, especially with the uphill aspect, but please also keep in mind that this supposes a lay-up to just short of the sand. My guess is that the typical third shot after laying up will be 130 yds or so, and with the slope play closer to 150. Not impossible, but for a good number of players a more challenging situation than what might be more appropriate for a short par-5 as they can't elevate their mid-irons or fairway woods sufficiently to handle the hill. I like the hole for better players but I feel that weaker players are at a greater than normal disadvantage.

[BCowan]

David,


I'm calling BS. The average 18 capper ain't having anymore problems with Dormie 17 then MP 5. First off they aren't laying up well to 130 if they have slow swing speeds. You are treating average player like a paraplegic, 130-150 yard shot including elevation.  Uphill, easy bunker to play out of and NO water. It is far from easy birdie for better player. It's an exceptional par 5. Probably the best par 5 in the Sandhills of NC.  There is really too much hate for greatness.  Just admit it, it's okay to be wrong

[Sean_A]

As on the turbo boost holes, the big hitter gets a huge advantage on 17.  I gotta wonder what C&C were thinking with so many holes of this ilk and 17 is worse because of its penal nature.  Folks are forgetting wind...the first time I played 17 it was driver, 7 wood well short of sand (had to lay up) and a hard 5 iron up the hill.  I don't think the hole is far off being very good.  The waste area needs some sort of fairway through it (or perhaps at a diagonal to offer a choice of carry distance) so the shorter hitters can at least attempt to keep pace with the big hitters.  That said, I am not a big fan of cutting off fairways when distance is a primary factor of a hole. This type of design plays into the hands of better golfers which often doesn't make much sense on non championship courses.  Maybe there were other considerations in play for C&C?  It can be difficult to make a steeply uphill shot such as this attractive.  Generally speaking, the 5s are by far the low point of Dormie with the 4s being the high point.  As I say, the coure is very close to being excellent...it just needs an experienced arhie to come in and simply the design a bit and build loads of boardwalks and bridges. 


Ciao

[David_Madison]

Ben - Call whatever you want. You love #17 and the entire course for that matter and even use the word think "great." Sorry, but I don't agree. It's a good course with a lot of good holes. It could have been outstanding but it's not. Disjointed, heavily unbalanced towards certain players (for example me and my game), not finished - - seems to me like a good course that had tons of potential to achieve to the extreme but doesn't quite deliver. The site had all the potential to yield a course that would be every bit as fantastic as anything C&C ever designed. Surprising for a C&C course, as almost every one I've played has delivered more than expected, where the overall playing experience exceeds the merits of each hole. I had tremendous hopes for Dormie when I first played it as I was seriously considering joining it before even seeing it, but quickly realized that while I'd be happy playing there every so often it wasn't a course I'd want as my primary.

No "hate" here. Just a discussion hoping to distinguish "good" from "excellent" from "great". You shouldn't over-use the word "great" as you then lose the impact when you want to describe something that truly is great or even elite.

[BCowan]

Sean,


 Man up, Re order your man card. You don't put fairway in between Hells half acre. The shaping is incredible up on the 17.  Maybe you should have hit 3 wood for your 2nd. The land was beyond maximized on that hole. I guess they could move the goal post up for you .  It might be the 2nd or 3rd best par 5 I've played, Def best in Pinehurst area. 


David,


I have Dormie outside my US top 25, around a Doak 6.4, so don't go twisting my words. 17 is great and exceptional. The course is Good, not great. You hate exceptional par 5s.  Any hole into the wind for 18 capper that's weak hitting is going to be at a disadvantage with scratch. You are starting to sound like a liberal.  Do u realize how many golden age tracks had holes particularly par 3s that 95% of the people couldn't hit in reg. Luckily the fair police weren't patrolling.  Think it over, let it sink in, then you can tell me you have seen the light..

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - the distance sure seems longer than 110 yards, especially with the uphill aspect, but please also keep in mind that this supposes a lay-up to just short of the sand. My guess is that the typical third shot after laying up will be 130 yds or so, and with the slope play closer to 150. Not impossible, but for a good number of players a more challenging situation than what might be more appropriate for a short par-5 as they can't elevate their mid-irons or fairway woods sufficiently to handle the hill. I like the hole for better players but I feel that weaker players are at a greater than normal disadvantage.

David, c'mon. Just admit that you mis-remembered it or something. These yardages that we're talking about are from the back tees. It's a (sub-)500-yard-hole playing only 30 feet uphill. It's reachable for virtually everyone. My 14-year-old daughter could reach it in three.

Dormie #17 is one of the best holes on the course, and you're talking silly with your "unreachable" bit. You'd have more traction claiming 13 is unreachable (in two) for some players… not that I think that matters. Call it a par 4.5.

When I played 17 I drove a bit further right than I'd have liked, and had about 216 to the flag. I considered playing short of the bunker, very briefly, before I hit hybrid (I figured it was playing 225-230). Worst case my ball lands a bit short and rolls back 10 yards or so. My ball landed just short and left of the bunker and hopped up to the spot you can see in my first post in this topic… about 15 feet behind the flag for eagle.

Except for being yet another right-to-left hole, I can't think of anything I'd change about the hole. My playing partners laid up. Two laid up short, one laid up across the sand, leaving himself a 60-yard pitch.

[Sean_A]

Sean,


 Man up, Re order your man card. You don't put fairway in between Hells half acre. The shaping is incredible up on the 17.  Maybe you should have hit 3 wood for your 2nd. The land was beyond maximized on that hole. I guess they could move the goal post up for you .  It might be the 2nd or 3rd best par 5 I've played, Def best in Pinehurst area. 


David,


I have Dormie outside my US top 25, around a Doak 6.4, so don't go twisting my words. 17 is great and exceptional. The course is Good, not great. You hate exceptional par 5s.  Any hole into the wind for 18 capper that's weak hitting is going to be at a disadvantage with scratch. You are starting to sound like a liberal.  Do u realize how many golden age tracks had holes particularly par 3s that 95% of the people couldn't hit in reg. Luckily the fair police weren't patrolling.  Think it over, let it sink in, then you can tell me you have seen the light..

Get a grip. 17 ain't a patch on #2's 5th (or 8th for that matter)....a proper risk reward hole that still allows for shorter hitters. 


This last time I hit 3 wood on 17 from the forward tee of 450 yards (it is an impossible carry for me from the proper par 5 tee).  I reckon the carry must have been about 175ish (220ish to the middle of the green), didn't quite make it after a decent, but not my best hit.  Even from the 450 tees it requires two very good hits for me to make the carry.  I reckon the elevation rise requires an extra 3 clubs...so 450 plays far more like 485ish with the carry in two at about 435ish yards...maybe more and with no wind present.  There is a very small percentage of golfers who carry the ball that far in two shots.  In fact, the number of people who carry the ball 400 in two on the flat is quite small....I would guess maaaaaybe 25%.  The hole doesn't do much for me when I know it favours big high ball hitters so much...especially when it doesn't require a terrific degree of accuracy.  You like the hole, I am ambivalent.  I think with tweaking it could be much better, more like #2's 5th     If not for the turbo boost right to lefter holes I would probably be more sympathetic to 17. 


Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean,


BS, 5 and 8 aren't even the best 3 shooters at #2, 10 is.  Not every hole has to be fair risk reward for short hitters. U need to see ur local PGA Professional and get in the weight room.


You are all over the place, I meant 3 wood on 2nd to lay up. My buds have played with u, trying to carry the HHA is too much for your game.  Driver, 3 wood, 8 iron from 110.  So your miss hits should clear it, u want a trophy for 8th place man.  Sean the hole is 450, plays 480 and it would be 420 for 2 shot carry.  Can't there be holes where 1/10 times u make thr carry and it gives u sense of accomplishment that golden age archies believed in. U wanna be a winner all the time without any effort.  You sound like Trevino with ur whining about right to left holes. Very much a rater prespective too, watch out for the guy with the measure stick Ross said.  The land may have yielded better holes right to left.


How does the hole not require accuracy, u don't drive it in the faieway u have a forced lay up most likely. From the tips I've had times where I had to think about laying up. Sign of a great hole. 

[Sean_A]

Ben

My game has deteriorated immensely with a nagging wrist injury that will not go away.  I have gone from a 7 to someone who can't play to 12.   

You really do have a pickled brain.  The 5th is universally (minus 1) proclaimed as a great hole...get on board.  I can't understand you logic with 10. It too is a cape style hole, but without the excellent terrain.  Its good, but not exceptional. 

As I say...we go round in circles.  You think the 17th is awesome I am ambivalent.  I am just thankful you aren't an archie 

Ciao

[David Davis]

I really like Dormie Club, there are lot of good to excellent holes already mentioned and I honestly don't consider the course to have any bad holes. I do think the routing is a little confusing and disjointed for walkers at a couple points.


I wouldn't agree that 10 is a bad hole and I've not once managed to hit the drive that's required to get properly into the speed slot. I think I'm always trying to over hit. I like the 2nd shot on 10 as it makes you make choices which many 2nd shots on par 5's don't.


I've always played really early and actually only with GCA'er Cory Lewis each time. Few know the course better than Cory which is lucky for me as I don't have to figure anything out and can just enjoy the architecture. Plus I don't even have to ask the line, Cory steps up and hits the perfect line and I can just smile and say so that's a good spot to aim for right...


17 is also one of my favorite par 5's in the area for sure and I agree it's very Pine Valley like. I think to say that is not a good or fair hole would be the same as saying Pine Valley doesn't have many of those. It is tough, if you want to go for it in two and each time I've played I hit 3 wood as my second shot (I'm not very long off the tee) and we played the back tee last time. Somehow I made it in two, a rare feat for me in general.


12 is another hole that I like, heck I liked it even before I hit my 1st and only ace (back left pin position) this summer when I was there. I think a radical green on a 100+ yds par 3 is the least you could expect.


I fall into the category regarding 18 that doesn't love the tee shot and how it works. I've hit a couple different clubs there and each time hit through he fairway. My bad of course but there doesn't seem to be much room to play to in order to give yourself a decent approach to this extremely long and semi narrow green. Never the less a solid finishing hole even though I don't love the drive. Excellent green! Last play I was cruising along with one of my better scoring days in a while, an ace and 4 birdies and 18 killed me making a triple after what I thought would be a workable drive. Maybe that makes it a great hole...

[BCowan]

Sean,


     The 5th I used to think was amazing, can't hold candle to #3 and #9. 5 was a 4 when I played it, they went back to a 5.  So u are an elevation whore. Elevation is required for greatness and u think ur wiser.


Did 90% of folks hit #4 at Belvedere in reg 235 yard hole?  Maybe ull rethink ur nonsense and come around.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I really like Dormie Club, there are lot of good to excellent holes already mentioned and I honestly don't consider the course to have any bad holes. I do think the routing is a little confusing and disjointed for walkers at a couple points.

I agree that it's a bit confusing. Even in a cart (they wouldn't allow us to walk, but in their defense, we hadn't asked until that morning), there were some weird long drives that passed by other tees or holes to get to where you needed to go. Other times the tees were about as close as a safe, modern green/tee complex can be.

I wouldn't agree that 10 is a bad hole and I've not once managed to hit the drive that's required to get properly into the speed slot. I think I'm always trying to over hit. I like the 2nd shot on 10 as it makes you make choices which many 2nd shots on par 5's don't.

I agree with all of that. I think 10 isn't the best hole there, but I'd put it above a few of the others at Dormie Club.

I've always played really early and actually only with GCA'er Cory Lewis each time. Few know the course better than Cory which is lucky for me as I don't have to figure anything out and can just enjoy the architecture. Plus I don't even have to ask the line, Cory steps up and hits the perfect line and I can just smile and say so that's a good spot to aim for right...

Slightly off topic question if you don't mind David… don't you like to have to "figure things out"? For me, part of enjoying the architecture is trying to "figure things out."

12 is another hole that I like, heck I liked it even before I hit my 1st and only ace (back left pin position) this summer when I was there. I think a radical green on a 100+ yds par 3 is the least you could expect.

My only beef with 12 is that the first two or three times you play it you may not really be aware of what you can't see. I don't mind blind shots in general, but the 12th feels like a blind tee shot on a par five with a pond lurking just over the hill… Two of my playing partners had no idea that their shots, both to within 20' of the hole, were going to take three more putts to finish the hole, while mine which was only a few yards shorter than theirs on the back slope trickled down to 2'. In short, the hole requires/rewards a bit too much luck the first few times around for my tastes. I can fully appreciate that it's a much better hole the fifth time around than the first.

[Jason Topp]

I have enjoyed this thread.  One criticism I do not understand is that the routing is disjointed.  I get it in the situations where the walk from the tee to the fairway has not been maintained (such as 15).  I see that as a maintenence issue rather than a design issue. 

However, I do not at all understand any other issues with the routing. I recall Brad Klein raising that issue in his raters notebook and others raising similar issues here.

The only point on the course where the green to tee walk is anything but straightforward is getting from 6 green to 7 tee.  There you might have to walk behind the 14th tee.  I see no reason why such a walk should be considered a problem with the course.

The only other way I could see someone raising the routing is problematic is the fact you are constantly changing directions, often in triangles.  I do recall feeling somewhat disoriented walking around the course and trying to keep straight which way the wind was blowing, particularly as trees caused it to swirl.  However, I thought Muirfield's routing was highly praised for taking precisely the same approach?  Is there something wrong with challenging the player to understand and deal with these challenges?

[Brian Finn]

I have enjoyed this thread.  One criticism I do not understand is that the routing is disjointed.  I get it in the situations where the walk from the tee to the fairway has not been maintained (such as 15).  I see that as a maintenence issue rather than a design issue. 

However, I do not at all understand any other issues with the routing. I recall Brad Klein raising that issue in his raters notebook and others raising similar issues here.

The only point on the course where the green to tee walk is anything but straightforward is getting from 6 green to 7 tee.  There you might have to walk behind the 14th tee.  I see no reason why such a walk should be considered a problem with the course.

The only other way I could see someone raising the routing is problematic is the fact you are constantly changing directions, often in triangles.  I do recall feeling somewhat disoriented walking around the course and trying to keep straight which way the wind was blowing, particularly as trees caused it to swirl.  However, I thought Muirfield's routing was highly praised for taking precisely the same approach?  Is there something wrong with challenging the player to understand and deal with these challenges?

Great post.  I couldn't agree any more.

[John Foley]

The only other way I could see someone raising the routing is problematic is the fact you are constantly changing directions, often in triangles.  I do recall feeling somewhat disoriented walking around the course and trying to keep straight which way the wind was blowing, particularly as trees caused it to swirl.  However, I thought Muirfield's routing was highly praised for taking precisely the same approach?  Is there something wrong with challenging the player to understand and deal with these challenges?

And thats why Dormie is great - you are always moving in orientation. It's a great routing for this fact alone. Bravo Jason!!

[Jerry Kluger]

I had asked but got no response to my question concerning ownership of Dormie - I was told it was sold to a foreign investor - anyone know if this is true?


It has always seemed to be that with not too much more money spent on the course it will become far greater than it is now.

[Brian Finn]

I had asked but got no response to my question concerning ownership of Dormie - I was told it was sold to a foreign investor - anyone know if this is true?

It has always seemed to be that with not too much more money spent on the course it will become far greater than it is now.

The folks in the shop told us the buyer was based in Omaha, NE.

[Jay Mickle]

Money I am told may change hands later this week, but that is what I heard a couple of months ago.
In other local golf course sale/no sale news: the sale of Forest Creek has fallen through.
http://www.thepilot.com/news/proposed-sale-of-forest-creek-falls-through/article_0f98dc3e-c0ca-11e7-a654-d3eaffcc112d.html

[David_Madison]

Jason - the problem with the routing isn't the flow from hole to hole. The problem is with the walk within the holes, from the teeing areas to the fairways. Because of water, swampy areas, or whatever, there are a number of holes where you have to walk pretty much on cart paths that take you on a circuitous route around the unwalkable areas and then lead back to the fairways. The degree that you are diverted isn't atypical of cart golf but it's too much for walkers to leave one feeling they are always moving forward from the tee to your ball. Some of this may be addressable by finishing walkways (planned?) thru the hazard areas, but fact of the matter is that this hasn't been done.

Ben - I don't hate exceptional par-5's; that's a bizarre statement on your part. I love them, especially as they are so rare, so it's you that's twisting my words. In the Sandhills area I'd give that moniker to Mid-Pines #15 way before I'd ever attach it to Dormie #17. I love the 18th at Pebble, #4 at Old Town, and most of the 5's at Ridgewood CC as well as others I've played that truly stand out. I believe you've used the word "great" to describe Dormie or elements thereof more than just as it pertains to #17, but if in fact you haven't, and you believe that the only great element at Dormie is #17, then please accept my apologies. But me sounding like a liberal? Wow!

[BCowan]

Jason - the problem with the routing isn't the flow from hole to hole. The problem is with the walk within the holes, from the teeing areas to the fairways. Because of water, swampy areas, or whatever, there are a number of holes where you have to walk pretty much on cart paths that take you on a circuitous route around the unwalkable areas and then lead back to the fairways. The degree that you are diverted isn't atypical of cart golf but it's too much for walkers to leave one feeling they are always moving forward from the tee to your ball. Some of this may be addressable by finishing walkways (planned?) thru the hazard areas, but fact of the matter is that this hasn't been done.

Ben - I don't hate exceptional par-5's; that's a bizarre statement on your part. I love them, especially as they are so rare, so it's you that's twisting my words. In the Sandhills area I'd give that moniker to Mid-Pines #15 way before I'd ever attach it to Dormie #17. I love the 18th at Pebble, #4 at Old Town, and most of the 5's at Ridgewood CC as well as others I've played that truly stand out. I believe you've used the word "great" to describe Dormie or elements thereof more than just as it pertains to #17, but if in fact you haven't, and you believe that the only great element at Dormie is #17, then please accept my apologies. But me sounding like a liberal? Wow!

David,


    #15 is prob the weakest par 5 at MP.  #6 and #10 are the strongest IMO.  I haven't played Pebble but as my wise friend says, until technology go juiced, it was a boring hole.  3 wood, 4 iron, boring wedge to the green, seems a 460 par 4 would be superior IHO and it makes sense to me.  You got #4 at Old Town right.  Apology excepted.  When you say #17 plays easy for better players and difficult for your standard 18 capper, I disagree.  The problem is it causes indecision for the average 18 capper not used to using their noggin.  All without water, brilliant. 

[Jason Topp]

Jason - the problem with the routing isn't the flow from hole to hole. The problem is with the walk within the holes, from the teeing areas to the fairways. Because of water, swampy areas, or whatever, there are a number of holes where you have to walk pretty much on cart paths that take you on a circuitous route around the unwalkable areas and then lead back to the fairways. The degree that you are diverted isn't atypical of cart golf but it's too much for walkers to leave one feeling they are always moving forward from the tee to your ball. Some of this may be addressable by finishing walkways (planned?) thru the hazard areas, but fact of the matter is that this hasn't been done.

Got it David.  I recognized that issue in my initial post but characterized it as finish work rather than routing.  Some of those paths were in place when I played there but were in pretty rough shape.  We had an adventure on 15! I agree that issue should be fixed but would not describe it as an issue of routing. 

[Sean_A]

Using the word routing is a tough one for laymen such as myself.  Since I am not an expert and don't know much about the nuts and bolts of budgets, restrictions etc of the courses I play, I use the term routing to refer to the walk, rhythm of holes, green to tee walks, does the course move forward or are there walk backs to tees, incorproration of the house  into the design, are the natural features used well and in a varied way.  I don't see much sense in trying to question the decision-making of where a course is routed unless I am well versed on the project  and suddenly become an expert archie. 

So the bottom line for me is yes, the routing of the holes (for whatever reasons) caused the awkward walks in the design.  Until the problem is mitigated it is a routing issue, for lack of a better way to describe the problem.  There are also a few awkward walks in the design which are not caused by wetlands.  Bottom line two, when Dormie is compared to good walking courses it does not fare well from a walking perspective or in the rythm of the holes (par 3 doesn't turn up until the 7th).  I think this issue is really a modern problem because so many sites are not conducive to a good walk.  This issue was a non starter back in the day.  I have said it before, the owners need to play Addington to gain a proper appreciation of what bridges can accomplish in making a ropey site a decent walk.

I admit to being hard on three shot holes because I rarely come across ones that are very good.  I don't think any of thr 5s at Mid Pines warrant special attention as outstanding holes.  Certainly none are nowhere near the class of #2's 5th.

Ciao

[David Davis]

Sean and David hit the nail on the head here. The best courses in terms of walking keep the rhythm and flow going, do not have extraordinarily long walks between holes and link awkward sections well. Not to mention tee to fairway/to green walks without out having to walk way out of your way.


Naturally you have to take into consideration that we are picking at straws here and being very critical.


For me not only what they mentioned makes a huge difference, a difference you don't have at other Coore & Crenshaw courses and something they are very good at.


For me another area to be specific that is less than ideal would be in the criss-crossing that occurs between 6,7, 13 and 14. Yes it works well enough but to me doesn't feel ideal. There may be another place too but off hand I can't perfectly remember it only haven't played twice and two years apart.


I would easily go as far to say the routing for walkers is the most convoluted routing of any C&C course I've played. Not a big deal IMO because they are great routers of courses and if I had to guess I'd say there may have been something changed during the process in terms of hole layout, though I honestly have no idea. It just doesn't feel like there normal clean, smooth flowing routing.

[BCowan]

Using the word routing is a tough one for laymen such as myself.  Since I am not an expert and don't know much about the nuts and bolts of budgets, restrictions etc of the courses I play, I use the term routing to refer to the walk, rhythm of holes, green to tee walks, does the course move forward or are there walk backs to tees, incorproration of the house  into the design, are the natural features used well and in a varied way.  I don't see much sense in trying to question the decision-making of where a course is routed unless I am well versed on the project  and suddenly become an expert archie. 

So the bottom line for me is yes, the routing of the holes (for whatever reasons) caused the awkward walks in the design.  Until the problem is mitigated it is a routing issue, for lack of a better way to describe the problem.  There are also a few awkward walks in the design which are not caused by wetlands.  Bottom line two, when Dormie is compared to good walking courses it does not fare well from a walking perspective or in the rythm of the holes (par 3 doesn't turn up until the 7th).  I think this issue is really a modern problem because so many sites are not conducive to a good walk.  This issue was a non starter back in the day.  I have said it before, the owners need to play Addington to gain a proper appreciation of what bridges can accomplish in making a ropey site a decent walk.

I admit to being hard on three shot holes because I rarely come across ones that are very good.  I don't think any of thr 5s at Mid Pines warrant special attention as outstanding holes.  Certainly none are nowhere near the class of #2's 5th.

Ciao

Couldn't disagree with you more.  The walking paths not being addressed is a Maint issue, not a design flaw.  Being that so few US folks walk, they made the smart decision to focus on grass maint. 


Please explain why the 5th is so great, I used to love it?  The green slants hard right to left so the 2nd has to be placed well.  The 3rd shot into #6 and #10 at MP is fantastic.  I need to play #2 again and will prob next winter.  The Par 5's are solid at MP, with 15 being the weakest and I think 5 should be a par 4.  The greens on 6 and 10 at MP are superior to #2 IMO. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()