Doak Scale

[Tom_Doak]

Paul T. -- I'd actually forgotten that was chess notation I was using in The Gourmet's Choice; haven't really been into chess since Fischer / Spassky when I was 12.

Others -- I'm glad George P. pointed out that a logarithmic scale can be any base.  Actually, though, I've thought of the Doak scale more in terms of quantum levels.

[George Pazin]

Math is more in my wheelhouse, but if need be, I'm sure I can make some weak analogies between the uncertainty principle & golf course rating. :-)

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Reilly,

I'm the fella who reported on courses in Myrtle Beach.

I've played a course or two...605 in 25 states and 4 countries to be exact, although I'm not sure if that's a badge of honor or a sign of seriously deranged obsession.  

Those courses I gave 7's to in Myrtle included The Dunes (I believe Doak gave it a 7 as well), Caledonia by Michael Strantz, and the Greg Norman course at Barefoot Resort.  I stand by those assessments.

By the way, I give Yale an 8, and am glad to hear you are going to play NGLA.  I'd be interested to hear how your thoughts.  

I hope I don't sound defensive and agree with your point about the fact that a golfer's experience with great courses would color where they might place courses using the Doak Scale, or any other rating system.

[RBoyce]

Mike Cirba,

I noticed you mentioned the Barefoot Resort in SC. Have you played the Dye course? I played it this summer (hot) while on vacation.

I am very inexperienced with the Doak scale, but I would guess that the Dye Course is probably a 5.

Side note: while the Dye course was open and costs more than the other 3 courses at Barefoot, the parking lot was an unpaved dust bowl and the clubhouse was still under construction as of mid-August.

[Jim Reilly]

Only 605? Really Mike you need to get out more. :-) I thought that statement might come back to bite me in the */?^#*, based on my recollection of the analyses.  I haven't seen any of the those courses so I can't say whether I disagree with you or not.  I guess when I think of MB, I think of manufactured courses that require a chart, which, even when well made, rarely rise to a 7 in my book.  On the other hand, you are not the first person whose opinion I respect who has liked Caledonia.  I haven't heard much discussion about the other 2.

I'll make sure I see those 3 next time I'm near the Grand Strand.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark Fine and Mike Cirba are people who have played many courses and I respect they're opinions and few others on GCA.

That's they key -- you need to know where people have played in order to understand their credentials BEFORE a number is given. Too many people are weighing in with opinions when they've only played a host of courses either from their own state or region of the country.

I've played 90 of the current GD listing and over 800 courses in the USA and several different foreign countries. I also review no less than 40-50 new courses per year that GD is looking closely at for year end honors. I also travel to the west coast no less than 3 times per year to key hot spots and if an individual layout is highly rated I'll visit as well (i.e. Pac Dunes, etc.)

Does that make me an expert? Not quite ... just someone with enough time to see what's out there. And, my opinions, are like my nose and ears ... they're mine for what they're worth. I just think we need to know the range of places played because that tells us a good deal with the consistency individuals assign rating numbers.

I also think that too many people are way too hard on their assessment of modern courses and have an absolute "cult" like tendency to give classic courses extremely high grades. The old "if it's a Raynor or Ross it must be great" approach.

It also helps to come from a public course background because I think too many people on GCA are assessing courses from a perspective in having been born on third base.

Just a humble opinion ...

[THuckaby2]

Matt - what you say makes a lot of sense... but... must we present our credentials before our opinions have validity?

I tend to go the other way and assume if someone has found this site, they must have a hell of an interest in golf course design, so I don't question their credentials.

I'll present mine if necessary: I'm Mike Cirba West.  Of course, it amuses me the "anal" nature of those who count and keep track of every course they've ever played, but what the hell it makes guys like Mike (and Bob Huntley, who I believe also has done this) just more endearing.  Hell, I wish I did keep track of such.

TH

[ForkaB]

Matt

By your criteria, the world's greatest authority on the relative merits of golf courses would be Gary Player, and the fact that you have missed out on 10 of GD's top 100 would make you an inferior authority to those numerous trophy hunters who make it a point to play every top whatever list that is published.

Don't confuse experience with expertise, nor even quantity and variety of experience with quality of experience.

I know a lot of players with relatively limited experience (either in number of courses played, or number of rounds played) whose opinion of a new course I would value as highly as anyone on this DG, and on this DG I value what someone is able to express much more than where he or she comes from.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich / Tom:

To me, the more experiences you have the greater the possibility your expertise will grow. Tom -- people can have interest and therefore they look at GCA, but a person's credentials go a long way, in my book, in ascertaining "how" they came to the conclusions they've reached.

The reason I have great respect for Tom Doak, among others on GCA, is that we HAS TAKEN the time to see and understand the many elements of golf course design throughout the world. He has forumlated opinions through personal observation, interviews with others in the field and through evolutionary and practical growth. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but I respect his analysis even though I may differ on his findings in a relatively small percentage of cases. Doak says in Confidential Guide that if you should disagree about 20% chalk it up to human differences of opinion. I agree with that.  

Rich, you're right ... just because people "trophy hunt" courses doesn't make them an expert. But, let's face the other side of the equation. You have people spitting out numbers on GCA no less than the average guy when polled on the street about his "expertise" on terrorism and any other issue and is asked for his "opinion."

I respect and hopefully learn from the opinions of both of you and other knowledgeable people on GCA. Hell, I have issues with a number of things connected to GD and its ratings panel and I've stated them many times since I came on board in 1984.

Too many people genuflect when the names of Raynor, Ross and all the other old time masters are mentioned. You have people who automatically are giving points just because of the pedigree of the course. Don't get me wrong modern design has spit out too many fast food layouts over the last few years when the economy was humming along, however, I can name a good number of recent designs that have definitely changed the landscape even if they don't get the "Doak points" that people bandy around on this site.

If you don't get out and about and see the significant amount of courses that are out there in the country then you really can't offer any insightful broad reaching conlusions. Mark Fine is right -- it's time for people to play more and write less. Maybe, it's not possible for people to post their credentials in total, but it helps me to understand how they our making comparisons because they have put in the necessary legwork in in order to state what they believe.

Rich -- you're right about people who can give insightful comments although they have not played a wide range of courses. I usually make visits to courses with two other people -- one a bus driver and another a computer trainer. Both have two digit handicaps and both have seen nearly every course in the metro NY / NJ area. They give me plenty of comments and I take them seriously so that I just don't review / rate a course according to how that course fits / doesn't fit my game.

[THuckaby2]

Matt - thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I concur with and get what you're saying most definitely.  My only quibble is in the approach - I assume knowledge first on this board, assume that those who take the time to be here have a depth of experience.  Perhaps I'm naive... We're not all Tom Doaks, but I just gotta believe we've all been around enough.  Some more than others, sure...

BTW, time doesn't equal access.  Many of us have lots of the former, not as much of the latter.  The desire to see great courses is a given, also.

The learning continues... thanks!

TH

[ForkaB]

Matt

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I'm less concerned with relative neophytes having a go at rating courses, whether they try to use the Doak scale, or not.  To me, trying is a very important part of learning, and I don't at all mind if people try, on this forum or elsewhere.

As I've said many times on many threads, any 10 point scale is too "granular" to me, although I respect the fact that others, such as yourself and Mark (and, I assume, Tom D ) are comfortable with it.  Also, like any complicated "language" it has far more meaning to those who create and develop and regularly use the language than those who do not choose to do so.

Elsewhere on this DG I'm going to post some further thoughts I've had recently, partly because of your responses to this thread, about what a simpler, "Michelin" type, system mean mean and look like.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Other than experience, what other attributes go towards a person's credentials?  

[John_Conley]

Rich:

You talk about this Michelin system all the time and I finally feel compelled to chime in.

Isn't is just?
 * = (Doak scale) some 5s and all 6s
** = 7s and 8s
*** = the rare few that are 9s and 10s.

Like Doak, you are saying most courses aren't worth quibbling over.

JOHN

[ForkaB]

John

I'll be saying at least three other things when I get my post together.

1. Even a 5 point scale (Doak's 6-10) is too granular for the 500 or so courses in the world that would deserve 1-3 "Michelin" stars.

2.  The 3 point scale for these gems can be far more effective in having an influence on how those places maintain or improve upon their greatness (or the opposite).

3.  The Michelin "Red Guide" system also includes several thousand unstarred establishments which are deemed worthy of custom, as well as a description of the "fanciness" of the establishement and special recognition of why some of these places are special (e.g. beauty, value for money, good examples of regional cuisine, etc.)  My system would do the similar (i.e. allowing the worthy but not great courses to be recognised and described.

Hope that helps.

Rich

[John_Conley]

I'd step on the Doak Scale in a minute if I thought it would read less than the Conley scale.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Good question!

There are other ways one can take regarding credentials. A few of them:

*I appreciate people who read a good deal on the subject. Reading is fundamental and can open the minds of many people -- but actually being there is still no substitute. I live in the metro NY / NJ area and was down on Wall Street today. When you see "ground zero" you will never forget the sight, sounds and smells. Seeing it on TV is still important but BEING THERE is no substitute.

A tongue'n cheek example is sex. Until you've had it how do you really describe the sensations?  

*I think golfing skill helps but not as an absolute requirement. If you don't play the game it can be difficult to conceptualize the integration of shots and holes (i.e. Seth Raynor being an exception and I'm sure there are others).

The problem with chat sites is that although there is plenty of discussion there are too many broad brush statements that lack real detailed information which usually can only be gleaned by making actual and periodic visits.

Tom -- I respect your insights and reviews about courses in the greater Ohio area. I know that you as a Ohio resident (your comments about courses in other states is also appreciated and read by me) see them quite regularly and unlike me who visits Ohio as often as I can (usually 1 or 2 times per year because of the state's depth of courses). There are, in my opinion, plenty of people with opinions on GCA, but many of these opinions are derived from the same sort of person who offers "opinions" from the deep left field seats at Yankee Stadium and pretends to know more baseball than Joe Torre!!!

I'm not trying to sound arrogrant or an elitist. Heck, I grew up playing a bare ground field known as Passaic County GC. But, people shooting off opinions doesn't do it for me.

I've mentioned my concerns to Ron Whitten about the GD ratings panel. Adding more people doesn't provide more coverage since most people really don't travel nationwide on a frequent basis. Too many panelists are regionally based. I respect the opinions of a great many people on GCA. But how do we know one person's 8 from another person's 5 or 3? Just check out the conflicting points of view on the new Jersey course Running Deer from a group of fine people. I also think there are too many people who simnply jump on the bandwagon if a course is designed by a "favorite" designer. Ditto the designers who are not appreciated. A good example is some of the recent work by Rees Jones. There are a number of people on GCA who have completely trashed Rees without seeing his latest designs.

I think as more people join the ranks of contributors it would be wise to folow the advise of Mark Fine in having people play more and write less.

I take a great deal of pride in making sure I visit courses in question BEFORE making far reaching comments. Even with a visit my opinion can be wrong and I know I can change that opinion if presented with compelling reasons from someone who has played the course.

I think it would be helpful if people who do offer opinions should for the sake of the record state if they have played the course and if they have played it, how long ago it was since courses can and do change.

Just a humble opinion from NJ ...

mw

[T_MacWood]

Matt
You didn't mention intelligence as a criteria, nor analytical skills.

And as far your reference to reading and sex, although I'm far from an expert - I believe that they have been studying sex for milenium. We can all evaluate a course based on our personal views or a set of criteria given to us, but to truely understand and appreciate great design isn't necessary that we learn from the experiences of the many wise designers and students of the past and present.

Obviously you do need to play the game, but I'm unclear about your view of skill as criteria. Is being a excellent golfer an advantage or disadvantage or of no importance?

[George Pazin]

Matt -

You and Mark Fine are definitely correct in saying that the number of courses one has played has a significant impact on rating a course.

But I disagree with the statement that people need to play more & write less. This may be true for RATING a course, but I don't think it is at all true for discussing a course or writing about it. I don't see where a well educated or thoughtful person can't offer significant insight into a course without having played many others - whether I think this person should rate the course with some sort of number is another matter entirely.

[Steve Wilson]

I've been fortunate enough to play two of Doak's 10s, Pinehurst #2 and Royal Dornoch.  But aside from the TOC, my experience with anything between 5 and 9 is virtually nil. Consequently, I have serious doubts about my exposure to quality golf and my ability to rate architecture except for the extreme examples.
 I first played #2 when I was a much worse golfer and had no experience of quality courses.  But I recognized (viscerally?) that #2 was something special.  My longest tee shots weren't necessarily my "best" tee shots.  Hitting the green on a par three wasn't a guarantee of anything good happening from that point on.  Being off the green ten yards from flag was sometimes a much harder shot than being forty or fifty yards or even a full wedge away.  It was my introduction to angles.
  I have read a lot since then and I have discovered this site which has truly furthered my education in the past few months.  I don't know if skill is as important as imagination.  I have played with players who hit shots I can only dream of, but having seen those shots I can imagine  how they apply to a golf hole.  The same thing applies to the short game.  Often when playing a good golf course that presents interesting green complexes, if I am by myself I will try different shots in the short game (I miss a lot of greens) to "work" the green to my advantage.  It's not only fun but it's educational and makes one a better player.
 
There is an argument to be made for holes that present a straight forward challenge, but a course made of nothing but this type of hole lacks variety and would, I think, become "stale, flat and unprofitable" in time to most players no matter their skill level.  Give me a hole that begs/demands/teases me to put my ball in a different spot depending on the conditions and I am having more fun even if I can't get the ball to the spot.  Defeating the hole from the wrong place can be the most satisfying accomplishment of all. However, if the player confuses the result with the proper line of play, more often than not, the hole will thrash him.

Tom MacWood mentions intelligence and analytical skills as assets, and I believe they are; but I also think it is a specialized intelligence that recognizes land forms and their possibilities.  The level of skills will depend on aptitude and how that aptitude is enhanced by exposed to and experiencing architecture.  But it's not experience if you don't remember it nor if you don't integrate it.  I think this applies to golfers have the technical but not the analytical skills.  A really good ball striker who shoots at sucker pins is going to run into a lot of trouble, and if he doesn't understand why he's running into trouble what does that say for his potential as a rater.  If he thinks he's being treated unfairly because he  missed his target by five yards and is in a world of hurt while a fellow player takes the  safe line and misses his target by twenty yards and is able to salvage a better score is a lucky SOB, then how will this affect his opinion of the course or hole?  More important, how valuable is his opinion ultimately?

 I have played a lot of courses that would be 1s and 2s on Doak's scale, but even in these cases there are always some interesting features.  I enjoy discovering/recognizing these features and learning from them, and the difference between a 3 and a 5 or any other ramp up or down the scale is the number and variety of these features.  If you can recognize them on a non descript muni you can recognize them on one of the greatest courses of the world.  But if you don't have the experience and exposure, if you have played nothing but 1s and 2s a 5 could be your first 10 because it's so much better than anything else you have ever played.  

The bottom line to me is that no matter one's potential as a rater of architecture, until that person experiences a wide variety his opinions are going to be parochial and of lesser weight than someone who has "experienced" quality architecture.

I don't know if I've contributed anything of value to this thread, but I feel better for having written it.  Of course, the same can be said of a bowel movement.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Your points are well taken -- include intelligence and sound analysis.

But people must take the time and visit a wide range of courses in order to properly provide the elements you provide. I know GD has about 800 panelists now ... how many of them really travel across the country on a steady basis is a fairly limited number. I'll say it again but most of these people are regionally based more so than national panelists. I'd like to see some sort of system that takes this into account.

Intelligent people do not comment about things they have not EXPERIENCED. Ditto analysis.

REMEMBER -- YOU CAN'T SEPARATE ANALYSIS FROM ACTION. People need to do the action (visit courses) and then analysis can start ... hopefully Tom it's intelligent and cogent.

When I mention playing ability I probably was not very precise in what I tried to say. You don't have to be a low handicap player clearly. But, you should understand the importance of golf course strategy and how elements of power, finesse, and accuracy are tied together in a 18-hole design. Some people "get it" and other don't irrespective of their own golfing ability or lack thereof.

George -- I'll concede your point, but I think a person with limited experiences usually, but not always, have limited impact on influencing / informing me. If I came to Pittsburgh George I'd reach out to you because of your vast experiences with courses in the general area. I would not reach out to a buddy of mine who has only played 3-4 courses in the area. There's more to golf in Pittsburh besides Oakmont, Field Club, etc.

Steve Wilson:

Good stuff. When people have limited experiences it's quite possible they will look at a golf course that is actually a five but they view it as a ten because of all the dog food courses they've previously played.

Heck -- that happened to me long before I had become a GD panelist. After you play Passaic County in Wayne, NJ the opportunity to play Upper Montclair CC in Clifton or Essex County CC in West Orange seemed like I was now playing a US Open venue.

Experiences build the capacity of the individual to provide a sense of perspective.
Without the actual experience the genuine sense of wisdom is just not possible.

Just a humble opinion ...

[T_MacWood]

Clearly you have to get to the courses, but that is no guarantee. Just because a player sees a great number of courses does not translate into greater credentials or greater insight. You may lack basic intelligence, you might lack sufficient analytical skills, you may too focused on your game (good or bad) and the difficulty of the courses(too dificult or not difficult enough), you may lack scolarship -- be it golf-design, science or the arts, you might actually see too many courses dulling the senses, you might be stuck with a set criteria which limits your ability to understand or concentrate on great design, you might surround yourself with others of dubious tastes,......there are many complex factors that go toward a person's 'credentials'.

I agree seeing the courses is imparative, but it certainly does not guarantee superior insight.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

You're right!

Just make sure people PLAY the course(s) in question before intellectual analysis takes place.

Too many people talk from second and third hand accounts or from what they have read.

Taking the time / energy to play courses is the first step. I agree there is no guarantee just because someone plays a course that sound anaylsis will ensue.

[THuckaby2]

Interesting.  I agree with all of this, and would only ask:

How often do people here and elsewhere really rate courses without seeing them?

I don't see the big problem here.  The vast majority of people only deem to "rate" a course after playing it or walking it.  Am I missing something?

TH

[pacific caddie]

Matt Ward,

I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously after you behaved like a total idiot during your visit out here last month.

[Matt_Ward]

Pacific Caddy:

I don't dignify responses to people that don't post a real name.

If you have something to say my e-mail address is posted with others on another thread and if you want to carry on as man you can forward me your comments.

When you know additional facts maybe you will better understand my reaction to the manner in which I was treated. Every story has at least two sides. Keep that in mind if you care!