[ed_getka]

Tim,
   I don't know that PD would be even higher ranked if it was across the pond. Kingsbarns is relatively new and is well-regarded by many it seems. Isn't PD ranked higher? The thing is is that both courses are quite new, and I can only imagine that they will steadily move up over the years. It just takes time for people to get around to see some of these places. What seems like a deafening roar here at GCA is barely registering in the general golfing populace.
   A case can definitely be made for PD being a 10 for sure. At the highest levels of architecture most preferences are personal rather than objective. In Tom's scale a 10 is a course that you can't miss a hole or you will miss something. Yet, on TOC you can certainly miss #9, and yet it gets a 10 which one could certainly quibble with.

[Tom_Doak]

You guys can keep arguing whether Pacific Dunes is a 9 or a 10 for as long as you want, however I will interject one note --

History has NOTHING to do with the Doak scale.  It's a rating of the golf courses and not about what has been played there.  I do have a tendency to give newer courses the lower of two grades if I'm uncertain, until they are older and I'm more comfortable with their relative position.  But that's not about history, it's about discounting hype.

That's why I've gone back to Sand Hills and Friars Head and Kingsbarns multiple times ... to decide whether they're an 8 or a 9 or a 10.  [There's one of each.]  I've been back to Pacific Dunes plenty of times to know where it ought to rank on the Doak scale; I haven't been to Barnbougle or Ballyneal enough yet.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

I have no doubt history has nothing to do with the Doak scale; I would argue though that history does matter when evaluating golf courses.

But that is a topic for another time, another thread... and has been beaten to death previously in here.

In any case, that is sage counsel as to trying to eliminate hype.  Of course, how many have the time/money to make repeated trips to these courses?  But for those who do - like yourself - that does seem wise to keep in mind.

BTW, you can't fool me.  Sand Hills = 10; Friar's Head = 9; Kingsbarns = 8.

 

[Tim Pitner]

By "history," I really meant vintage.  It may not matter whether an important event has been held at a course, but the age of the course tends to matter.  I understand why, but it does operate to discriminate (sometimes unjustly) against new courses.  Another point of clarification--I'm not so much referring to the Doak scale as used by Tom Doak; I'm referring more to others' use of the Doak scale.

So, when I said Pacific Dunes' reputation would be enhanced if it were in Scotland and Ireland, I meant to say if it were in Scotland and Ireland and older.  Ed, your Kingsbarns distinction was well made.  

[John Kirk]

I think Pacific Dunes does have one weak hole, the first hole.  The penalty is too severe for a sliced tee shot on the opening hole.  Plus, any approach shot right of the green is in a designated environmentally sensitive area, and can't be played or retrieved.  I still think it deserves a 10.

Tom H.,

Without bothering with a course by course comparison, my opinion of other great courses is vastly different than yours.  I'll give one example: I'd rather play Stone Eagle (or Pacific Dunes) than Winged Foot West.  The irregularly and severely sloping fairways and greens, the lack of rough, the uneven lies, and the unique scenery are the reasons.

It's our differing opinions that fuel the endless debate.

[Tim Pitner]

John, I would agree that Pacific Dunes #1 is probably the weakest hole; I don't think I would call it a weak hole, however.  The view from the tee sure is enticing.  

[Tom Huckaby]

John K:

Well, I whipped those assessments right off the top of my head, without giving any all that much thought.  And while yes, differing opinions are great for the endless debate, in the end I'd doubt you and I are all that far apart.  I base this on what I read from you in here.  As for PD specifically and whether it gets a 9 or 10, well... both indicate very true greatness.  I still can't get PD to a 10, and really can't see how you can if you say it has a weak hole (given that flies right in the face of the definition)... But I also don't find #1 to be weak at all!  I enjoy that golf hole and concur with Tim there.  Again, my take here is a relative one... if I give PD a 10 that must mean I find it better than all those 9s... and I just can't do that.

Tim:

This is getting quite complex - but I think I get you.  Yes, I'd agree older courses do get preference.  I'm just not sure I see that as a bad thing as much as you do.

TH

ps - note what I said about "history" to Tim... for me it does matter a LOT.  Man I felt like I was walking in the footsteps of Bobby Jones at WF-W and to me that matters.  Of course this has nothing to do with architecture or design, but I've said countless times in here assessments of golf courses necessarily need go beyond that... But this is just me.  

[John Kirk]

John K:

Well, I whipped those assessments right off the top of my head, without giving any all that much thought.  And while yes, differing opinions are great for the endless debate, in the end I'd doubt you and I are all that far apart.  I base this on what I read from you in here.

I agree.  The big difference is where I place Pacific Dunes in the overall rankings, which is pretty much ahead of everything.  If I get a chance to play Pine Valley, Cypress Point, or the National Golf Links, I will have a better perspective of greatness.

It's really unusual when a course really knocks me out the first time around.  Last year Merion was a rare example.  But even Merion has a severe flaw; heavy rough is used to defend the course (the course was plenty hard for me without it).  I left Winged Foot unimpressed, but that's partly a function of where I hit the ball that day.  I had a round where the collection of shots presented to me were not all that compelling.  If I played Winged Foot twenty times, I'd probably like it more and more, maybe even love it.

Just like Tom D. says, you pretty much have to play a course multiple times to accurately evaluate it.

[Tim Pitner]

Tom H,

I'm sorry I had to devote a post to explaining what I really meant--it'd be a lot easier if I wrote what I meant the first time.  

My take on this thread was that people were using the Doak scale to evaluate his courses.  We're not speculating how Doak himself would rate his courses--what would be the point of that; why not just ask him?  

And, I was saying that people generally give the nod to the older, classic courses, sometimes at the expense of a newer course that may actually be better.  I wouldn't say that's such a bad thing, but there's really no rational reason to prefer old courses to new ones (assuming they have matured enough that you really know what you have).  

For example, is Ballybunion better than Pacific Dunes?  I can't say because I haven't played Ballybunion, but I've heard there are several mundane holes at BB (and we agree there aren't at PD).  So, is this a case where the vintage or reputation of the course is given too much weight?  Maybe.

[Tom Huckaby]

John K:

Gotcha - we are on the same page in general without a doubt.  I guess the difference is that while I too don't tend to like tree-lined, heavily roughed courses on principle - or I should say, I prefer more open courses - at Open courses (capital O added purposefully), my socks do tend to get knocked off.  I am very impressed - overly, without a doubt - by walking in the footsteps of my heroes.  So of course this has nothing to do with design, but man ask 100 people I know outside this forum if they'd rather play Winged Foot or either PD or Stone Eagle, 96 are gonna say Winged Foot.  Of course I've yet to play Stone Eagle - we'll take care of that in a few weeks - but classic old courses on which so much history have occurred are always going to be great by me.  I freely admit this goes into my assessments... But I also think I'm not exactly wrong for letting it do so.

Tim:

Understood also.  I just don't think it's so much AGE that plays into this as tradition/setting/history.  It's also not really fair to base this on presence or lack thereof of weak holes... Yes, Ballybunion Old does have a few that might be called weak.  But it also has some others that are so out of this world great, that such is forgotten in the overall.  I think that's a fair way to do this also.

In any case, hell yes, we're working with Doak's scale, not trying to guess how HE would assess things.  My take there was just that when I see how he does assess courses, it gives me context as to how the scale ought to work.  Again that doesn't mean I have to agree with him about every course... It's my application of his rules...

TH

[Tim Pitner]

It's also not really fair to base this on presence or lack thereof of weak holes... Yes, Ballybunion Old does have a few that might be called weak.  But it also has some others that are so out of this world great, that such is forgotten in the overall.  I think that's a fair way to do this also.

Tom,

I agree; I personally don't hold one or two weak holes against a course if it's otherwise outstanding.  But, I believe the Doak scale does suggest a hole-by-hole analysis (e.g., on a 10, every hole offers something interesting).  I don't know that Ballybunion, for example, fits that description (or even St. Andrews Old according to Ed Getka).

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim - you're right.  By strict definition Ballybunion-Old ought not to be a 10.  So we're both speculating as to why it gets that designation... And you think the age of the course plays in, I think strict definition is set aside given the other greatness to be found.  We could both be right or wrong.  Maybe a little of both goes into it.  Maybe Ballybunion Old really doesn't deserve a 10... I think it does, but I can't give very good reasons WHY.

I find this kind of nit-picking interesting, btw.  

 

[George Pazin]

Just like Tom D. says, you pretty much have to play a course multiple times to accurately evaluate it.

Come on, there are at least a dozen guys on here that can give you a bulletproof rating from one pass.

 

[Tom_Doak]

I didn't say you have to play a course multiple times to evaluate it fairly ... but you DO have to play a course multiple times before you can give it a 10.  

A 10 has to have features beyond what you would see the first time around, and it has to work well in a multitude of different conditions.  A 6 is just not that good ... some may work better in varying conditions than others, but they're still sixes.

And Mr. Huckaby has the correct explanation for why Ballybunion is a 10 and not a 9 ... its unique qualities cannot be overshadowed a couple of less than ideal holes, not to mention that (for many years anyway) it was the most welcoming club in all of golf.

[John Kirk]

John K:

Gotcha - we are on the same page in general without a doubt.  I guess the difference is that while I too don't tend to like tree-lined, heavily roughed courses on principle - or I should say, I prefer more open courses - at Open courses (capital O added purposefully), my socks do tend to get knocked off.  I am very impressed - overly, without a doubt - by walking in the footsteps of my heroes.  So of course this has nothing to do with design, but man ask 100 people I know outside this forum if they'd rather play Winged Foot or either PD or Stone Eagle, 96 are gonna say Winged Foot.  Of course I've yet to play Stone Eagle - we'll take care of that in a few weeks - but classic old courses on which so much history have occurred are always going to be great by me.  I freely admit this goes into my assessments... But I also think I'm not exactly wrong for letting it do so.

I did find Winged Foot fascinating.  The two courses are routed together, and you see many of the east course holes during your round.  Some of the green complexes on the east are pretty impressive from a distance.  Also, it was such a straightforward, difficult test.  I thought it was incredibly fair.  It's an ideal U.S. Open course.  It's pretty, too, but I prefer the wide open spaces to a parkland, suburban environment.

The cat is out of the bag.  I now assume everyone here gives bonus points to the classic courses that have played host to the great players in the game's storied history.  Drunk with feelings of nostalgia, Mr. Huckaby proclaimed, "I can't believe it.  I'm walking the same 18th hole where Arnold Palmer made a 12 in the second round of the Los Angeles Open.  Rancho Park is an 8, for sure."  

[Matt_Ward]

Tomorrow I have the opportunity to play Stone Eagle and will shed light on that layout and the other Doak courses I have played to date.

P.S. Beachtree is a fine layout -- however -- it is at the very best no more than a six (6) IMHO. Will be more than happy to explain more fully after my eagerly awaited round at Stone Eagle.

[ed_getka]

Tom D,
   Thanks for clarifying a few points of your scale here. I agree that history/tradition shouldn't get points when evaluating a course's architecture. Also, that a few "weak" points can be overcome by some truly great stuff and intangibles to allow for a 10 is cool in my book. Multiple plays for a 10 rating is a good idea to be able to absorb nuances. I plan on playing Royal Melbourne on two different days on my trip as a step in that direction.
   Have a great trip and I look forward to hearing your thoughts about Bayonne and Black Mesa when you return.

[PThomas]

Come on, there are at least a dozen guys on here that can give you a bulletproof rating from one pass.


thank you for publicly acknowledging my talent George ...

[Tim Pitner]

Tim - you're right.  By strict definition Ballybunion-Old ought not to be a 10.  So we're both speculating as to why it gets that designation... And you think the age of the course plays in, I think strict definition is set aside given the other greatness to be found.  We could both be right or wrong.  Maybe a little of both goes into it.  Maybe Ballybunion Old really doesn't deserve a 10... I think it does, but I can't give very good reasons WHY.

I'm not sure "age" by itself explains the benefit that I believe certain courses receive.  It's some combination of age, tradition, history and mystique.  Like obscenity, you know it when you see it.  Ballybunion has it.  

Tom Doak's explanation of Ballybunion's 10 isn't entirely consistent with what I understood a 10 to mean.  But, that doesn't bother me.  First, it's his scale so he's free to define it.  Second, I didn't love the "every hole can't be missed" definition of a 10 anyway--it places too much emphasis on each hole, while I prefer to consider the whole.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys, just finished playing Stone Eagle and have to say that Beechtree is no where in the same league with Stone Eagle. Have to say Beechtree is at best a five (5) on the Doak scale and Stone Eagle is a good bit beyond that.

Time doesn't permit me much to offer in terms of details right now but the actual site of Stone Eagle and the manner by which the property was used makes for a very fun time indeed.

One other note -- the closing hole at Stone Eagle is one of the finest long par-4's that Doak has created that I have played.

More to follow in the next day or so ...

[John Kirk]

Thanks, Matt.  I'm looking forward to your analysis.

[Larry_Keltto]

Hi John Kirk. Matt Ward brings up Stone Eagle's 18th. Can you give us a compare/contrast of Stone Eagle's 18th and Ballyneal's 18th? I haven't seen Stone Eagle, of course, but as you know, I think Ballyneal's 18th is absolutely sublime.

[John Kirk]

Tough to compare; they are so different.

Stone Eagle's is 499 yards with a steeply downhill tee shot.  Around 300 yards from the tee, rock formations pinch the fairway down to only 30 yards or so.  The second shot is level to slightly uphill to a green, guarded by a family of bunkers on the left two-thirds of the green.  There's a big bailout chipping area on the right, and the green is severely undulating, with a major elevation change from the low front right pin locations to the back center and left locations.  Second shots to left and center pins are extremely tough.  It is a very hard par 4.  3 wood, the push 7 wood to the bailout area, run the chip over the ridge, 2 putt from 20 feet.  Bogey.

There's a potential flaw in Stone Eagle's 18th, as I have heard anecdotes of players having a better angle by driving way right into the 17th fairway.

I am less familiar with Ballyneal's 452 yard finishing hole.  The drive is about level to a wide, gently undulating fairway.  There are at least a couple of fairway bunkers on the left side to guard the inside of this gentle dogleg left.  Once again, the left 50-60% of the green is guarded by sand, this time a single bunker.  There's room to miss right.  The green is large and pretty flat, as one might expect for the hole with the flattest terrain at Ballyneal.  452 yards won't play too long at 3700 feet elevation, so I expect the typical play here for me will be driver, 6-8 iron to the right side, 2 putts for par.  It's a medium difficulty par 4.

The 18th at Stone Eagle is a wonderful hole, but there's something really special about Ballyneal's 18th that's hard to describe.  After playing all day in the dunes, the final hole is gentle and grand.  It's early to pass judgement, but right now it's one of my favorite golf holes anywhere.

It's great to hear the stories from friends playing the new courses.  Gotta go; back later.

[Tom_Doak]

The 18th green at Ballyneal is large and pretty flat?

You're going to be in for a surprise this summer, John.  

[John Kirk]

My memories of the 18th at Ballyneal are crystal clear.  The green is large and steeply sloped?  It's not as sloped as the 18th at the Eagle.  What is the elevation change on the 18th at Stone Eagle?  7 feet maybe?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()