Personal Doak Course rankings

[Jim Franklin]

So Shivas, you loved Erin Hills too. How does that compare to Rock Creek?

[Tom Huckaby]

So Shivas, you loved Erin Hills too. How does that compare to Rock Creek?

Please, Jim.  The man said he preferred it to Sand Hills, Cypress, NGLA, Pine Valley.  Do you really expect Erin Hills to compete?

Or perhaps this too will reveal more of his madness.....

Hmmmmmm.....

Great question.

TH

[Jim Franklin]

Well he told me to play Erin Hills instead of Milwaukee CC when I was there last summer. With that said, I really enjoyed Erin Hills and do not think he lead me astray. I just have to make a return trip to milwaukee next week to play.

[Jim Franklin]

So Shivas, you loved Erin Hills too. How does that compare to Rock Creek?

I didn't loooooove Erin Hills.  I really liked it and thought it was unique enough to definitely seek out, even over Milwaukee CC (which, although wonderful, isn't really all that unique).

Rock Creek is unique.  It has awesome architecture in a mountain setting and plays firm and fast and dare I say links-y....  THAT is unique.

You have never lead me astray so it sounds like I may be making a trip west next summer.

[Marty Bonnar]

"you have it from the source that EVERYONE gives out High (6,7,8,9,10) Doak numbers out way too easily - Huckaby only does it to an embarrassing extreme!"

Tom,
I'm sorry - he made me do it!! (he has the compromising negatives...AND the X-Rays )

You know I could never say such a thing unprompted.

BESTEST regards,
your also short, fat friend,
the FBD.

[Tom Huckaby]

I did admit to being a high grader. 

But man, we are also discussing truly GREAT golf courses.  I don't feel like I exaggerated too much.  Ask me about some less than great ones!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Let me try my "Doak Scale" rankings of Doak-involved courses I've played, which differ from Jonathan's scoring using the GolfWeek method.

I'm just thinking that some others here might not be as familiar so this might be more productive for discussion.   Restorations/Renovations are in parentheses.

Sheep Ranch 15
Pac Dunes         10
(Garden City) 9
High Pointe 8
Stonewall North 7.5
Stonewall Old 7.5
(Yeaman's Hall) 6.5
(Atlantic City)    6
Legends- Heathland      6
Beechtree    6
Legends- Parkland 4.5  (I know Tom walked away from this project but a number of holes were built to his specs per my understanding)

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

How many other 10's have you personally played ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

How many other 10's have you personally played ?

Matt,

Let me try to list them;

Among Classic Courses;

Pine Valley
NGLA
Shinnecock Hills
Cypress Point

In case you're wondering, my 9.75's include Merion and Riviera. 

Among Modern Courses;

Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes

At 9.75 I'd put Friar's Head and at 9 I'd put Kingsley Club, Boston Golf Club, and The Ocean Course.

I don't have any other 15's. 

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Is there any course you would rate higher than a 7.0 that is not rated in its top 100 by Golfweek -- whether they be modern or classic?

I'm just trying to figure out if any cool course you have played has been missed by the large group of raters.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

Is there any course you would rate higher than a 7.0 that is not rated in its top 100 by Golfweek -- whether they be modern or classic?

I'm just trying to figure out if any cool course you have played has been missed by the large group of raters.

Wow, Matt...that's a really good question.

I'd have to go back and check but the first one that I would rate a 7 that jumps to mind is Long Shadow.   In NJ, Ballyowen is probably a 6.5 and Twisted Dune is closer to 7 in my opinion.      In PA, the restoration at Bedford Springs comes real close and I'm a huge fan of Lederach.

Of courses I played this year that I believe should be in the GolfWeek Top 100, Monroe Golf Club near Rochester springs to mind, as well.

I also think that the Tom Fazio renovation of Saucon Valley Old has elevated that course to a Doak Scale 7, as well, and would have no issue whatsoever seeing it in the GW Top 100 Classic list...it is truly deserving.

I do keep thinking that there is still some lost, underseen course somewhere upstate NY or even up in New England that nobody has come across yet, but I may be dreaming.....there is just so much really good golf up there and I have to admit that I haven't even begun to explore as I want to.

I'm sure there are others.   It's a very intriguing question and I'll have to dig deeper. 

[Mike_Cirba]

oops..posted Faldo comments to the wrong thread

[Kyle Harris]

Mike:

Is there any course you would rate higher than a 7.0 that is not rated in its top 100 by Golfweek -- whether they be modern or classic?

I'm just trying to figure out if any cool course you have played has been missed by the large group of raters.

Wow, Matt...that's a really good question.

I'd have to go back and check but the first one that I would rate a 7 that jumps to mind is Long Shadow.   In NJ, Ballyowen is probably a 6.5 and Twisted Dune is closer to 7 in my opinion.      In PA, the restoration at Bedford Springs comes real close and I'm a huge fan of Lederach.

Of courses I played this year that I believe should be in the GolfWeek Top 100, Monroe Golf Club near Rochester springs to mind, as well.

I also think that the Tom Fazio renovation of Saucon Valley Old has elevated that course to a Doak Scale 7, as well, and would have no issue whatsoever seeing it in the GW Top 100 Classic list...it is truly deserving.

I do keep thinking that there is still some lost, underseen course somewhere upstate NY or even up in New England that nobody has come across yet, but I may be dreaming.....there is just so much really good golf up there and I have to admit that I haven't even begun to explore as I want to.

I'm sure there are others.   It's a very intriguing question and I'll have to dig deeper. 

SCHUYLKILL

[Tim Bert]

Let me try my "Doak Scale" rankings of Doak-involved courses I've played, which differ from Jonathan's scoring using the GolfWeek method.

I'm just thinking that some others here might not be as familiar so this might be more productive for discussion.   Restorations/Renovations are in parentheses.

Sheep Ranch 15
Pac Dunes         10
(Garden City) 9
High Pointe 8
Stonewall North 7.5
Stonewall Old 7.5
(Yeaman's Hall) 6.5
(Atlantic City)    6
Legends- Heathland      6
Beechtree    6
Legends- Parkland 4.5  (I know Tom walked away from this project but a number of holes were built to his specs per my understanding)

Nice to see someone else has High Pointe higher than a 4!  I can't give it an 8 because of the literal interpretation of the scale for 7 involving conditioning in the wording.  I'd say it was a 6 when we saw it with a pure design that is capable of achieving an 8.  The greens and the wind begged for run-up shots, but the turf played soft and lush.  If you stick Kingsley turf conditions on High Pointe, then I think it achieves the 8 (well, at least the first seventeen holes.)

The only other Doak courses I've played are Pacific Dunes and Ballyneal.  I think Pacific Dunes is a 10, and based on my one day on the property Ballyneal is a 9 (probably a 9.5 in reality but I'm sticking to the rules of picking a number.)  I've also played at the Sheep Ranch, but I'm not going to try to fit that into the system.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim,

I think we are very close to agreement on any number of courses, including High Pointe.

I just weight conditioning way, way down, because it is ultimately a very changeable variable, including day to day.

I must admit that I'm disappointed in your reluctance to put a point value to the Sheep Ranch.    Lord knows that such an imaginative architectural concept is deserving of more discussion and forthright opinion.

On the other hand, as a left-hander, you can take solace in the fact that we are not only more creative, but generally much better-looking as well.

[Tim Bert]

Tim,

I think we are very close to agreement on any number of courses, including High Pointe.

I just weight conditioning way, way down, because it is ultimately a very changeable variable, including day to day.

I must admit that I'm disappointed in your reluctance to put a point value to the Sheep Ranch.    Lord knows that such an imaginative architectural concept is deserving of more discussion and forthright opinion.

On the other hand, as a left-hander, you can take solace in the fact that we are not only more creative, but generally much better-looking as well.

I agree with you about conditioning and I try to put it aside if I feel like I'm just catching the course on a down day.  I got the sense at High Pointe that the conditions we saw were indicative of how the course plays on a daily basis (and has for years based on what I've read of others thoughts.)  While I know the conditions weren't part of the Doak plan, I think it has really become an integral part of the architecture at that course at this point, which is unfortunate.  I'm probably drawing too many conclusions based on one afternoon and 18 holes.  My back-up plan is to blame the 6 on #18 if you won't let me count the conditioning as permanent!

My problem with ranking Sheep Ranch probably comes from me taking the words associated with the score too literally.  My gut would be an 8, but I don't really believe that it is "worth a special trip to see" from across the country.  One is definitely missing out if they don't attach it to the rest of a trip to Bandon, but I'm not planning a trip there if the resort doesn't exist.  At the same time, 7 is too harsh because "not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf" doesn't do the course justice.  It is certainly pretty unique in the world of golf.  I'll go with 8 if I can omit the special trip clause.

Is that noncommital enough?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim,

At least you seem quite committed to the Phillies! 

I would agree with you on High Pointe, and perhaps I'm just idealistically holding out hope that it too can become one of the world's best 17-hole courses with something even 1/2 as good as Kingsley Club maintenance on an ongoing basis.

Also...I DO think the Sheep Ranch is worth travelling to and in terms of considering unique architecture in the world of golf...I think it's a 15, as I mentioned.    In fact, if I were given carte blanche to play any one and only golf course for the rest of my life, I'd do a George Crump, buy me a lean-to, bring a bevy of LPGA pros like Natalie Gulbis, Emma Rawson, Paula Creamer, Grace Park, and another 9 baker's-dozen to be named later ( a guy can dream, can't he?), and would live a happily decadent life for the remainder of my days doing daily match-play and pressing on the back nine for creative stakes.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys:

Hate to bust the bubble -- but I see conditioning like dessert after a meal. Is it an absolute necessity -- well, not to the nnttth degree.

But ...

No meal has a capper like a fantastic dessert -- and no course can really be truly assessed from ACTUALITY not in theory than having conditioning that bings to life all the design elements.

I don't see conditioning as a first among equals but it's in the pot for consideration ... or should be.

[Adam Clayman]

and no course can really be truly assessed from ACTUALITY not in theory than having conditioning that bings to life all the design elements.

I'll call B.S.

How else did the Black get into the rota if Fay didn't see the merits underneath all that neglect? Edit;
 Or, how do/did architects, alive and dead, who design in the dirt, like a Bill Coore, or a Jim Urbina who see great golf holes in their raw natural form, have that ability? More closely...A guy like Gib Papazian who need only tour a course to give an insightful in-depth analysis?

Matt, having an ability to see through to the GCA  beyond the immediate maintenance presentation the day one plays a course is not impossible.


Mike, I look forward to your visit to Holyoke. If anyone can put aside the ocean's influence, and feel the freedom, you can.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Get real -- OK.

Allow me to enlighten you -- there were plenty of people -- long before Fay (including myself and others from my troop who've been going to BB for well over 30 years) -- that realized what Bethpage Black could be IF the proper maintenance procedures were instituted.

But I stand by what I said -- conditioning is part and parcel of the mix when the overall status of a course is assessed. It's not the first among equals but it's part of the total picture. Through conditioning the finer elements of the design can come to life. I'm sorry you can't grasp such an axiomatic principle.

However, just realize this -- Bethpage Black should not have been rated UNTIL that actually happened.

There's a big difference --maybe you're not aware of it or even interested -- between "what if" and "what is." Rated courses should only be rated when they fall into the "what is" capacity in my book. If you want to glean the status of a course simply from photos -- by all means knock yourself out.

Adam, everything I say here is my opinoin -- you are free to agree or disagree. Ditto I with whatever you happen to say.

[Adam Clayman]

Adam:

Get real -- OK. Real? Don't go there.

Allow me to enlighten you -- there were plenty of people -- long before Fay (including myself and others from my troop who've been going to BB for well over 30 years) -- that realized what Bethpage Black could be IF the proper maintenance procedures were instituted. You make my point, thank you. Now, in the context of ratings, I'd agree with you completely, if and only if, the numbers used to assess the rankings were thrown out every year and the lists generated were all based on votes made that year. But, they are not. Are they?

But I stand by what I said -- conditioning is part and parcel of the mix when the overall status of a course is assessed. It's not the first among equals but it's part of the total picture. Through conditioning the finer elements of the design can come to life. I'm sorry you can't grasp such an axiomatic principle. I do disagree with that and can only assume the finer points of your game come to life

However, just realize this -- Bethpage Black should not have been rated UNTIL that actually happened.If the conditions go back to the neglected state will all the votes for it be wiped out? Will however many new panelists visit be enough to knock BB off the list?

There's a big difference --maybe you're not aware of it or even interested -- between "what if" and "what is." Rated courses should only be rated when they fall into the "what is" capacity in my book. If you want to glean the status of a course simply from photos -- by all means knock yourself out. What frickin photos are you talkin about? I'll stand by the argument on the nature of the ratings and how the day you play a course and that specific condition should not be a factor in an overall rating of the GCA. Here's something I'm interested in that you apparently are not, the golf course architecture. That is what this site is about isn't it?
Adam, everything I say here is my opinoin -- you are free to agree or disagree. Ditto I with whatever you happen to say. Your opinion that I called out was that it's impossible to assess the quality of the gca without proper conditions. You cite where you have done it, but the course is not worthy unless it meets some standard you deem appropriate. That's not evaluating the gca, it is rating the experience.

Added to the above post before your response.

Edit;
 Or, how do/did architects, alive and dead, who design in the dirt, like a Bill Coore, or a Jim Urbina who see great golf holes in their raw natural form, have that ability? More closely...A guy like Gib Papazian who need only tour a course to give an insightful in-depth analysis?

Matt, Please do not repeat any one of your points. Your position is clear. If you want to further the discussion I'll be happy to oblige, with forward being the operative word.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

My understanding is that cumulative votes fall within a given time period for any ratings and that is why conditioning is included.

My broader point, which you continue to swing and miss is this -- conditioning is an element which serves to bring to life the design elements the architect provided. If conditioning is not existent then ipso facto the design elements are held back or even retarded because of this serious omission. If you can't understand that most basic of points then I we clearly part company in a major way.

I hope you can see that I link the actual architecture with conditioning. Conditioning is not the first among equals when discussing any course but it does play a role as a secondary factor.

To take your opinion to its logical conclusion -- we could have a course that is basically weeds and dirt patches and it would be just fine with you because the so-called architecture that is there is fine for you. I disagree for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Of course, I am rating the experience when playing. And part of that "experience" is the totality of a number of key items when joined together. Conditioning, for me, falls within that experience. I qualified my answer by saying, which you seemed to overlook, that conditioning is not the primary focus point but it's certainly within my field of vision when evaluating any course.

One last point -- what people (architects) may "envision" and what actually comes about with the finished product is two separate matters. Not everything "envisioned" actually comes into being and likely architects theselves can verify instances of courses they have worked where the preliminary plan and what actually occurs years down the pike can be two completely different things. Conditioning is the end product that takes to the finished level what the raw design first contemplated. You simply dismiss conditioning as some sort of irrelevancy.

I disagree.

[jkinney]

Jon S - Have you played Apache Stronghold?  If so, would you rate it better or worse than Stone Canyon?  If not please tell me the areas Stone Eagle exceeds AS.  Forget the damn conditioning - it's a minor and transitory issue when comparing the character and insight of the two designs.

I am completely befuddled by anyone who places Stone Eagle high on any list and would love to hear their rationale.

JC   

....And I am "completely befuddled by anyone who" DOES NOT place "Stone Eagle high on any list". Here's why. IMO Stone Eagle is the greatest desert golfing ground in the world - a spectacular mountain valley just big enough for 19 holes and a practice field located where there will never be houses. The topography is consistent throughout, with only one hole, the 6th, needing to be blasted in its shaping. The fairways interlock into a marvelous maze, creating a feeling not unlike those at Walton Heath, and one can see most of the holes from everywhere. The combination of wide fairways with gnarly, classic Doak bunkering, contoured greens and only medium length make for just the right degree of difficulty. The conditioning is SUPERB.
    For me, the ground is ALMOST at the level of NGLA, my favorite place in the world. My brother, a long time member of Shinney and The Creek, said to me walking off the 16th at Stone Eagle late one crystal clear winter morning - "I can't imagine having more fun on a golf course". I remember when NGLA wasn't rated by Golf Digest because, as Bill Davis said, it had been long since removed due to the quirky nature of its holes and its many blind shots. IMO, that's what a lot of the GCA criticism of Stone Eagle sounds like. TOTALLY BEFUDDLING !!!!! Peter Jacobsen, a fellow Founder at Stone Eagle, thinks it's a top ten course. I don't know where it'll end up in the rankings, but I'll be shocked if Stone Eagle isn't above all other desert courses when the smoke clears.

[John Kirk]

Allow me to pile on top of jkinney's comments:

Although I enjoyed Rock Creek immensely, I felt that Stone Eagle and Rock Creek were about equal.

1.  Both have 4 par 3s, 3 of which are distinctly downhill.  #13 at Rock Creek stands out as the lone uphill 3, and may be the best of the bunch, but #12 at Rock Creek may be the least interesting.

2.  Both have 3 par 5s.  Let's call them equal.  All six are good holes, reachable with two excellent shots, but filled with enough trouble to make double.

3.  The par 4s at Stone Eagle are its weakness, since the property dictated they all be routed up and down the hill.  #9 and #11, and even #16 are substantially similar, steeply down and to the left.  #9 is a wonderful hole, and all three have approach shots which are delightful to watch.

Rock Creek's par 4s have great variety, with a few showstoppers, like #4, #7, #11, #14, and #16.  Great par 4s.

4.  Both course are very hilly, though Rock Creek is a better walking course.  It still makes for a long round when you walk Rock Creek.  Most foursomes will take 4.5 hours or more.  If Stone Eagle had bridges over the ravine on #13 and #14 like that beautiful bridge on Rock Creek #13, I'd walk it occasionally.  The bottom line is not many will walk either course, so what's the difference?

5.  Rock Creek has a worse "lost ball" problem.  Far more balls end up in the junk, and it's harder to find when you're in it.  Stone Eagle's connecting fairways save quite a few errant tee balls.

6.  Each course has its share of blind shots, but Rock Creek does not give the player the satisfaction of watching his shots land and come to rest enough.  You get to watch your shots finish at Stone Eagle much more often.

7.  I say Stone Eagle is significantly more beautiful, though that is purely subjective.  Stone Eagle is the most beautiful piece of golf art I have ever seen.  Short range views everywhere, and long range views on the back nine.  Phenomenal beauty.

8.  Rock Creek is a bit harder, but both are medium difficult.  I played like shit in the Renaissance Cup rounds in the morning, then tore it up in the afternoon when it didn't matter.

9.  Finally, I find the two courses very similar in most ways.  Types of challenges, conditioning, green speeds, everything.  Stone Eagle came first and Rock Creek followed similarly in its footsteps.

Consider this a challenge to anyone who would like to argue why Rock Creek is significantly better.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Good analysis -- a different take from mine but that's good for discussion purposes.

John, if the par-3 and par-5 side are equal between the two courses and you frankly admit that the cumulative nature of the par-4's is easily on the side of Rock Creek -- then how does Montana course only fare as an "about equal" in your book to Stone Eagle?

One other thing -- when you talk about natural beauty -- Rock Creek is quite attractive and gives different "looks" depending upon where you are on the property. Think of the walk from the 6th to the 7th hole and the 15th to the 16th, to name just two quick examples.

John, you focus on the fact that shots at Rock Creek that are blind do not allow the player to see them land. What makes that an element for some sort of deficiency? Is that just a pet peeve for you? Plenty of courses across the pond have this feature and frankly it does add a bit of mystery and, in my mind, actually elevates the nature of overall shotmaking when facing such situations.

Let me also mention the nature of the putting surfaces -- I'm assuming from what you wrote that Stone Eagle has the edge. If anything I'll say it's a dead flat draw but I see Rock Creek with the edge -- it's also the more demanding course in terms of overall difficulty. The greens are all well crafted and quite demanding to discern for speed an distance.

Interesting comments you have made and no doubt you thought them out as they apply to you. For me -- Rock Creek is the better overall course. For me -- it's not as close you would indicate.

p.s. For what it's worth I liked plenty of holes at Stone Eagle - especially the downhill par-4 3rd, the uphill 4th and the closing hole, to name just three.