[Bill_McBride]

Matt-

Very fair question but to me that pond doesn't detract that much honestly.  Its doesn't really come into play or change the way a golfer plays the hole and though it seems out of place it just isn't that big of a deal to me.  And I actually like 18th as well.  The place is just magic....pond and all.

Maybe it even inspired Pat Ruddy to install the pond at European Club
Chip

Chip, this is hard to believe, but I think a couple of Walker Cuppers last year hit 3-woods off the 17th tee to be sure they didn't reach the pond!

I didn't see anything too nightmarish about that pond and would be inclined to give Royal County Down a 10.  The fact that I didn't have to play, just watch and walk and gawk, probably influences this opinion.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

When did Doak become God ?

His definition is not the be/all end/all. It might be for you.

Not for me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Doak is certainly not God, or a god. 

But the question here is about HIS SCALE, as defined BY HIM.  Note the title of the topic:

what course do you give a Doak 10 to that Tom didn't?

We are not being asked what courses would we consider to be the best.  We are being asked about 10s on the DOAK SCALE.

So go ahead Matt, it's not hard.  Once again...

Tom, I was wrong.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

The Doak Scale ... (taken from "Confidential Guide")

10 - "Nearly perfect, if you skipped a hole, you would miss something worth seeing."

LET ME INTERJECT - IF ONE SKIPPED THE 17TH AND 18TH HOLES AT RCD YOU WOULD NOT BE MISSING MUCH. I LOVED THE COURSE FOR A LEVEL OF 10 UNTIL THOSE TWO FINAL HOLES. A SOLID 9 FOR SURE.

Hence -- the verdict that it's not a 10 in my book.

Huck, I'll be waiting for your mea culpa senor.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

The Doak Scale ... (taken from "Confidential Guide")

10 - "Nearly perfect, if you skipped a hole, you would miss something worth seeing."

LET ME INTERJECT - IF ONE SKIPPED THE 17TH AND 18TH HOLES AT RCD YOU WOULD NOT BE MISSING MUCH. I LOVED THE COURSE FOR A LEVEL OF 10 UNTIL THOSE TWO FINAL HOLES. A SOLID 9 FOR SURE.

Hence -- the verdict that it's not a 10 in my book.

Huck, I'll be waiting for your mea culpa senor.

Matt, please tell me you can read.

Go read the earlier responses in this thread.  Doak himself - at my suggestion - revised this definition.  The definition now - as approved by him -  is written earlier in this thread.  And once again, I could give a rat's ass about any particular course, and never commented one iota on your assessment of RCD or any other course.  My comment was simply pointing our YOUR ERROR in stating that perfection is required in a Doak 10, in general - which you did state earlier in this thread.  It's not.  He said so himself, in the post quoted here by me.

Good god, you cannot possibly be this obstinate or stubborn.  You make Mucci look reasonable.

You were wrong, Matt.  And again, it's OK.   Being wrong is human.  Being so obstinate as to not admit it in such an obvious situation as this, well I will give you one more chance before I tell you the real name for that.  It adds a p to the short name for Richard.

TH

[Chris Kane]

Matt, its a flawed definition.  If you missed the 14th at Royal Melbourne, you wouldn't miss something worth seeing.  Same for the 9th at St Andrews.  I can't say every hole at Dornoch blew me away either.    

[TX Golf]

Talking about Western Gailes, I have to say that I also am VERY VERY fond of that course. Not only is it great, it happened to be the first actual links course I have ever played!!!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris - Doak himself admitted it was flawed, thus agreed to the revision.

Here is is again, so Matt can't side-step it.  More discussion is at the URL I list:

7/11/2008

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35496.35.html


In case you don't want to follow the link, here's the text:

TOM H:
But a question for you, Tom.

Your definition of a 10 - on the very scale you created to measure worth of golf courses - would seem to dictate that the ideal has 18 fantastic holes - OR AT LEAST THAT'S HOW PEOPLE SEEM TO APPLY IT.

Remember the definition of a Doak 10 - "if you miss even one hole you would miss something worth seeing."  People apply that to courses and say, this hole or that hole is no big deal (or bad or whatever) thus it can't be a Doak 10.

Given "breather" holes are so important and play such a vital role in the overall course... is this an error in the definition, or are people applying it wrong, getting too caught up in the "if you miss one hole" thing?

I've tended to believe it's the latter... that is, not every hole has to be super great for a course to get a Doak 10... the "what you'd be missing" part on a hole not otherwise obviously great being the subtlety of it, how it fits in so well with the WHOLE of the course...

Is that correct?  And if so, might we adjust the Doak scale definition a bit, since it does get misapplied so often?

Just a thought.

TH


TOM DOAK REPLIES:  Tom H:  You are right about the definition of a "10" in The Confidential Guide.  People are always quoting it to tell me why some course is worthy, or not worthy; and I really didn't mean it that way.  Ballybunion is one of the 10's on the Doak scale (and probably not the only one) where there are a couple of holes of which I don't think so highly ... but I still gave it a 10, so my definition must be not quite right.

I guess a better definition would be that every hole has to add something of value to the course as a whole.  However, I do not have enough cash on hand to buy back all of the Confidential Guides and make the edit.


TOM H REPLIES:

LOL!

Of course we cannot and shall not have all of the CG's edited... but given that the coin of the realm IN THIS FORUM for evaulating golf courses does seem to be your scale... and people do misapply this so often... how about one and all HERE give up on this "every hole must be fantastic" way of looking at a Doak 10, and rather look at it as Tom now explains (which I always kinda figured, btw - patting myself on the back):

10: Nearly perfect.  Every hole at the very least adds something of value to the course as a hole. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.

Whaddya think?  Start here and perhaps others get the idea...

[wsmorrison]

Furthermore, out of ten rounds I would prefer to play five each at Shinnecock and NGLA. Twenty years ago it would have been 6/4 in favor of The National.

Gene,

That my friend is progress!  If we don't screw things up, a bottle of wine (or beer) says you will eventually shift 6-4 in favor of my favorite course

Sorry we missed you this last hurried trip.  We'll be back up in November.  I hope its a warm day or two.
Regards,
Wayne

[Cory Lewis]

County Down

Portrush

Fishers Island

Kingsley Club

[David Stamm]

For me, Riviera is a 10 and Garden City is awful close as well, if we're talking courses not mentioned.

[Kevin Pallier]

Add me to the chorus that would give RCD a 10

I've always wondered why Tom gave Nth Berwick an 8 ?!?!?! For mine it's at least a 9 and quite possibly a 10

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Allow me to state it again for your benefit.

Now we insert the word "breather holes" -- the sad reality is that the two holes in question at RCD are out of character holes when compared to the lofty nature of what comes before them.

I don't deny that courses can have a possible hole or two or even three that are not all-world. But they cannot CAUSE a serious DETRACTION from what the others provide.

Doak's comment on his updated definition of 10 type courses ...

"guess a better definition would be that every hole has to ADD SOMETHING (my emphasis) something of value to the course as a whole."

Hey Huckeroo -- let me know when the mea culpa is coming from your end. I'll be gleefully waiting.

Chris K:

The issue is not that every hole must "blow you away" but that no hole actually causes you to scratch your head and wonder why it's there. A 10 course doesn't feature holes that cause such detractions.

[Tom Huckaby]

Good lord Matt... you really don't get it.

I've only said three times already, this has nothing to do with any one course.  I'll put it in caps so maybe this time it will sink in:  THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ROYAL COUNTY DOWN OR ANY OTHER GOLF COURSE.

My comment was that how you described what a Doak 10 must be - ANY DOAK 1O, NOT ROYAL COUNTY DOWN OR ANY OTHER PARTICULAR GOLF COURSE - is wrong.   

You stated:

Love the layout but a 10 should be totally bulletproof.

THAT is what I said you were wrong about.  Not any assessment of RCD, Crystal Downs, or podunk muni, but your statement that:

a 10 should be totally bulletproof.

Doak plain and simply states that 10s need not be bulletproof.

All the deflections, changes of subject, misses of the point in the world are not going to change the plain and simple fact that you had that wrong.

What's funny is that it's really no big deal!  I was honestly trying to help, to get you to understand this a bit better given you had no way of knowing about this previous thread in which Doak modifies the definition.  It rather astounds me you couldn't just take it as something that would add to your learning....

But what's even funnier is that through all of this you have finally come to see how it all works.  Yes, as Doak stated, every hole must add value.  Great.  But thanks for quoting what I've already quoted three times previously.

You really are a piece of work.

I guess an admittance of error wasi too much to be expected.  I should have known better.

Unbelievable.

[Chris Kane]

The issue is not that every hole must "blow you away" but that no hole actually causes you to scratch your head and wonder why it's there. A 10 course doesn't feature holes that cause such detractions.

Matt, that might be the definition of a Ward 10, but it certainly isn't the definition of a Doak 10.  The original definition was

"Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get"

The updated definition is

"... that every hole has to add something of value to the course as a whole" (to be read in conjunction with the original definition".

I agree with Tom Huckaby that the 10 rating doesn't require perfection.  If it did, there would be no 10's.

Further, I fail to see what the 9th at St Andrews adds in terms of "value".  If a hole like that can add value, then any hole on any golf course adds value. 

Accordingly, I think the problem with trying to define the qualities of a 10 is that every course of the highest calibre has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Once you create a definition, it is inevitable that some of the very best courses won't neatly fit the definition.

But if people insist on a definition, then "Nearly perfect" sums it up best for me!  Of course, its Tom Doak's scale, so only he's truly qualified to explain the distinction between an 8, 9 and 10.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris:  thank you.  It is comforting to know that logic does still exist in this forum.

The revised definition of 10 can be stated pretty simply as:

10: Nearly perfect.  Every hole at the very least adds something of value to the course as a whole. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.

As you say, Matt and anyone else can certainly make their own definitions of what the best course would be.  But if the discussion is about the Doak scale - which is the case in this thread - than that is the definition.

I think it works, also - just as you explain.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Huck:

As somebody who is not God, let me say you seem to quote me too often as gospel. 

But I'm not getting into the middle of this thread.  I've given my ratings and I have to let my past record stand for itself.

[Chuck Brown]

I'm away from my copy of TCG.  What did Doak number did Swinley Forest get? 8? 9?  Tom has written some of his most glowingly praiseful prose about Swinley Forest, hasn't he?

[Chris Kane]

Swinley is an 8 from memory.  I can't argue with that.

[Anthony Gray]

As much as I like North Berwick the opening hole would cost it a point on my evaluation



     I love that hole. An easy start to get you into your round. Plus it has great "Quirk Value".

[Rich Goodale]

Tom is a fine person and a great modern architect, but not the Messiah, and possibly even a very naughty boy........

[Mike Hendren]

I'd give a 10 to Pebble Beach five years ago.  Not today, however.

[Rich Goodale]

Good point, Mike.  My "10" is based on my significant play there 20-30 years ago.  That being said, regardless of what the course looks like today it would be the golf course I would choose to play every day of my life, reagrdless of how short or long that life happened to be.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

As somebody who is not God, let me say you seem to quote me too often as gospel. 

But I'm not getting into the middle of this thread.  I've given my ratings and I have to let my past record stand for itself.

As I've said Tom, you are not God nor a god, and I fully believe Rich's adminition that you may be a naughty boy.  Want to discuss Stone Eagle again?   

But if one creates a scale, and a discussion is about that scale, that first one makes the rules on what the scale says.   So yes, when it comes to the DOAK SCALE, what DOAK says sure as hell is gospel.  Look at it this way - what Matt (and now you I think, oddly enough) seem to miss:  my statements to Matt are ABSOLUTELY NOT about the merits of any particular golf course.  If you tell me Pebble Beach is a 10, that's your OPINION and sure as hell not gospel.  It's a valuable opinion for sure given your profession and long history of course evaluation, but it's an opinion nevertheless.  But if you tell me "a 10 on the Doak scale really means _________" then that IS gospel.  It's your scale and only you determine what it means.

Matt doesn't seem to get this at all.  It's not about course opinions.  It's about what the definitions in the DOAK SCALE mean.

So to that end, I suppose when it come to the Doak scale, you are lord, god, pharoah, master, almighty supreme being.

But outside of the Doak scale or other things which you authored, oh your word is no more gospel than any of the rest of us, my friend.  You remain fair game.

TH

ps re Pebble Beach - I shall be playing there in a few weeks.  It's a 10 for me also... and I can't see the current changes altering that.  But we shall see.

[Chip Gaskins]

ps re Pebble Beach - I shall be playing there in a few weeks.  It's a 10 for me also... and I can't see the current changes altering that.  But we shall see.

Tom-

Are you serious, Pebble is a 10 for you?

Chip

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()