The Definition of Zero

[John Moore II]

Tom-I hope it didn't come off that I was trying to say there should be no 0's or 10's. I wasn't. I was trying to articulate what those two numbers mean to me.

What I was trying to say is that the 0 comes to mean a course that might not necessarily be bad by itself, but in knowing what went into construction (tons of money, vast amounts of land movement, whatever it may be) it should have amounted to something really good (certainly Shadow Creek was 100% man made, but done right, so you thought it was a 9) but wound up falling flat and being a huge disappointment (where Shadow Creek is considered by many to be something of a masterpiece).

And the 10 is something that might be the finest example of an individual architects work, or a course that falls perfectly on the land and looks like it was just mowed out of the timbers and weeds, or a course with otherworldly aesthetics.

These levels of greatness might be hard to quantify perfectly, however, they are known when seen, and they certainly do exist. 10 is not perfect, its just the top level that can feasibly be obtained. Same with golf, 59 is the golf standard of greatness over one given round, but its not perfect, 18 is perfect and on a regulation golf course, something that can't be obtained. The 10 is not perfect, its just as good as humanly possible, and there are a number of different ways to do it.

[Mike Cirba]

Eight Words;

Country Club of The Poconos at Big Ridge

Ok...my friend Mike Hendren wants an explanation.   I'll try to be succint.

It's 12 miles from the first tee to the 18th green and yet in all of that acreage the architect has "found" holes like the 4th which requires a 9 iron layup short of wetlands filled with 8-foot tall reeds you can't go around, and a full out 215 yard blind approach over them to the green.

Oh...the Zero is very real my friends....all too real.

Be afraid...be very, very afraid.   

[RSLivingston_III]

Eight Words;

Country Club of The Poconos at Big Ridge

Ok...my friend Mike Hendren wants an explanation.   I'll try to be succint.

It's 12 miles from the first tee to the 18th green and yet in all of that acreage the architect has "found" holes like the 4th which requires a 9 iron layup short of wetlands filled with 8-foot tall reeds you can't go around, and a full out 215 yard blind approach over them to the green.

Oh...the Zero is very real my friends....all too real.

Be afraid...be very, very afraid.   

Good description.
Eeeeeewwww.....

[Steve Strasheim]

Michael,

Believe me, it's an insult to the real black shirts. The main street for the development there is called Augusta Drive. Doesn't make it so.

To be honest, I never thought about the blackshirts tee. Now that you've pointed it out, I like the course less. -.5 for tacky bandwagon jumping.

Interesting thread.

At least Silvertip has some incredible views. That's worth at least one point on my scale.

I'm playing in an annual charity scramble next weekend at my least favorite course: http://www.himarkgolf.com/courseInfoAerial.html

I wonder if it qualifies for a Doak zero. I'd pay double to be able to look at the mountains instead of the course.

Looking at highmarks' scorecard, id have to give it at least a 0.5 considering the back tees are considered "blackshirts."  Clever marketing considering the location.

[Jason McNamara]

Country Club of The Poconos at Big Ridge

It's 12 miles from the first tee to the 18th green

Good grief.  Does the back nine lie in one of those goofy Gander-esque +:30 time zones?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I have always felt that any golf course brings something to the table. My childhood Muni with pushup greens, hardpan everywhere and much of the fairways being St Augustine. It had utility lines in play, yet there was so much fun had there in life. Oddly o my first trip to TOC I was playing so many of the same hard pan and ground shots from those childhood rounds. My childhood Country Club was a Perry Maxwell with wonderful pedigree, however it was the shots I learned at Muni which made that first trip to Scotland so much fun shotmaking wise. I do understand and agree with wasted resources and every other what were you thinking that makes you want to just say this course is a wasted F----. There was a particular Hill course in Naples that pushed me to the limits a few years back. Yet, when ones spirit is right there really is something of value to learn and enjoy from every course no matter how much Trump crap it is wrapped up in.

[John Moore II]

I have always felt that any golf course brings something to the table. My childhood Muni with pushup greens, hardpan everywhere and much of the fairways being St Augustine. It had utility lines in play, yet there was so much fun had there in life. Oddly o my first trip to TOC I was playing so many of the same hard pan and ground shots from those childhood rounds. My childhood Country Club was a Perry Maxwell with wonderful pedigree, however it was the shots I learned at Muni which made that first trip to Scotland so much fun shotmaking wise. I do understand and agree with wasted resources and every other what were you thinking that makes you want to just say this course is a wasted F----. There was a particular Hill course in Naples that pushed me to the limits a few years back. Yet, when ones spirit is right there really is something of value to learn and enjoy from every course no matter how much Trump crap it is wrapped up in.

Tiger-You are correct that all golf courses offer something that is good. Well, for the most part. I will say that I've played a few courses that came very close to having no redeeming qualities. To me, a course that is a Zero is a course that is either highly manufactured, as I've said before, OR, and this is a newly added qualifier, the course is built on an awesome site and really, REALLY falls flat. Kind of like a course being built on the same site as Cypress Point (California) being built to less quality than Cypress Point (Virginia; this course is set on three peninsulas on a lake that is a back water of the James River, yet only has two holes fronting the lake, and has two manmade irrigation ponds in spite of being right on a huge lake, the rest of the holes are landbound) I haven't played either of them, but the latter stands to have a good chance of being a Zero in my book for falling so far short of potential. That is another real definition of a Zero to me, falling incredibly short of potential.

-I Played a course today that nearly fits this description. Sleepy Hole in Virginia, I think, falls short of its potential. It has a good amount of frontage on the Nansemond River with only one hole on the river. The remainder of the river frontage land is occupied by the cart shed and driving range. Maybe its just me, but I would put those two areas on the worst land possible, certainly not the best. No, Sleepy Hole is not a Zero, but its no better than a 3 and part of that is because it falls so short of what it could be.

[JMorgan]

Most recent 0 = Liberty National

Oh what could have been, emphatically is not ...

[John Moore II]

Most recent 0 = Liberty National

Oh what could have been, emphatically is not ...

Interesting thought. Where does this course fall on Mr Doak's scale (without considerations of cost to build. Just as the golf course in general)? If you say less than 8, then yes, I can certainly buy it being judged as a Zero, mostly since it cost $250 million to build, reportedly, and since Bayonne, on virtually the same type site, and according to many, turned out much, much better.

[JMorgan]

Most recent 0 = Liberty National

Oh what could have been, emphatically is not ...

Interesting thought. Where does this course fall on Mr Doak's scale (without considerations of cost to build. Just as the golf course in general)? If you say less than 8, then yes, I can certainly buy it being judged as a Zero, mostly since it cost $250 million to build, reportedly, and since Bayonne, on virtually the same type site, and according to many, turned out much, much better.

John, in this case conspicuous waste and squandered design possibilities outweigh any recompense for a few powers of 10.  The holes most finessed are #2 and #18, and no surprise they occupy the best sight lines on the course. It would take me a while to reenact, hole by hole, the hapless fly entering the moving parts, culminating with that slo-mo moment of total disintegration.  Suffice it said, it happens quickly: there is absolutely no design unity, each hole is dressed in nursery or landscape expo finery, most of the greens are just ridiculous ... disjointed from the fairways and reason, some are outright hilarious.  It's a big 0 in my book.  Golf is the last thing on anyone's mind there.  It's a course on which to capitulate a business agreement or to point out the views of lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty to one's guests with a mind toward some impression.  To think what could have come from that property once it was decided that it would become a golf course ... what a terrible shame.  Freedom of choice, though, this zero. Their candy store, not mine.

I have not yet played Bayonne so I cannot comment.

[Bill_McBride]

Furry Creek comes to mind........

[John Moore II]

JMorgan-You really bring up a good point. And perhaps one that hasn't really been addressed. Can courses that are otherwise very good (according to many, I've never played Liberty National. However, I did know one of the Pro's there and he said he thought it was better than Bayonne and as good as Sebonack. And he had heard that same thing from a few clients at the course. Who knows ) be classified as a Zero because of them spending huge, huge sums of money and falling short of either expectations or potential? To me, for $250 million on a waterfront site with a view of Manhattan, you aught to be able to build a course at least as good as Ballybunion (a Doak 10). So, if that is the potenial, then anything less than an 8 is a huge failure in my opinion. Thoughts?

[Michael Huber]

In a similar, but not identical topic, I recently got into a debate with friends about pizza.  I've eaten a lot of pizza in my time, but I don't think I've ever eaten pizza where I wanted to vomit after eating it.  In other words, I dont think ive eaten a slice of pizza that was a doak zero.  Thats not to say there havent been bland pizzas or rubber pizzas or flat out cheap pizza.  Its just that pizzas are really hard to screw up. 

Are golf courses the same way?

[John Moore II]

In a similar, but not identical topic, I recently got into a debate with friends about pizza.  I've eaten a lot of pizza in my time, but I don't think I've ever eaten pizza where I wanted to vomit after eating it.  In other words, I dont think ive eaten a slice of pizza that was a doak zero.  Thats not to say there havent been bland pizzas or rubber pizzas or flat out cheap pizza.  Its just that pizzas are really hard to screw up. 

Are golf courses the same way?

Yes, in many ways, that is correct. I have played courses where I will not return given any additional options, however, that does not mean they were so terrible that I wish I had the past 4 hours of my life back when I walked off the golf course. It was still a golf course and no matter how bad it is, its still better than the range or not playing at all. I don't quite agree with Tom's designator for the 1(ONE) rating of "avoid even if desperate," but that would be the case if there were any other options.

The Zero is a really unique rating. I have played one course that Tom rates a Zero, Kiln Creek in Hampton, VA. It was not the worst course I have ever played, though the rating implies that it should be. However, it got the Zero because apparently it cost a huge sum of money to construct and they had to move several million yards of dirt to construct it. Yet, in spite of all that, rather than turning out looking like the masterpieces that are Shadow Creek and Bayonne (or even Tom's work at Rawls), it turned out looking no better than any other course in town, courses that cost far less money to construct. That is the real definition of a Zero, I think. Courses that for whatever reason should have been exceptional, given the cost and amount of work put into them, yet they turned out only average.

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure that I've actually played a zero.  Ballybunion Cashen in strong wind is a bit of a joke IMHO.  I played a course in rural Virginia once where some farmer simply mowed some greens and stuck in flags.  Minimalism defined you say?  Perhaps except it seemed like the fairways were crabgrass.  Both had some remedial value, however, so I still have yet to see a true zero....

[Kalen Braley]

BUmmer man, I opened this thread hoping to find a lively discussion on zero in mathematical terms.  I must say I'm very disappointed!!     

But just in case anyone is interested I did find this bit. 

The concept of zero is surprisingly deep, and it took human thinkers quite a long time to come up with the notion of zero.  In fact, though mathematicians began thinking about the concept of zero in 2000-1800 B.C.E., it was not until about 200-300 B.C.E. that the Babylonians began using a symbol that would evolve into what we today know as zero. 

It turns out that mathematicians first thought of zero in the context of writing numbers down -- zero was first a placeholder.  Before
mathematicians understood the notion of zero, there was much ambiguity about written numbers.  For instance, if the symbol for 5 was written down, there was no way to tell what number was being expressed -- was it 5? Or, 50?  Or, 5,000,000?  Thus, zero was introduced as a placeholder to avoid these ambiguities.

In India, the concept of 0 as a placeholder and 0 as a number were associated with one another much earlier than in Babylon.  It is from the Indians that we get our present-day symbol for 0.  I can tell you this:  when working with sets or groups of elements under some defined operation of addition, the "zero element" is defined as the element, let's call it z, such that a + z = a for all a in the set or group.  So, one definition you could use for 0 is that 0 + x = x for all real numbers x. Alternatively, you might define 0 as the number in between the positive and negative numbers.  Or, maybe you could define 0 as lacking quantity (that's what the dictionary says!) 

[John Moore II]

Jud-To be a Zero is not to say the course has no value. Read my last few replies and I think you might see what a Zero tends to be. They are not courses with no value, just courses that have greatly underachieved their potential.

[Jud_T]

Seems to me that based on the original definitions, that a zero or one are not worth playing under any circumstances.  If you are desperate for a game, a two should be the bare minimum, and that's pushing it....Maybe I'm spoiled but I think I'd rather just hit a large bucket and work on my short game than play much of anything below a 3 or 4....

[Mike Hendren]

I don't mind being wrong if Messrs. Cirba and Pazin consider me a "friend."  It's good to be Bogey.

Mike

[John Moore II]

Seems to me that based on the original definitions, that a zero or one are not worth playing under any circumstances.  If you are desperate for a game, a two should be the bare minimum, and that's pushing it....Maybe I'm spoiled but I think I'd rather just hit a large bucket and work on my short game than play much of anything below a 3 or 4....

Yeah, you're spoiled too much.     But often times, the Zero is only noticed if you have some high expectations coming in. Like I said, I played Kiln Creek but didn't know before hand it was a Zero, so I didn't think it was that terrible. I would consider Kiln Creek again over a few of the other public courses in the area, specifically The Hamptons. In some ways though, you are correct. I wouldn't play a course less than a three so long as there were other options in the area, if I knew it was that bad to start with.

[Martin Toal]

Silvertip in Canada is a course so contrived and unnatural that it DID poison my mind, and one I cannot recommend under any circumstances. This course wasted ridiculous sums of money in its construction, and shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
http://www.silvertipresort.com/

I have played this one and I don't think it is quite that bad. OK, it is clearly not very good, no argument there, but I would describe it as rather forgettable rather than offensive. There is one hole I remember, the 9th. It is a par 4 dogleg left which drops over a hill down to a green by a pond and we were playing off the tee at around 380 yards. I hit a hooky 3 wood off the tee and it bounded down the hill and ended up in the rough just short of rolling into the pond.

[Mark Pearce]

Seems to me that based on the original definitions, that a zero or one are not worth playing under any circumstances.  If you are desperate for a game, a two should be the bare minimum, and that's pushing it....Maybe I'm spoiled but I think I'd rather just hit a large bucket and work on my short game than play much of anything below a 3 or 4....

I understand 3 to be "average".  Would you really just hit balls (architectural interest 0, shot values 0, challenge 0) than play any course less than an average course?  I'm a member of a course that got a 3 in the CG (I won't reprise my views on the CG and North East England) and I cannot imagine a time when I'd rather hit balls than play it.

[Mike Cirba]

I don't mind being wrong if Messrs. Cirba and Pazin consider me a "friend."  It's good to be Bogey.

Mike

Michael,

You've corrected me on more than one occasion here, and rightly so, and we did have that day together on the nicest spot on the planet, so I hope you consider me the same. 

Here's hoping I wasn't just a one-day stand!     

[Zack Molnar]

I can see where the concept of a zero course would come from, but I have to disagree with the practical implementation of it. I have never left a course feeling that I completely wasted my time and the course was an abomination to the game of golf. I have never played a course where i felt that every single shot was utterly worthless to hit. Sure, there are courses that severely lack in any type of architectural design or strategy. But, while i have never played such a course, I doubt there there exists a course that is so devoid of anything positive that it makes you want to blow it up and lock away the architect. I have too much fun on the course to ever truly leave a course feeling that way. Courses are little pieces of goodness (granted, some more divine than others), and I do not think I could ever leave a course feeling totally duped. I may feel that it was not worth the price and therefore I will not return because it is not worth the money, but if i were asked to play any course in the world, whether it be PV or silvertip, i can't imagine declining if there were no other option.

[Jud_T]

Mark,
Given the abundance of average courses, I see no need to play anything worse.  Unless I were in the military and stuck in Siberia and desperate for a round.