The Definition of Zero

[Mark Pearce]

Jud,

I get that.  However, what you said was that you'd rather hit balls than play something less than average, which isn't the same thing.

I guess a better definition of a zero (for me, at least) would be a course that I would prefer hitting balls on the range to playing.

[Jud_T]

Life is short, play good courses....

[Kevin_Reilly]

Just played Moraga CC today (Moraga, CA...near San Francisco).  I did a quick search of the site to see if anything has ever been written about the course, and I found this from Gib:

So putrid, contrived, poorly thought out and over-the-top that I nearly fell out of the cart laughing.

I have nothing to add to that.

[Kirk Gill]

I can't blame a course because my expectations somehow set it up for failure. My expectations aren't in any way part of what's on the ground.

For a course to get a zero from this boy, it has to disappoint on virtually every level. For Tom Doak it has to be contrived and unnatural. I'm not necessarily as bothered as he is by such things. To me a Raynor course that is loaded with template holes is contrived and unnatural, but I can't imagine giving such a course the dreaded zero. Bottom line, it's all about the shots, and the interest. If I'm plodding around, facing obvious shot after obvious shot, with nothing but the most basic of challenge and little to delight my mind or my eye, the zero approacheth.

I haven't played Heritage Eagle Bend, but have played Legacy Ridge a few times. And it WAS better and more fun before all the houses. The experience there is much changed from the early days. The worst course I've played in the Denver Metro is Lake Arbor, a course that Mr. Doak did grade in his Confidential Guide, although I do not remember the rating. Ug. Uninspired green shapes and contours. Forced onto bits of property within the neighborhoods. Fairways with little contour, visual or strategic interest. Someone could play there and learn the game there, but other than that..........

I have played an Art Hills course that I enjoyed a lot (thus diminishing further any credibility I might have with this crowd). Walking Stick in Pueblo, Colorado, makes good use of some arroyos that cross the property, and there are some terrific angled tee shots. The greens aren't spectacularly contoured, but tee to green I enjoy playing that course.

[Matthew Petersen]

I can't blame a course because my expectations somehow set it up for failure. My expectations aren't in any way part of what's on the ground.

For a course to get a zero from this boy, it has to disappoint on virtually every level. For Tom Doak it has to be contrived and unnatural. I'm not necessarily as bothered as he is by such things. To me a Raynor course that is loaded with template holes is contrived and unnatural, but I can't imagine giving such a course the dreaded zero. Bottom line, it's all about the shots, and the interest. If I'm plodding around, facing obvious shot after obvious shot, with nothing but the most basic of challenge and little to delight my mind or my eye, the zero approacheth.

I haven't played Heritage Eagle Bend, but have played Legacy Ridge a few times. And it WAS better and more fun before all the houses. The experience there is much changed from the early days. The worst course I've played in the Denver Metro is Lake Arbor, a course that Mr. Doak did grade in his Confidential Guide, although I do not remember the rating. Ug. Uninspired green shapes and contours. Forced onto bits of property within the neighborhoods. Fairways with little contour, visual or strategic interest. Someone could play there and learn the game there, but other than that..........

I have played an Art Hills course that I enjoyed a lot (thus diminishing further any credibility I might have with this crowd). Walking Stick in Pueblo, Colorado, makes good use of some arroyos that cross the property, and there are some terrific angled tee shots. The greens aren't spectacularly contoured, but tee to green I enjoy playing that course.

I never played Lake Arbor, but I will second your vote of affection for Walking Stick. My grandmother used to live just across the highway from it and I would play there often when visiting her. I really enjoyed that course. I do remember at least one very long green to tee walk. But there were many good holes out there, especially those that played around the arroyos.

[John Moore II]

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.

I've beaten this like a dead horse, but I'll give my opinion again, just for Zack.

Zack, I think you miss the point a little bit about what a zero is. The best way I can define a zero is to picture a woman that looked rather decent, you know, looked good enough to at least ask out once. But then she decided to get $50,000 in cosmetic surgery and it made her look worse. Just imagine any number of this that should have looked much better but look terrible, I don't need to describe stuff, kids might read this stuff. That is the zero. A place where a load of money was spent and everything was basically constructed with a bulldozer, yet it turned out far less than decent looking. The zero might not look bad, and might otherwise be a decent course, I've said before that the one Zero that I have played was not terrible and I would play it before a few other courses in the area. So, the course might not be terrible, but given the work put into it, it turned out terrible compared to what could have been. That help Zack?

[Tom_Doak]

Zack:

I think I gave Lake Arbor a one or a two.

I would never have given it a zero, just because it produced two of the best people I know in the golf business ... Neal Iverson, who taught me about irrigation when we both worked for the Dyes, and his brother Eric, who's been one of my associates for several years now.

[Kirk Gill]

Thanks, Tom. I remember being surprised to see Lake Arbor in your book, but I'm guessing you played there while in town working on Riverdale Dunes? THAT is a most enjoyable course.

I did have the opportunity to meet Eric Iverson and chat with him one evening, and I enjoyed our conversation very much. He had some love for a couple other local "little-knowns," although I'll admit we never got around to Lake Arbor.

[Matthew Rose]

I guess I look at a zero as something that has a reasonable amount of expectations which are then completely and utterly underwhelmed.

Lake Arbor is just kind of basic.... I don't think it deserves to be an 0 just because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. I think when you go there, you know more or less that you aren't playing a US Open venue.

As for Legacy, I played it again yesterday and I've decided that #6 might be the worst hole in Denver. I hate it more and more each time I look at it.

[Roger Wolfe]

I refer to these courses as "Wild Wings."  I have not been to WW in Myrtle for years but what I do remember is that I cannot remember any of the holes or discern one course from another.  Therefore I refer to similar awful experiences as "Wild Wing [insert city here]."  I won't list the Charlotte course because they have nice members and nicer people running it (maybe you can guess
it).

Wild Wing Charlotte
Wild Wing Linville (Elk River)
Wild Wing Kohler (Meadow Valleys)
Wild Wing Williamsburg (Kingsmill)
Wild Wing New Kent (Brickshire)
Wild Wing Fredericksburg (Fawn Lake)

You can find one in almost every metropolitan area.  Great thread!

[JC Jones]

At least 99% of courses in Florida are Doak 0's.  Just sayin....

[Jim Hoak]

Of course, the zero to top all other zeros has to be Shadow Creek.  An engineering marvel, maybe--but pretentious, insulting, outrageous, so over the top that you can't concentrate on the golf, phony like all the other attractions in Las Vegas, etc.
A few years ago, I had the good fortune to play Sand Hills and Shadow Creek in the same day--the most natural course in America and the most unnatural.

[Matthew Petersen]

I guess I look at a zero as something that has a reasonable amount of expectations which are then completely and utterly underwhelmed.

Lake Arbor is just kind of basic.... I don't think it deserves to be an 0 just because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. I think when you go there, you know more or less that you aren't playing a US Open venue.

As for Legacy, I played it again yesterday and I've decided that #6 might be the worst hole in Denver. I hate it more and more each time I look at it.

I remember #16 at Bear Creek Golf Club being about the worst hole I'd ever seen when I played it.

[Jud_T]

I'm still not sure why a 0 is relative to expectations, cost and hype and not simply relative to a 1, but I guess the best examples I've played that fall under the "don't believe the hype" classification are the Bear at Grand Traverse and Rich Harvest...and I would take Meadow Valley over the Irish Course any day of the week....

[Mac Plumart]

Shadow Creek a zero?  Really?  I liked it a lot.  I thought it was the best Fazio I had played up to that point...if you don't count Sea Island Seaside as a Fazio.  Shadow Creek is certainly not the greatest course in the entire world, but it can't be a zero...can it?

And a zero can't be rated versus your expectations in my opinion.  If you expect a course to be something it isn't, that is on you...not the course. 

I could go on and would love to discuss this in more depth, but I am afraid that would be a thread jack.

[John Moore II]

At least 99% of courses in Florida are Doak 0's.  Just sayin....

No way. I've played a good number of courses down there, and seen several more. None come close to what I would call a zero. None of them. We've had this discussion before though, whole thread on it. They're just not zeros. They might be contrived and unnatural, but most of them don't pretend to be over the top exceptional. They just act like golf courses and do a fine job.

[Andy Troeger]

I think Meadow Valleys has a handful of great holes on the back nine with the stretch of #12-18 matching anything at the resort. I'll give that the first 11 holes do leave something to be desired, but I'd give the course at least a 5. And I'll agree with Jud that its better than the Irish Course.

[JC Jones]

At least 99% of courses in Florida are Doak 0's.  Just sayin....

No way. I've played a good number of courses down there, and seen several more. None come close to what I would call a zero. None of them. We've had this discussion before though, whole thread on it. They're just not zeros. They might be contrived and unnatural, but most of them don't pretend to be over the top exceptional. They just act like golf courses and do a fine job.

I started that thread.

[David_Elvins]

Of course, the zero to top all other zeros has to be Shadow Creek.

You are a fair way off.  Shadow Creek was a Doak 8 or 9.  Although I seem to remember Tom suggesting he might take it down a ranking point in hidsight. 

[JC Jones]

Of course, the zero to top all other zeros has to be Shadow Creek.

You are a fair way off.  Shadow Creek was a Doak 8 or 9.  Although I seem to remember Tom suggesting he might take it down a ranking point in hidsight. 

according to the definition, he very well can rate it a zero.  Regardless of where Doak rated it.

[Anthony Gray]

At least 99% of courses in Florida are Doak 0's.  Just sayin....

No way. I've played a good number of courses down there, and seen several more. None come close to what I would call a zero. None of them. We've had this discussion before though, whole thread on it. They're just not zeros. They might be contrived and unnatural, but most of them don't pretend to be over the top exceptional. They just act like golf courses and do a fine job.

I started that thread.

  I remember that thread.

  ARG

[Greg Chambers]

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?

how many times have you played liberty national?

[Jason McNamara]

Of course, the zero to top all other zeros has to be Shadow Creek.

You are a fair way off.  Shadow Creek was a Doak 8 or 9.  Although I seem to remember Tom suggesting he might take it down a ranking point in hidsight. 

A 9 originally, and one of the 31 flavors to boot.

[John Moore II]

At least 99% of courses in Florida are Doak 0's.  Just sayin....

No way. I've played a good number of courses down there, and seen several more. None come close to what I would call a zero. None of them. We've had this discussion before though, whole thread on it. They're just not zeros. They might be contrived and unnatural, but most of them don't pretend to be over the top exceptional. They just act like golf courses and do a fine job.

I started that thread.

And you're still wrong.

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?

how many times have you played liberty national?

Can you read? Please reread my writing in red and get back to me on this one. Perhaps with another, more relevant question.