The common thread in greatness

[JC Jones]

Per Tom Doak in The Confidential Guide, here are the 10's:

St. Andrews Old Course
Muirfield
Royal Dornoch
Ballybunion (Old)
Royal Melbourne (West)
National Golf Links of America
Shinnecock Hills
Pine Valley
Merion (East)
Pinehurst (No. 2)
Crystal Downs (JC note - I swore he said recently in my Seminole v CD thread that he had CD as a 9 but this list is from a post of his from another thread)
Cypress Point

Here is the top 10, per Golfweek Magazine:

Pine Valley
Cypress Point Club
Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes
Shinnecock
NGLA
Merion
Oakmont
Crystal Downs
Pebble Beach

What do all of these courses have in common such that despite their obvious differences, they can all be considered "great" (whether by one man or the consensus)?

[John Moore II]

JC-You ask a very good question. I will give it a decent try, all though I have only seen Pinehurst #2. I think in general, all these courses have great variety and very little, if any, weaknesses. That is the key to them all, most likely. Thats the best I can do, but maybe that will spark more debate.

[Kevin Pallier]

JC

I believe Tom also stated that Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are Doak 10's as well.

For mine - the thing that stands out for me on all the "truly great" courses is the meld of the design to the land. The flow of the routing and the variety of challenges that one is presented with - both off the tee and around the greens - give them that status.
They all have but very few flaws by my definition of "greatness".

[TEPaul]

JC:

I would say they all enjoy a fairly consensus opinion (what you have called something like a "collective" opinion over time?) that their architecture is superior for a variety of reasons.

Have any of those lists, magazines, opinion polls over time ever attempted to explain why all or any of them are considered to be great, architecturally or otherwise?

Now what about this issue and importance of this thing that some recently have been proposing and/or debating relating to these courses or superior architecture known as the so-called "Fun Factor?" 

[Peter Pallotta]

The 10s are 10s because they are not "10s".

And each of those 10s is a 10 in its own uniquely unique way, flaws and all.

Like Moby Dick and King Lear, they are great not in spite of their imperfections but because of them.

They adhere to higher and more nobler standards -- not to the rules of the good but to the freedoms of the great.

But the trouble is, JC, no one will come down from the mountain to tell us shmucks what those freedoms are.

Only the earth can tell us, and she only whispers - so we have to stoop down and pay attention.

Ah, if only someone would grant all of us the courage to be imperfect..and then to wait for the judgement of history.

Also, angles.

Coop

[JC Jones]

JC

I believe Tom also stated that Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are Doak 10's as well.

For mine - the thing that stands out for me on all the "truly great" courses is the meld of the design to the land. The flow of the routing and the variety of challenges that one is presented with - both off the tee and around the greens - give them that status.
They all have but very few flaws by my definition of "greatness".

Kevin,

Tom D may have stated that Sand Hills was a 10 but I have seen him to be far too modest to give his own course a 10, whether deserving (as is the case with PacDunes), or not.

Back to this thread, you saw many great courses last fall.  Some were 10's, per Tom D, some were not and some were not in the Confidential Guide.  Nevertheless, which, of the ones you saw, did not meld the design to the land and have the requisite routing and variety?  And, were any of those more fun than the ones you considered to be "great"?

(Please feel free to answer that question on my other thread, if you so choose)

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question.  I expressed there my preference for courses which had a bunch of great short par-4 holes, and suggested that was often the main difference between my 10's and those which just missed the mark.  Many "championship" courses omit that type of hole in order to gain championship length, but they lose out on variety and on the fun factor for average golfers in the process.

Having great short par-4's is not the ONLY ingredient for a course getting a 10 on the Doak scale, of course.  I didn't assign grades that high unless I felt that a wide spectrum of golfers might agree.  And THAT is why my list of personal favorite courses wouldn't be exactly the same as the list of 10's that I put on record.  That, and the fact that modesty might prevent me from rating any of my own courses a 10, but it surely would not keep me from having them as favorites. 

[David_Elvins]

Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.

Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.  

[JC Jones]

JC:  If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question. 

I actually haven't read it at all.  The blasted thing is too expensive for a teacher's salary

Having great short par-4's is not the ONLY ingredient for a course getting a 10 on the Doak scale, of course.  I didn't assign grades that high unless I felt that a wide spectrum of golfers might agree. 

I find this very interesting.  You only gave 10s to courses which you perceived the collective to have already determined great?  So much for being the maverick critic

How did you know a wide spectrum of golfers would probably agree?  Had a wide spectrum already determined which courses were great?  If so, how did you differentiate your rationale for the greatness of the course from that of the collective?

Why, in your opinion, other than short par 4's and your belief in a consensus, did you determine those courses to be worthy of the label of "great"?

[Simon Holt]

Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.

Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.  

David,

I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post.  I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list.  It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played.  Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.

Cheers,
S

[Scott Warren]

Simon,

I'd imagine it actually feels pretty good to know you prefer Pine Valley over NGLA, Shinnecock, Cypress...

[David_Elvins]

Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.

Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.  

I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post.  I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list.  It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played.  Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.

Partly jesting, Simon.

It is strange that this, along with the forced carries, seperates it from all other great golf courses.  Is it really a great course for the short hitter, elderly, or casual player in the the way that Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, St Andrews and NGLA are? 

[Scott Warren]

By the same token, David, would those courses be as challenging/enjoyable for the Tour pro as they are for the regular amateur?

[David_Elvins]

By the same token, David, would those courses be as challenging/enjoyable for the Tour pro as they are for the regular amateur?

Yes, that's what makes them great courses.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Doak said, "JC:  If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question.  I expressed there my preference for courses which had a bunch of great short par-4 holes, and suggested that was often the main difference between my 10's and those which just missed the mark..."

Could you define what you mean by "short par-4 holes?" For example, do they need to be drivable?

[Tom_Doak]

Could you define what you mean by "short par-4 holes?" For example, do they need to be drivable?

Phil:  No, they don't need to be drivable at all.  I was talking about holes under +/- 375 yards, which the average golfer could reach in two shots without straining.  If you don't have a few of those, a course is just a long slog for most, and it won't be much fun.

So for example, while Pine Valley is exceptionally challenging in general, it has holes like the 2nd, 8th, 12th and 17th where any visitor ought to have a chance to make par or even birdie, as opposed to the chain of bogeys and doubles they would likely make at a championship course like Medinah or Winged Foot or Olympic.

I find this very interesting.  You only gave 10s to courses which you perceived the collective to have already determined great?  So much for being the maverick critic

How did you know a wide spectrum of golfers would probably agree?  Had a wide spectrum already determined which courses were great?  If so, how did you differentiate your rationale for the greatness of the course from that of the collective?

JC:  I find this not so interesting, so this is my last response to your topic.  I had Crystal Downs rated as a 10 before GOLF DIGEST had heard of it, and National Golf Links rated that high when it was still somewhere below #50 on their rankings.  [It was out of their top 100 altogether when I started my travels.]  So I didn't care much about what had been published, or for being part of a consensus.  But I did care that the courses had features that could appeal to a wide range of golfers, which most rankings ignore. 

I have no intention of listing out every element which I think can contribute to making a course great.  I did it for Ran once, years ago; I think I came up with 50 or 60 different things, a test that no course could ace.  But even if I could find that list, I would not post it here, because I wouldn't want somebody to dig it up 20 years later to tell me that I had changed my mind about one of those 50 things.  That would be pointless, when my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf.

[JC Jones]

Tom,

It is too bad you don't find this interesting.  I think many on here, including myself, appreciate and very much find interesting your thoughts on what constitutes greatness.  Where better to learn from than the man who back in the late 80's and 90's changed the way the world thought about golf course architecture?

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  If you really want to know the answers to this, no one else can post them for you ... you have to go out there and learn for yourself.  Pete Dye surely didn't tell me what the answer was, although I did learn a bunch of the ingredients from him along the way.

[JC Jones]

JC:  If you really want to know the answers to this, no one else can post them for you ... you have to go out there and learn for yourself.  Pete Dye surely didn't tell me what the answer was, although I did learn a bunch of the ingredients from him along the way.

Tom,

In no way am I suggesting that your posts are a substitute for my own education.  As this is a discussion group, I find it interesting to hear your thoughts so that we can discuss them.  While I am sure Pete Dye didn't explain it all to you, he probably discussed those things with you.

[TEPaul]

JC Jones said:

“I think many on here, including myself, appreciate and very much find interesting your thoughts on what constitutes greatness.  Where better to learn from than the man who back in the late 80's and 90's changed the way the world thought about golf course architecture?”



Tom Doak responded to him with:

“JC:  If you really want to know the answers to this, no one else can post them for you ... you have to go out there and learn for yourself.”



JC:

You asked Tom Doak for his thoughts on what constitutes greatness, apparently for any particular golfer. He gave you his thoughts in his response to you above. Apparently he thinks one needs to go out there and learn these things for himself. Are you going to accept his thoughts and his answer or are you going to continue to try to get him to say something else or something different?

[JC Jones]

Tom Paul,

Actually, I asked the board, generally, what they thought was the common thread in greatness.  Tom chose to respond.  I then asked what he thought constitutes greatness, for him personally.

Apparently you still need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Jim Franklin]

Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.

Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.  

I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post.  I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list.  It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played.  Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.

Partly jesting, Simon.

It is strange that this, along with the forced carries, seperates it from all other great golf courses.  Is it really a great course for the short hitter, elderly, or casual player in the the way that Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, St Andrews and NGLA are? 

How is a 200+ yard carry over the ocean "fun" for an elderly/short hitter? I am not knocking CPC as it is my #1 course, but to knock PV for its difficulty and not mention CPC's difficult carry is absurd. And please don't tell me someone is going to play around to the left because that certainly is not fun.

[TEPaul]

JC:

I realize you asked the board generally what constitutes greatness, and I realize Tom Doak chose to respond. I realize you then asked him what he thought constitutes greatness, for him personally. And I realize how he responded to you. Consequently, and subsequently I asked you if you planned to accept what he said to you about how to best learn golf architecture or if you planned to try to get him to say something else or something different. I don't think I need to work on my reading comprehension but you may need to answer that question of mine to you if you plan to ever learn if there is some common thread of greatness in golf course architecture, at least to learn it in the way that Tom Doak apparently feels it can and should be learned?

[Mark McKeever]

I think that a lot of the best courses you leave the property thinking that they couldnt have done a better job using the land they had.  From the courses I have played on this list, they all use the land to its absolute fullest potential.

Mark

[Garland Bayley]

JC:  If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question. 

I actually haven't read it at all.  The blasted thing is too expensive for a teacher's salary

Shame on you Jason. Haven't you heard of inter-library loan?
Now get serious and do some reading.