Is Tom Doak the Robert Parker of our golf course architecture?

[Niall Hay]

A Doak 10 or a RP 100?

[John Kavanaugh]

A Doak 10 or a RP 100?

Now that Parker makes a living from his opinions is he as independent as when he first started?  Is he now a whore to the industry?

note: By submitting the above questions I do not mean to imply that Doak is neither independent or a whore.

[Brad Isaacs]

Can't drink a Doak or vice versa!   So no

[Mike Hendren]

Why not just ask if Doak is the Alpha and the Omega and get it over with?

If Doak is the Robert Parker of golf course architecture, then Quail Crossing is Two Buck Chuck - not that there's anything wrong with that.

Bogey

[Mac Plumart]

Robert Parker can't hold Tom Doak's jock strap!!

Tom Doak has an entire song written about him...can Mr. Parker say that?

[JC Jones]

Parker is not a vintner and always represented himself as a critic.  To my knowledge he does not oscillate between the two.

[Niall Hay]

Meant more with regards to his influence and increased visibility that a high rating or review mean to a course….high rating from him in particular are highly sought after. His opinion means something due to his “skill” or knowledge and the respect people have for his opinion.

[Niall Hay]

A Doak 10 or a RP 100?

Now that Parker makes a living from his opinions is he as independent as when he first started?  Is he now a whore to the industry?

note: By submitting the above questions I do not mean to imply that Doak is neither independent or a whore.

Neither was intended or insinuated either.

[Tom_Doak]

I was just in Bordeaux 2-3 weeks ago and it was interesting to have dinner with some astute people in the wine business and hear their take on Mr. Parker's opinions and business.

Frankly, I find it amazing that in a business like that, one fellow [and only one] could get into the position where his opinion is that important.  I guess that, much like my ratings of golf courses, he was simply the one to get there first and claim the space, and anyone else who tries to do the same is seen as an imitator.

Nevertheless, whether I was ever in that position in the golf business -- and many more would disagree with my selection than with Parker's -- I have been retired as a critic for some time now.  Of course, that doesn't preclude me from offering an opinion now and then if I feel like it, but if I do, it is taken in the context of my own design career.

Parker was in a business where his opinion could actually be worth MORE than making great wine himself -- if he has that talent.  In golf, though, it's always been the other way around, and in fact that's seemed to be true whether you are actually any good at architecture or not!

P.S. to John:  I understood your sentence structure, even if it looks like Niall did not. 

[Matt MacIver]

I see the similarities - both were first to develop specific criteria to judge, and to assign numeric values - those concepts speak out to the quantitatively inclined. 

There are lots of differences between the two disciplines though: wine (can be) cheaper; can be enjoyed more often (every night!); more casually (or off-handedly); engages more people; and is in more global.  Wine is likely a bigger world-wide industry.  So all that plus the fact that Parker kept plugging away with his ratings while Doak moved to the production component of the trade led to where we are today. 

Which leads to a thought: Parker advanced the "fruit bomb" style and essentially is accused of changing the way Bordeaux produces wine - dumbing them down (for Americans), making them more forward and ready-to-drink earlier.  Whereas Tom has almost harkened back to the "glory days" of GCA...naturalism, minimalism, etc. - heck he likes North Berwick!  So where Parker has used his influence to take a classic like Bordeaux and move it...backward?....Tom reviewed the last 40 years of GCA and opined that we should go back 80+ years to get back to the good stuff!

[Niall Hay]

Well said Matt.

[Mark Pearce]

No, he is not.  Parker has extraordinary influence on the market.  Many wine drinkers who buy wine in the more expensive categories depend (wrongly and to the detriment of the wine industry, in my book) on Parker's scores.  He is capable of dramatically moving prices of a wine by giving it a high or a low score.  Most real wine buffs treat his scores with more care.  Indeed, amongst the small minority of real wine geeks he is a very controversial figure and many actively disagree with his scores.  I know many people who will avoid a wine with a high Parker score because they know what he likes and they have different tastes.

Tom Doak's scores, on the other hand, are only of interest to the small minority of geeks, like those who inhabit this place.  A high Doak score will mean almost nothing to Joe Average Golfer.  Parker is the most influential critic in wine, I guess there are several magazines whose influence on the masses outweighs Tom Doak's.

Finally, Parker likes and promotes forward, dense, obvious fruit bombs.  He is not a prophet for subtlety.  If there was an analogy (and I'm going to draw one, no matter how dubious it is) then if he was a golf course critic, he'd like Fazio, he'd like fountains, he'd like lakes and signature holes.  He would not like minimalism.

[Sean_A]

Mark is right.  Doak and Parker are not comparable in the sense that Parker's (read Wine Advocate) likes and dislikes can dramatically alter the price of wine at the high end of the market especially in Bordeaux and California.  Where the two are similar is for the average Joe (thats me), neither Doak or Parker make much difference.  Sure, one could say because of Doak (or should it be C&C?) more opportunities arose for a naturalist golf courses.  And sure, one could say the rise of Aussie wines and the fruit bombing of an area like Rioja are down to Parker, but I am not sure this is true in either case.  Most people I know gravitate toward fruity wines as they are easy to drink, go with most any food (or on its own) and are readily affordable.  Of course, I can't judge very well because I am not old enough to know what a decent Rioja tasted like in 1975.  But I can tell you that if you want a more subtle Rioja, it tends to cost more. 

Bottom line, Parker's star is on the decline (and The Wine Advocate is taking on more and more importance in his empire) and time will tell about his legacy.  Doak's star is still on the rise (or at the very least levelled off for the moment) and I suspect his legacy is well intact.   

Ciao

[John Foley]

Shouldn't it be:

Ron Whitten = Robert Parker

Tom Doak = Bill Harlan

Ran Morrissett = Gary Oldman

I think that makes better sense.

[Dan Boerger]

Parker often seems to get bashed in the winemaker and wine geek circles for doing exactly what he should: offering an opinion. Read one of his books and he makes it clear that these are his opinions.

Many question Parker's preferences but very few question the consistency of his palate. Call it fruit bomb or intensity of flavor, but no one makes any winemaker produce their wines any differently IF they don't want to. However, if moving bottles at the highest possible price is a (the?) primary reason one is in the wine business, then they would be wise to heed to preferences of the marketplace, regardless of how those preferences are shaped.

Is TD the RP of GCA? I've found both their opinions valuable as I've pursued golf and grapes, so there's certainly an apt analogy IMO.

[Niall Hay]

Shouldn't it be:

Ron Whitten = Robert Parker

Tom Doak = Bill Harlan

Ran Morrissett = Gary Oldman

I think that makes better sense.

So who is the Michel Rolland of golf?  Or is Doak a hybrid of Parker and Rolland?  An expert and a consultant? One who will “advise” old masters and assist new age and give instant or reborn credibility to both?

[Niall Hay]

"Is TD the RP of GCA? I've found both their opinions valuable as I've pursued golf and grapes, so there's certainly an apt analogy IMO" Agree 100%. It is not that you have to agree with everything either says, but due to the source it is a good guide.

[Mark Pearce]

Dan,

This isn't the place for an argument about the merits of Parker but I think you've seriously misrepresented the position of Parker's critics in the wine world. 

[Dan Boerger]

Mark - How so?

[Adam Lawrence]

Dan - I can't speak for Mark but I will offer you my opinion, and an analogy to golf that might perhaps be spurious, but which I think has some validity.

Parker's market-shifting power, which you highlight, and the nature of his palate is, for reasons you correctly identify, inducing winemakers in various parts of the world (principally but not only Bordeaux; Rioja has been affected too, as Sean highlights) to change the nature of their wine to promote a more fruit-forward, easy drinking style. This is, in the opinion of many, a bad thing on at least two levels: firstly because that style is less interesting to drink, doesn't age as well and is less suited to drinking with many foods; and secondly because it is contrary to the traditions of those regions that have been developed over hundreds of years.

To create an analogy with golf, if there were a golf course critic with enough clout to affect global golf in the way Parker does wine, he would be calling for the removal of quirk, for the insertion on classic courses of water hazards and island greens and golf courses across the world would heed his calls. Would that be a good thing?

[Mark Pearce]

Dan,

I agree with what Adam says. 

I don't think anyone questions that Parker has a very reliable palate, nor his willingness to express opinions.  What is bad for wine is the extent to which his word is taken as gospel by so many wine buyers, which has, as Adam says, taken a lot of the individuality and quirk out of many wines, leading to a monotone, globalized style of "Parkerized" wine.  I want my Bordeaux to taste like it's a Bordeaux, not like another Cal Cab.  Now that isn't all Parker's fault, of course, because he has a right to express his opinion and others have a right to follow it.  The problem is the fact that he appears to have little time for differing views, or to explain to his audience that those alternative views exist.

Many wine buyers, particularly in the USA buy almost solely based on Parker points (they don't even bother to read his reviews and they think points represent some absolute, rather than just one man's opinion (admittedly one man with a good palate for those who like the styles of wine he likes)).  For producers to "follow the market" results in the loss of years of heritage, without those consumers even knowing what it is they are losing.  Would you like to see TOC with lakes?  I don't want Lafitte to taste like Screaming Eagle, either, or villages Burgundy to try to imitate Californian pinot noir.

[Ben Sims]

I think it's about education and interest. 

If someone wants to know the intricacies of wine, and takes time to explore well beyond a list or rating or review, they will undoubtedly find complexities that Parker's analysis isn't designed to expound upon.  It is in this manner that Tom is not the Robert Parker of golf architecture.  I don't own a copy of The Confidential Guide, but I have read Anatomy, and looked at the lists in the back of the book.  What you'll see--if you are even a casual fan of golf architecture--is an understanding and preference for truly great architecture and how it came to be.  Tom's lists do not suffer fools very well.  In contrast, I don't ever get this sense when reading Parker's reviews.  He makes no bones about his preferences.  But his preferences are anything but classic and complex.  He wants big, bold, fruit forward, ready to drink face-kicker Cab's and Pinot's that are adept at drinking by themselves.  He states as much. 

Also, his "Faz-ification" of the wine world is well documented by connoisseurs from many regions.  I wonder how truly impactful Tom's opinions have been to the type of golfer that correlates to the type of wine drinker that "buys Parker".   No offense to Tom, but I doubt that The Confidential Guide changed the way that the "big boys" did business all those years ago, as Parker's opinions have changed places like Bordeaux. 

[Richard Choi]

If I went through a blind tasting test, I wouldn't be able to identify a 20 year-old Bordeaux and a 3 buck chuck.

And I am quite happy about that fact.

If I went through a "blind" golf course play test, I think I can identify the finest course in the world among a sea of generic me-too courses.

And I am REALLY happy about that fact.

[Dan Boerger]

Mark - I really agree with much of what you state. However, I'm not sure why Parker is responsible for entertaining "differing views" than his. That, in my mind, is exactly why lots of critics exist and prosper in the wine world -- Alan Meadows (who appreciates nuance and "fidelity to place" as much as any critic I've read), J. Robinson, Broadbent, etc.

I'm not misrepresenting Parker's critics because I'm not representing them at all.

Adam -- If a winemaker wishes to produce a wine contrary to the traditions of those regions, isn't that their right? One can lament the fact they did it, and why they did it, but the bottom line is that DIDN'T have to do anything. It's just the wheels of commerce turning.

[Dan Boerger]

Richard - I strongly suspect you would be able to tell the difference!

But you bring up a interesting point -- really no way to "blind test" a golf course.