A different twist on the Doak scale

[Mark Bourgeois]

Which has the worst differential?  Tralee, Old Head?  Is Turnberry negative?

No. Ailsa was -- twice -- an air base. It is more like the original TPC Sawgrass / Shadow Creek.

Just curious, are we adding / subtracting instead of dividing in order to address Tom Doak's criticism of VORD.2?

[Bill Brightly]

I'll throw out A.W. Tillinghast as the ODG who did the most with the least.

IMHO, there is nothing exciting about the land at Winged Foot West, yet the course is consistantly ranked in the top ten. Ridgewood is every bit as good on land that has some movement, but nothing dramatic.

I think Tilly did it by building superb and varied green complexes, coupled with clever use of subtle land movement. That is a very attractive and playable combination.

[Bryan Icenhower]

my point wasn't that it was an actual Doak 10 on a 6.  More the point of what the architect did with the land presented to him.  

If you weigh both factors in determining a scale, you can come up with some very interesting results.  That brings up my theoretical question of which would you choose to play ... a course where the architect that made the very best of the limited options they were given or on a course that was good by most standards but certainly left something out there.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Which has the worst differential?  Tralee, Old Head?  Is Turnberry negative?

No. Ailsa was -- twice -- an air base. It is more like the original TPC Sawgrass / Shadow Creek.

Just curious, are we adding / subtracting instead of dividing in order to address Tom Doak's criticism of VORD.2?

Although I read recently that the air base only covered the inland holes... The famous seaside stretch from 4 - 11 were hardly touched... Still, general opinion states that Philip MacKenzie Ross did a great job with the site...

[Sean_A]

A fundamental problem with sizing up course quality with site quality is very few of us know what the project limitations for these courses.  Its easy to say the end result is a 6 on a 6 site, but the archie may have done a great job just to get the 6.  We just don't know the ins and outs well enough to make a judgement on this sort of thing.  

But, to play along, wouldn't Muirfield be somewhat equal to Pinehurst?  The site is good, with the best part being the sandy subsoil (like Pinehurst), but it isn't blessed with lots of cool land formations.  According to Doak its a 10,  but the site can't be more than a 7.  

Ciao

[Ted Sturges]

Hadn't looked at this since yesterday afternoon.  Wanted to respond to several posts above:

1.  To David Stewart-  The property at Pinehurst No. 2 is better than you remember.  I'm not saying it's a 10, but it is sandy soil, has what I would describe as an ideal amount of movement, and Ross created something very special there.  I suppose Seminole is among the best pieces of property Ross was ever given, and I think the end product there is also excellent.  I was suprised and disppointed when I played there that you can't ever really see the ocean (you can hear it) due to a large dune between the course and the sea.  There was probably no way around that, and would be one of those issues that Tom Doak talked about that all architects must deal with at each specific site.

2.  To Ed Oden-  I have actually never been to Wade Hampton.  Ran was there the day we spoke this week, and he was praising the site, and he and I were trying to decide which properties were the best Fazio had to work with.  We had WH and VN on the short list.  Do you disagree?  What do you believe are Fazio's best sites in his career?

3.  To Keith OHalloran-  I have not been back to Long Island since Tom built Sebonack.  I've only seen pictures.  I am planning on returning to Long Island in 2013 and Sebonack will be on my "to do" list.

4.  To Matt Bosela-  Agree that Pete Dye knocked it out of the park on TPC Sawgrass with a terrible piece of property.  I have always thought he did more with bad sites than anyone ever (someone else on this thread put Tilly into that discussion, but sites like Winged Foot are way better IMHO than the swamp near Jacksonville).  However, my approach in starting this discussion was not what someone did with a BAD site, but rather, what did they do with a GREAT site?

5.  To Tom Doak-  Totally agree with your "hard to evaluate the complexity of the puzzle when you get to see the answers" anaology.  Great point.  Upon further reflection, I also tend to agree with you that the site at TOC was not a "9" site.  I tend to think anything on the sea is well above average site wise, so I think it's not reasonable to say it was a "bad" site, but clearly not as good as Pacific Dunes.

TS

[Michael Essig]

Where does Shadow Creek fit in this discussion?  If land can have a negative scale, it would that be Vegas outside of the casino.  The land is inhospitable for anything living, especially humans.

[Mark Saltzman]

I barely feel 'qualified' enough to comment on whether courses are any good.  At least course quality is mostly subjective.

Am I correct in saying that the quality of a piece of property is a more objective assessment?  The problem is that I know I am nowhere near qualified enough to know what makes a good/great/bad property.

Was Victoria National a great piece of property? I would have thought that finding holes through all of the low-lying areas was no easy task.  But like I said, I have no idea.  Maybe that was a piece of land to die for.

[Sean_A]

Victoria to me doesn't sound a good site with all that water about.  So it could be a poster child of designing to suit the land; meaning the site may have been (say) a 4, but the course a 6. 

Ted

To me the site goes well above average if it has free draining soil regardless of land formations. Being in a beautiful spot may kick it up a notch.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Bryan,

I'd probably choose the former, but if the rating is from someone I trust, then an 8 is an 8 regardless.