A different twist on the Doak scale

[Ted Sturges]

Ran and I were having a conversation last evening about particular architects and how many "great" sites they were given during their careers, and then...what did they acheive with those particular sites.  In other words, we were trying to get to a quotient of proficiency for who among the architectural bretheren were "successful" (and to what degree) with the land they were given (focusing on the top end of their best career sites).

For example, Pete Dye's best sites were probably the sites in the Dominican Republic, the Ocean Course at Kiawah, and perhaps The Golf Club.  If those sites were considered "Doak scale 7 or better sites", was he successful in creating something special from those sites?  I think it is reasonable to say that yes he was successful.  No "Doak 10's" in his portfolio of courses, but several solid 7's and 8's (some might give a 9 or two).

Tom Fazio's best sites were likely Wade Hampton, World Woods, and Victoria National.  Those sites probably range from a "Doak 6 site (WW) up to "Doak 8 sites" (VN and WH).  I think WH is his highest rated course (at least by the Doak scale), so his "quotient of proficiency" would be lower than that of Mr. Dye in this illustration/argument.

Dr. Mackenzie may well have the highest quotient of proficiency, as the site he was given at Cypress Point was a "Doak scale 10 site", and he knocked it out of the park and created a "Doak scale 10 golf course".  He has other examples of a 10 = 10 golf course site to golf course built (one could argue Crystal Downs as well as Royal Melbourne...or ANGC pre 1980).

It is an interesting topic and provides food for thought to an interesting conversation.  Where does Tillinghast rate on this measurement?  Ross?  Doak?  Hanse?  Rees Jones?  RTJ?  Strantz? Smyers?  MacDonald?  Raynor?  Others?

Opinions please!

TS

[Jud_T]

Ted,

Interesting.  Problem is you've got 1 equation with 2 unknowns;  i.e. mathematically unsolvable.  For instance, it's easy for my to say that Langford's work at Lawsonia was very successful in that IMO he created a Doak 8 course on a Doak 6 piece of property, but both numbers  are subjective so instead of just debating whether the course is a 6,7 or 8 we now have to additionally debate whether the land is a 5,6 or 7 so the relative measure becomes statistically unworkable.

[Ted Sturges]

Jud,

Your make a good point, but it is not where we were going in our conversation last evening on this topic.  We're ONLY talking about the very best sites (seaside sites, or other very special sites).  When an architect was given one of THOSE sites, what did he do with it?  

And I agree that this is subjective and mathematically unsolvable, but I think it's an interesting debate nonetheless.

TS

[Bryan Icenhower]

Or, is there a ranking within a ranking? 

First would be property and second would be what they were able to do within the property given. Then the questions is which would you rather play ...
a 6 on a 10 property
or a 10 on a 6 property?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ted, you spell it D-O-A-K, I spell it V-O-R-D: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32487.0.html

Either way, a good topic.

[Jud_T]

It still begs the question of how good the site is on a relative basis.  Suppose you give both the Old Course and Pacific Dunes a 10.  Ok, so which site is better?

[Ted Sturges]

Or, is there a ranking within a ranking? 

First would be property and second would be what they were able to do within the property given. Then the questions is which would you rather play ...
a 6 on a 10 property
or a 10 on a 6 property?

There are likely some 10 sites that have less than 10's on them, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a "10" course on a 6 site.

TS

[Ted Sturges]

It still begs the question of how good the site is on a relative basis.  Suppose you give both the Old Course and Pacific Dunes a 10.  Ok, so which site is better?

For me, the PD site is "better".  But...much of that site is flat, so I would not say that it was a "10" site.  I'd give both of those sites a 9, and agree that both courses are likely 10's.  For PD, that would translate into a high Proficiency rating for T. Doak.

TS

[Jason Thurman]

Or, is there a ranking within a ranking? 

First would be property and second would be what they were able to do within the property given. Then the questions is which would you rather play ...
a 6 on a 10 property
or a 10 on a 6 property?

There are likely some 10 sites that have less than 10's on them, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a "10" course on a 6 site.

TS

I think we'd all rather play a 10 on a 6 than a 6 on a 10. The better question is whether you'd rather play an 8 on a 6 or an 8 on a 10.

Also, isn't Pinehurst #2 a 10? I'm not sure how the site can be much more than a 6. Aside from sandy soil, it doesn't have a lot going for it.

[Jud_T]

The better question is whether you'd rather play an 8 on a 6 or an 8 on a 10.

Interesting.  Theoretically, we should be indifferent between the two, but I suspect in the first case we'd be pleasantly surprised while in the second we might leave feeling a bit underwhelmed vs. expectations.  The additional question is how these two reactions color one's Doak score.

[Nigel Islam]

 You can a have the score listed as a differential plus or minus. For example Pebble Beach was a Doak 9 that I think most would agree is a 10 site. This would make it a -1.

[David Stewart]

Ted,

This is an interesting topic. As you know my list of courses seen on the "very best sites" pales in comparison to yours, but let's jump on Ross. I believe I have seen five of his designs. No. 2, Mid-Pines, Southern Pines, Broadmoor, Miami Valley, and I think you have played each as well. No. 2 is an exceptional golf course on an unspectacular piece of land. The majority of the holes are flat, with the only ones with significant elevation change being 4, 5(right to left slope), 13, 14, 16 (slight), 18. Here he has a very high proficiency rating. Mid-Pines and SP are really better sites than No. 2, and he probably matched the course to the site. Broadmoor and Miami Valley are relatively flat, especially the front at Broadmoor. Here I think he also has a good proficiency rating as a lesser architect could have turned both of those courses into 3s where he probably made 6s.

Perhaps you can comment more on his other heralded designs like Seminole and Oak Hill.

[Ed Oden]

Ted, why do you think Wade Hampton is an 8 site?

[Mark McKeever]

From my experiences on the best of sites:

Eastward Ho! - Fowler hit a home run
Charles River, George Wright - Ross home run
Merion - Hugh Wilson & Co. home run
Pine Valley - Crump home run
Yale - Raynor Home Run
Boston- Hanse hit a home run

Mark

[Keith OHalloran]

Ted,
There has been a lot of talk about Sebonack lately. How do you think it comes out site/course wise on the scale?

[David Stewart]

Or, is there a ranking within a ranking? 

First would be property and second would be what they were able to do within the property given. Then the questions is which would you rather play ...
a 6 on a 10 property
or a 10 on a 6 property?

There are likely some 10 sites that have less than 10's on them, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a "10" course on a 6 site.

TS

I think we'd all rather play a 10 on a 6 than a 6 on a 10. The better question is whether you'd rather play an 8 on a 6 or an 8 on a 10.

Also, isn't Pinehurst #2 a 10? I'm not sure how the site can be much more than a 6. Aside from sandy soil, it doesn't have a lot going for it.

Perhaps we should ask what courses have the biggest diefference, that is (Actual Doak Scale Rating) - (Site Doak Scale Rating). No. 2 would have to be near the top of the list.

[Matt Bosela]

I'd say Dye hit one out of the park at Sawgrass - arguably a Doak "0" site and he got a Doak 8 or so out of it.

Then again, rereading your first post, you weren't looking at the bad sites so I guess my comment is a throwaway!

[Jud_T]

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

[Jason Thurman]

The better question is whether you'd rather play an 8 on a 6 or an 8 on a 10.

Interesting.  Theoretically, we should be indifferent between the two, but I suspect in the first case we'd be pleasantly surprised while in the second we might leave feeling a bit underwhelmed vs. expectations.  The additional question is how these two reactions color one's Doak score.

I'd go the other way. A 10 property must be a great location to play. Sign me up for the course with great surrounding scenery and topographical interest.

[Garland Bayley]

You can a have the score listed as a differential plus or minus. For example Pebble Beach was a Doak 9 that I think most would agree is a 10 site. This would make it a -1.

Scenery does not make a site a 10.

[Jason Thurman]

You can a have the score listed as a differential plus or minus. For example Pebble Beach was a Doak 9 that I think most would agree is a 10 site. This would make it a -1.

Scenery does not make a site a 10.

+1. I'm not even sure there's such a thing as a 10 site. Has there ever been a site on which to miss even one corner of the property is to miss something significant?

That's everyone's issue with Pebble: half of it is inland and therefore not as interesting as the half on the ocean. It's also a fairly narrow strip of land and pretty flat in places, it only drains marginally for being on the ocean, and it has a lot of housing. It's a great cliffline, but that alone doesn't make it a 10 property.

It's a 9 on an 8 or 9 I think.

[Josh Tarble]

In my thinking, it's really hard to judge a site after a course has been built.  I think several of the courses listed above may have been on not too good of property, but once the course has been built it seems like a perfect spot. 

For example, Victoria National.  It seems like that's ideal property, but my guess is that the course was very hard to route and also very difficult to build because of how extreme the site is. 

As well, a place like Seminole, isn't it on a relatively small piece of land? Perhaps someone without Ross's skill may have even seen it as unfit/too small for a course.

[Jud_T]

I agree that it's very hard to rate a site unless you were there before, during and after construction.  Take Lost Dunes as an example.  I have no idea how to rate that site.  A very good sandy site with a highway running down the middle? a 7 on a 5= +2?  

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's pretty hard for someone to evaluate how hard a puzzle was to solve, when they are looking at the answers.

I'll just focus on The Old Course.  Really, anyone would have given that site a 9 or a 10?  Narrow, bounded by whins, mostly running in one direction, wrinkly, no big dunes, a stream crossing and a bit of river frontage at the far end?

I agree with whomever said that there are no "10" sites, to get to a 10 you have to go exceed the potential that most other people would find.

Also, to whomever tried to compare the "8 on the 6 site" with the "8 on the 10 site" -- chances are, the latter course is not really an 8, and you're just putting it up there because of the scenery.  Because if it was really an 8, and had scenery, it would probably be a 9. 

And for Jud:  wish I could easily post the maps for Lost Dunes, so you could see all the environmental boundaries we had to keep out of.

[Kalen Braley]

I may get slapped down by Tom D on this one....but I've seen many sites similar looking to the one at RCCC, and most of em are littered with 4-6 type of golf courses that were put down on them. 

I could easily see RCCC being a "6" site when Tom and team started with it, and they put down at least a 9 golf course, maybe 10 in some folks eyes.