[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I often hear people say that they can't properly rank a golf course as "it has not matured". 

Which of your courses do you think still need time to "mature" and when do you think they can be properly ranked?

Michael:

I think the people who defer their opinion based on "maturity" are usually just trying to duck the question.  Nobody had much problem calling Pacific Dunes outstanding the day it opened.  

There is always some resistance to ranking a course very highly right out of the box, by anyone who respects the great courses of the past.  That's perfectly understandable.  And some people have an expectation that the course will change a little bit in the early years, though I do not.

Certainly a course like Dismal River, which was really only supposed to be doing preview play when most people saw it this year, will be in much better shape next year, and the year after that.  Most of the improvements are entirely predictable by someone with an eye for golf ... after all, we architects have to visualize the whole thing in the dirt, when the ball doesn't bounce forward at all, and we are usually pretty good at extrapolating.  But, of course, some of the raters are not as able in that regard.  So, it's not so much whether the course is ready, as it is, who is going to be the observer?

Ballyneal was held back in the rankings for a few years because a lot of people saw it when the greens were 6 or 7 on the Stimpmeter, and declared it couldn't be played at higher speeds.  Some have admitted now they were wrong about that, although the change from fescue to bent will probably have them in denial mode yet again.  In fact this has already begun on that other thread.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom--Your comment that people rank courses based on what they wanted it to be is very asute and interesting.  Said another way--I think rankings are often based on expectations.  I know my expectations from what I've heard or read of a course usually influence very much how I feel about a course after I play it.

Hmm, I took it to mean people fail to base their judgments on the efficacy of a course, a fault I work hard to avoid and perhaps why I seem to have more appreciation for ratty munis than others do, as well as for the rare course that pings the exact needles it set out to ping, for example Pinnacle Point.

[Mike Hamilton]

Course, no times played, yrs since played

Dismal River, 4, 1 month
Ballyneal, 2, 1 year
Pac Dunes, 3,2 yrs
Old Mac 4, 2 yrs
Legends, 1, > 10
Charlotte 1, >10

Hard to fairly asses courses you haven't seen in a decade.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Tom,
For someone that used to not care how his courses were ranked, that he was just building courses PERIOD.... My the times have changed!

Lets go back to that Doak, the raw and untainted.....Instead of spending more time on the this site then a job site.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Ouch...'its a little harsh'..

[Michael Dugger]

For his next act, Tommy will return to trashing Jay Flemma!  (or me)

[Ben Sims]

Ballyneal 10
Pacific Dunes 10
Old Macdonald 8
Stone Eagle 7
Sebonack 7
The Sheep Ranch (can't put a number on it)
The Rawls Course 6
Common Ground 6

I could try and throw Dismal Red in the mix, as I'm confident in what I saw and got to know out there over the course of a week.  But it wasn't finished and I never played anything but construction golf.  I'd say I could put it comfortably ahead of Sebonack and Stone Eagle, somewhere in that 8-ish range with Old Macdonald.  But I need to see it again and see how the greens turned out.  

Rock Creek, Tumble and Dismal Red all in the next year hopefully.  

[Alex Miller]

Pacific Dunes
Ballyneal

Old Mac
Stone Eagle
Sebonack (probably less Tom's fault than it is Jack's that this is at the bottom, at least from my uninformed viewpoint)

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

I remember reading somewhere that the client at Te Arai had a pretty tall order.  Wasn't it something along the lines of, 'build the best golf course in the world'?  

Does an exercise like this one help deliver that order?  

[Dave Herrick]

Ballyneal
Pacific Dunes
Old MacDonald
Cape Kidnappers
Streamsong Blue
CommonGround

[Ari Techner]

Pacific Dunes
Dismal Red
Ballyneal
Apache Stronghold (assuming playable conditions like my first visit)
Streamsong Blue
Old Macdonald
Lost Dunes
Rawls
Common Ground
Heathland

I have played the Sheep Ranch many times but chose not to rank it because I believe it is too different from any traditional 18 hole course to be included in any ranking. 

[Bill Satterfield]

Pacific Dunes
Sebonack
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Co.
Old Macdonald
Tumble Creek

[Mark Arata]

Apache Stronghold is still my favorite,

Apache
Pac Dunes
Sebonack
Old Mac
Beechtree (NLE)
Streamsong
Atlantic City *
Stone Eagle
Sheep Ranch*
Tumble Creek
Lost Dunes
Charlotte

(forgot Atlantic City and Sheep Ranch)

[David Kelly]

Barnbougle Dunes
Ballyneal
Old Macdonald
Pacific Dunes
Sebonack
Apache Stronghold
Rock Creek Cattle Co.
Cape Kidnappers
St. Andrews Beach
Streamsong Blue
Stone Eagle
Tumble Creek
Atlantic City CC
The Sheep Ranch
Beechtree
Charlotte

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I remember reading somewhere that the client at Te Arai had a pretty tall order.  Wasn't it something along the lines of, 'build the best golf course in the world'?  

Does an exercise like this one help deliver that order?  

Thank God, those aren't our marching orders.  If they were I don't think I could have accepted the job, and I would have hated to turn down a job in New Zealand.  

Sand Hills is nearly universally beloved, and it's got all the way up to what, #7 or 8?  I just don't think people's minds would be open to the concept of someone creating the best course in the world, if in fact any of us could do it.  Really though, I think the only way it could happen would be if it came from somebody new.  [That's one reason Sand Hills is as high as it is, it was really Bill and Ben's first big hit.]

But, it's true that a fair % of our new clients come to the game with some sort of rankings goal in mind.  Sad, but true.  That's the point of this thread, I'm trying to understand what to tell them.

[Dan Kelly]

a fair % of our new clients come to the game with some sort of rankings goal in mind.  Sad, but true.  That's the point of this thread, I'm trying to understand what to tell them.

How about this:

"We will move heaven -- and as little earth as necessary -- to give you a course that *you* will rank among the best anywhere."

[Ash Towe]

Build the second best Tom Doak course in New Zealand might be a more realistic goal.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Tom,
Why even invoke Sand Hills into this?

Your participation on this site should be maintained to teaching and telling people that want to know why and how the ball bounces the way it does off of mounds, hummocks and rises; how to create greens receptive to shots and how to defend the pin strategically. How you use natural hazards to create the best routings possible for a golf course in your mindset.

You should also be yourself and be critical of bad architecture and how and who is performing it....Instead, it seems we get you becoming more Howard Roark......

[Will Lozier]

I remember reading somewhere that the client at Te Arai had a pretty tall order.  Wasn't it something along the lines of, 'build the best golf course in the world'?  

Thank God, those aren't our marching orders.  If they were I don't think I could have accepted the job, and I would have hated to turn down a job in New Zealand.

Tom,

So is it safe to assume you won't be working for Trump?

Cheers

[C. Squier]

I give the posters of this thread a hearty pat on the back. No way would I want to throw my opinion as a consumer out there knowing I'm just going to be told how wrong I am by the producer. This is the ultimate "does this dress make me look fat?" thread.

[Sean_A]

Stone Eagle is the one that SHOULD be higher, but I'm not surprised at its standing...or who want it to be something it's not.  [There is a lot of that in rankings.  It is crazy for raters to have ideas about what a course should be instead of rating it for what it is, but you can see plenty of evidence for that in the posts above.]  

This is a perplexing comment Tom.  It seems like you are asking folks to fully appreciate the architectural effort of the design as much as the final result.  Even if a layman was privy to the inner workings of a design, I think its perfectly reasonable to set out certain guidelines as to what makes for a great course regardless of how great the actual architecture is. 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Stone Eagle is the one that SHOULD be higher, but I'm not surprised at its standing, I know there are a bunch of people who can't forgive that they played it in 110-degree heat, or who want it to be something it's not.  [There is a lot of that in rankings.  It is crazy for raters to have ideas about what a course should be instead of rating it for what it is, but you can see plenty of evidence for that in the posts above.]  

What makes you think Stone Eagle should be rated higher as a golf course?

As a feat of architecture it is pretty amazing but as a golf course it is handicapped by an average site.  Much poorer than most of your other courses.  

Surely people ranking it below your expectations is a function of them rating the course for what it is, not what it might have been, because it is very difficult to imagine a better course on that site.  

BTW, which holes would you consider to be the great all world holes at Stone Eagle?

[John Kirk]

Stone Eagle is the one that SHOULD be higher, but I'm not surprised at its standing...or who want it to be something it's not.  [There is a lot of that in rankings.  It is crazy for raters to have ideas about what a course should be instead of rating it for what it is, but you can see plenty of evidence for that in the posts above.]  

This is a perplexing comment Tom.  It seems like you are asking folks to fully appreciate the architectural effort of the design as much as the final result.  Even if a layman was privy to the inner workings of a design, I think its perfectly reasonable to set out certain guidelines as to what makes for a great course regardless of how great the actual architecture is. 

Ciao

Maybe you're right.  Maybe I am following the crowd here, and not fully appreciating the club that over the years became my favorite place to visit.  I think Stone Eagle has two major drawbacks:

1.  It is very difficult, though not impossible, to walk.  I've walked (and carried) it with Peter Ferlicca in a bit over three hours.  It can be done, and it is damn good exercise.

2.  Some of the greens have limited pin positions, because they have big slopes and are medium-sized, so the course becomes a bit repetitious.  There are some good pin positions unused because the club fears negative feedback.

On the other hand:

3.  Stone Eagle has a great finish; I'll match holes 14 through 18 with any course.  In particular, the 17th hole is an excellent par-5.

4.  It is spectacularly beautiful, which matters a lot, and is perhaps Renaissance Golf's most aesthetic design, with bunkers that transition seamlessly into native areas.  It can be a spiritually uplifting place, especially during the last hour of sunshine on a nice day, when the shadows get long.

OK, you've convinced me.  Switch the positions of Stone Eagle and Dismal River - Red.

...

 

...

Nah, just kidding.


To David Elvins,

I think the best holes at Stone Eagle are 2, 4, 6, 9, and let's say 17 and 18.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Maybe you're right.  Maybe I am following the crowd here, and not fully appreciating the club that over the years became my favorite place to visit.  

The question is, if none of this rankings folderol existed would you know you weren't supposed to love the course? How would you think differently about its architecture? An unanswerable thought experiment. Perhaps.

[Pete Lavallee]

Barnbougle Dunes
Pacific Dunes
Ballyneal
Old MacDonald
Stone Eagle

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()