[BCowan]

non walkable routing is a deal breaker

   If any course in any state is near unwalkable it shouldn't be in a top 100 or ranked with other courses from the Golden Age or any other age.  There needs to be a ranking for Golfball courses...  When you put courses that are unwalkable to near unwalkable you set a precedence and then owners use larger pieces of land and it becomes common place.  It isn't fair to rank courses built on 130 acres to ones built on 400 acres, more land features to use with 400 acres and unneeded long-unbearable walks from greens to tees.  It just seems to common sense to me or fall off a bar stool simple.  So my questions is besides Alotian Club, are the 6's+ courses listed by GCAers one's that you can at least walk?

[Adam Warren]

Jason, I would generally agree with your assessment on those rankings.  I am not highly familiar with the Doak scale (haven't read the book), but it would seem that by that name, we should only allow him to use it.  Otherwise it is a subjective scale and it might as well be a Warren 6 in that case.  

As for the courses, you are probably right about the 4's, I haven't been to Idle Hour, but imagine from the select few I know that have played it, it would have to be at the very least a 6.  I haven't been to Olde Stone either, but many whom I trust have seemed to enjoy it and are of the opinion that it certainly is a better, more interesting golf course than Valhalla.  I certainly enjoyed Valhalla, but can understand also that it is not among the greats and highest rated on his scale.   I would be interested to hear Tom elaborate on why he knocks Valhalla down below 6.

[Jud_T]

Guys,

It's not rocket science.  Simply say "I'd give it a 6", instead of "I'd give it a Doak 6".  Not even Tom says that....

[Jason Thurman]

Adam, you can find the scale here: http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/the-doak-scale

While evaluating golf courses is an inherently subjective exercise, the Doak Scale gets used as a more objective tool by a lot of people because it tries to better define where a course's attributes place it on a quantum scale. It's pretty simple but also pretty stringent. A 6 is probably roughly a top 300 US course. There are only twelve courses in the world that Doak rates as a 10, if I remember correctly.

[John Kavanaugh]

I like the faces on the Universal Highness Chart over the numbers as they are more self explanatory. http://tinyurl.com/n3ou97o

[Nigel Islam]

I agree with Jason. I personally like to think of a Doak scale as logarithmic, like a Richter scale. 12 tens, 17 nines, and 45 eights. Keep in mind there will be more courses the second time around.

[Nigel Islam]

I like the faces on the Universal Highness Chart over the numbers as they are more self explanatory. http://tinyurl.com/n3ou97o

I think you have indicate what level of highness you have from now on with your posts. Just as a reference point for the rest of us

[John Kavanaugh]

I like the faces on the Universal Highness Chart over the numbers as they are more self explanatory. http://tinyurl.com/n3ou97o

I think you have indicate what level of highness you have from now on with your posts. Just as a reference point for the rest of us

Unfortunately I drink hard liquor and they don't have the angry do I love you or hate you conflicted where can I piss without getting arrested face.

[Jason Thurman]

Oh yeah, the Garrigus and Daly Scales, respectively.

[Nigel Islam]

Unfortunately I drink hard liquor and they don't have the angry do I love you or hate you conflicted where can I piss without getting arrested face.

Post of the day folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jason Thurman]

Who's GCA's Alotian Club? John? Or Pat?

[Nigel Islam]

Who's GCA's Alotian Club? John? Or Pat?

LOL

What Doak score do you assign to yourself Jason? And why?

[Jason Thurman]

I'm a 5. My posts are fine if you're looking for something to read, but not worth being late to a meeting over. They're certainly not worth an extra click to see.

[Sean_A]

Adam, you can find the scale here: http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/the-doak-scale

While evaluating golf courses is an inherently subjective exercise, the Doak Scale gets used as a more objective tool by a lot of people because it tries to better define where a course's attributes place it on a quantum scale. It's pretty simple but also pretty stringent. A 6 is probably roughly a top 300 US course. There are only twelve courses in the world that Doak rates as a 10, if I remember correctly.

It strikes me that the Doak Scale is about recommending courses, at least on the surface anyway. It seems to me the scale has morphed away from recommendation use to a pure best of use.  This may have happened very early in its life .  When I think of recommending it isn't quite the same as a straight best of.  

The area which always confuses me is "worth a special trip".  What does that mean (as part of the 6 definition)?  Is that a 1 hour trip, overnight trip etc etc?  I have long worked using the scale below.  

3* Don’t Miss For Any Reason: I don't think I have seen one yet!  
2* Plan A Trip Around This Course: Very few of these in my experience
1* Worth An Overnight Detour: These can be anything from a Doak 5 to a Doak 10 - a lot depends on originality/uniqueness of the design
R Worth A Daytime Detour - same time in the car as it takes to play and have drinks; ~5 hours: I think of this as the minimum standard for a very good course
r A Good Fall Back On Course If Nearby

Ciao
 

[Nigel Islam]

I'm a 5. My posts are fine if you're looking for something to read, but not worth being late to a meeting over. They're certainly not worth an extra click to see.

I would have you at at least a 7, but without the croquet style putting and trademark walk through I might have to down grade you to a 6.

[Mark Saltzman]

I was always under the impression that the Doak Scale had an element of regionality.  That is, a 6 in a golf-rich area like Westchester is not necessarily comparable to a 6 in an area like, say, Newport Coast.

Now I think the Doak Scale (maybe for all others than Doak) has become a straight ranking scale.  That is how I use it, though I have been prompted to call my scale the Mark Scale.

To me, the rough calculations are:

10: World top-10
9: World top-50
8: World top-100
7: US top-100
6: US top 100 Modern/Classic
5: US top 200 Modern/Classic.

[Sean_A]

Mark

To me, your system is seriously flawed because

1. You have built in limitations.  There may be (and likely are) more than 10 top 10 courses in the world. I am suspect (see below) of anybody that claims a definitive top 10, top 50 etc and saying Top 50 in the World is a definitive claim.

2. To claim a top 10 course, top 50 or whatever, you need to see every candidate in the world.  I seriously doubt anybody has come close to doing this - even of some have - its a small handful of folks.  

I suspect the reasons above are partly why the Doak Scale was based on how much is a course worth seeing.  

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

It strikes me that the Doak Scale is about recommending courses, at least on the surface anyway. It seems to me the scale has morphed away from recommendation use to a pure best of use.  This may have happened very early in its life .  When I think of recommending it isn't quite the same as a straight best of.  

The area which always confuses me is "worth a special trip".  What does that mean (as part of the 6 definition)?  Is that a 1 hour trip, overnight trip etc etc?  I have long worked using the scale below.  

Worth a special trip depends on where you are.  Consider Machrihanish.  With so many other options in Scotland, it is difficult to justify going there unless you visit Scotland often and have seen most of the more easily accessible alternatives.  It is a Doak 7, but what if it were an 8, or even a 9?  There are other 9s and even 10s available to choose from, so even then the decision isn't automatic.  How good does it have to be before someone on their first and only trip to Scotland for a single week should burn the travel time to get there?

By contrast, if you're in a golf-poor area where the nearest Doak 7 is 200 miles away, longer than the "100 miles" distance specified, is it worth the the extra hundred miles if the best closer course is a 5?

The real test would be if someone built a course universally regarded as a 10 in the middle of the Pashtun region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or similarly dangerous place.  How many GCAers would risk their life to play it because it is a 10?

[Sean_A]

Doug

Which then gets back to it depending on who you recommending courses to.  But in the Doak case, he is talking about generic recommendations without the luxury of knowing the audience.  Of course the book originally wasn't meant for mass consumption - there lies the problem of using the scale for a generic audience.  Its very easy to not be keen on a course yet highly recommend it.  Its also very easy to be very keen on a course and yet not highly recommend it.  The perceived quality of a course is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to recos.  

Ciao  

[Doug Siebert]

Doug

Which then gets back to it depending on who you recommending courses to.  But in the Doak case, he is talking about generic recommendations without the luxury of knowing the audience.  Of course the book originally wasn't meant for mass consumption - there lies the problem of using the scale for a generic audience.  Its very easy to not be keen on a course yet highly recommend it.  Its also very easy to be very keen on a course and yet not highly recommend it.  The perceived quality of a course is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to recos.  

Ciao  

Why would you recommend a course you don't like?  That's sort of like a friend trying to set you up with a girl and you ask if she's hot and he says "well, I don't think so, but she's fine for you!"

[Sean_A]

Doug

Which then gets back to it depending on who you recommending courses to.  But in the Doak case, he is talking about generic recommendations without the luxury of knowing the audience.  Of course the book originally wasn't meant for mass consumption - there lies the problem of using the scale for a generic audience.  Its very easy to not be keen on a course yet highly recommend it.  Its also very easy to be very keen on a course and yet not highly recommend it.  The perceived quality of a course is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to recos.  

Ciao  

Why would you recommend a course you don't like?  That's sort of like a friend trying to set you up with a girl and you ask if she's hot and he says "well, I don't think so, but she's fine for you!"

Doug

For instance, I don't care for Carnoustie.  So what?  Its a famous championship course highly though of by loads of industry scribes etc.  Why wouldn't I generically recommend it?  So yes, its not okay for me, but fine for others.  Whats the problem?

Ciao

[David Davis]

In my current State - the State of Confusion....there are a lot of great courses, Doak 6 or aboves. Thankfully.

They are all links and heathland however.  

[Jim Nugent]

I was always under the impression that the Doak Scale had an element of regionality.  That is, a 6 in a golf-rich area like Westchester is not necessarily comparable to a 6 in an area like, say, Newport Coast.

Now I think the Doak Scale (maybe for all others than Doak) has become a straight ranking scale.  That is how I use it, though I have been prompted to call my scale the Mark Scale.

To me, the rough calculations are:

10: World top-10
9: World top-50
8: World top-100
7: US top-100
6: US top 100 Modern/Classic
5: US top 200 Modern/Classic.

Mark, so your scale has forty 9s... fifty 8s... and probably around fifty 7s, right?

Doak's scale is a ranking scale, but only by groups.  He doesn't tell you the order of the 10s, the 9s, the 8s, etc.  Pine Valley gets the same score as Crystal Downs as Pinehurst #2.  

Pretty smart, really.  It lets him have as many number one courses (10s) as he likes, without fighting over which gets the crown.  

I never picked up on the regional aspect of his scale.  Like to hear Tom's input on this.  

[Pete Blaisdell]

       New Hampshire


                 Manchester CC

                 Montcalm

[Jim Sherma]

I don't think this is the correct way to think of the Doak Scale at all. If it was, why use the terminology of the Doak Scale at all and just say top 10, top-50 etc. The Doak Scale is based on the quality of the course on the ground and is not a relative scale. If a billionaire decided to spend whatever it took to make 100 courses the quality of Pine Valley would Crystal Downs all of a sudden become a 7 or 8 because it "ranks" below the 101 Pine Valleys? Using the Doak Scale as I understand it would still allow 10's to be 10's and if there are a whole lot of them then all the better.

Whether or not a course is worth travelling for is a statement of quality. Whether or not you would travel a longer distance for one course compared to another is a question of opinion and personal ranking. The Doak Scale as concieved speaks to the former only.

I was always under the impression that the Doak Scale had an element of regionality.  That is, a 6 in a golf-rich area like Westchester is not necessarily comparable to a 6 in an area like, say, Newport Coast.

Now I think the Doak Scale (maybe for all others than Doak) has become a straight ranking scale.  That is how I use it, though I have been prompted to call my scale the Mark Scale.

To me, the rough calculations are:

10: World top-10
9: World top-50
8: World top-100
7: US top-100
6: US top 100 Modern/Classic
5: US top 200 Modern/Classic.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()