Doak Scale

[Bill Gayne]

Please explain the Doak Scale? It seems very precise for evaluating golf courses. I saw  on another thread that one course was referred to as a 7.02 and another 7.23.

More importantly, what is the  proper interpetation of the numbers? What is the numerical cut-offs for: Basic golf, good, very good, outstanding, and golf at its absolute best?

[Paul_Turner]

billg

From memory

0= poisonous
1= very basic
2= not offensive but offers very little.
3= average golf course.
4= above average but nothing to distinguish itself
5= well above average, likely to have several distinctive holes.  But not worth a special trip.
6= very good course, would be one of the best courses in any area.  Play if reasonably closeby.
7= excellent and no obvious weaknesses, eventhough it might not offer anything unique.  Play within 100 miles.
8= a course of distinction, worth travelling substantial distances to.
9= a world great, may have one or two weaker holes, but a slew of world great holes too.
10= perfect, don't even miss one hole.

But even Tom Doak doesn't quite stick to this spec.  The 10s I'm familiar with all have a hole(s) that you could miss:  Ballybunion, Dornoch, St A,  Muirfield, maybe even PV.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

The Doak scale is not an exact scale at all, just a good relative measure of how I liked a course and how much I would recommend it to others.  

Out of the maybe 100 courses I ranked at a 7, I'm sure there are some you would enjoy more than others ... but I couldn't be sure which ones.  So there should be no "7.02's."

Like the Richter scale, the scale is logarithmic ... an 8 is two orders of magnitude greater than a 6.  Also, like the Richter scale, you have to go to the source to get the right number ... independent observers tend to overestimate the proper measurement.