Confidential Guide, Volume 3, Arrived Today

[Ronald Montesano]

Thanks to Tom Doak for the opportunity to provide an image for this volume. I felt quite proud, until I saw the lines of images for Cavalier and Lambrecht.


I still feel quite proud.


The book is a nice one, and still has me scratching my head about why and how Cardinal Hills ever made it into the original and the new volume. Ahh, life's vagaries...

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald:


The book lists every course we have ever visited.  I played Cardinal Hills many years ago, when the owner at the time asked us to do some consulting work for him.  However, he decided not to spend the money to make significant improvements to the course, and I can't say that was the wrong decision, considering the location and market.


P.S.  I tried to get books out first to those who provided assistance in its creation.  The first wave for those who ordered the set went out today [since yesterday was a postal holiday].  It will take another +/- ten days to get out all of those, and then we'll be dealing with new orders.

[John Sabino]

Ronald - Mine also, it is another fabulous book, like the first two. Big surprise to me is that National Golf Links didn't receive 10's across the board. If I read it correctly, Darius gave it a 9 


John

[Ronald Montesano]

Thank you for that clarification, Tom. I did not know that there had been consideration for consultation at Cardinal Hills in Randolph, NY (southern WNY)


http://www.cardinalhillsny.com/


It is kind of you to get books out to those who were fortunate to contribute a photo or two to the cause. We've reached the end of my contributions, as I haven't seen any courses to be featured in Volumes 4 and 5. I might need additional counseling.


I did not notice, John, that National did not receive a Comaneci. I'll take a look now. If that is the case, we know who that curmudgeon is who votes "no" to keep a Hall of Famer from a unanimous selection.

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald - Mine also, it is another fabulous book, like the first two. Big surprise to me is that National Golf Links didn't receive 10's across the board. If I read it correctly, Darius gave it a 9 

You read correctly.  He's just stingy.  Amazingly, I've give the most 10's in the three books so far:


TD     13
Ran     9
Masa  11
Darius  7


Darius' seven are the top seven in his list.  National was eighth, so maybe he's done!  I will have only one more:  Royal Melbourne West.

[Ronald Montesano]

He did the same with Merion East 10-10-10-9

[Jerry Kluger]

I wonder what courses like Merion would rate in their US Open setup?

[Matt Bosela]

I think I sent some photos to Tom but I'm guessing none of mine were picked for publication.


Is there a link available to buy the book?

[Jimmy Chandler]

I think I sent some photos to Tom but I'm guessing none of mine were picked for publication.


Is there a link available to buy the book?

http://www.renaissancegolf.com/books/buy_the_guide

[Peter Pallotta]

I wonder what courses like Merion would rate in their US Open setup?

That's an excellent question, it really is.
I have no idea of the answer, but it would be interesting to read how golfers like Tom, Ran, Masa and Darius would interpret (numerically) the experience of playing that course.

I've just ordered my Volume 3 now, perfect winter reading. 

 

[Dave McCollum]

Tom,

This is really none of our business; however, I was sitting here wondering how big is the print run for the CG?  I know about 1500 potential customers.  I was wondering how many more architectural geeks are out there.  Beyond this site, the golf business people I know, including architects, I really don’t know very many golfers who would find the book to be a compelling read.  For those few that do travel and want to play something interesting, they just ask me where to play.  For the most part, if they want to play golf, they don’t really care where if it is reasonable or somebody else is paying for it.  Not that golfers don't appreciate a great course when they get the opportunity to experience it; I just don't know many collectors or many golfers that go to the trouble of knowing and playing the best available.  Their interests are elsewhere.   

I did do some searches first, but not much info on this niche market.

[Tom_Doak]

Dave:


I'll respond to your question offline.  I've got several friends in the book business who probably don't want me putting too many numbers out in the public domain.  I will say, I wouldn't have started this if I didn't think we could sell 5,000 copies of volumes 1-2-3; if you could only sell half that many, it would be a lot of work for essentially no return.  No one gets rich writing golf books -- though I think Harvey Penick made more than he imagined -- but it's a nice hobby to help pay for my travels!

[Buck Wolter]

Tom,

This is really none of our business; however, I was sitting here wondering how big is the print run for the CG?  I know about 1500 potential customers.  I was wondering how many more architectural geeks are out there.  Beyond this site, the golf business people I know, including architects, I really don’t know very many golfers who would find the book to be a compelling read.  For those few that do travel and want to play something interesting, they just ask me where to play.  For the most part, if they want to play golf, they don’t really care where if it is reasonable or somebody else is paying for it.  Not that golfers don't appreciate a great course when they get the opportunity to experience it; I just don't know many collectors or many golfers that go to the trouble of knowing and playing the best available.  Their interests are elsewhere.   

I did do some searches first, but not much info on this niche market.

I remember reading Tom's course review excerpts from The CG in Esquire which were unlike anything else I'd ever read --lead me to order the book which led me here for Ran's Reviews. The Confidential Guide really drove my interest rather than the other way around.   

[Dave McCollum]

Thanks Tom,

More than I expected and I'm glad.  I was thinking just that--any fewer and it would be worth the effort involved.  Can't wait for my next compelling read.

Dave

[K Rafkin]

Ronald - Mine also, it is another fabulous book, like the first two. Big surprise to me is that National Golf Links didn't receive 10's across the board. If I read it correctly, Darius gave it a 9 

You read correctly.  He's just stingy.  Amazingly, I've give the most 10's in the three books so far:


TD     13
Ran     9
Masa  11
Darius  7


Darius' seven are the top seven in his list.  National was eighth, so maybe he's done!  I will have only one more:  Royal Melbourne West.

Tom


Don't be too sure about this.  In volume one Darius gave Machrihanish a 7 and rye an 8, but in his Top 100 list he ranked Machrihanish at 55 and Rye at 57, so there is plenty of time left for a wildcard.  I imagine that If he is to give out another ten it would be to RMW or Cape Wickham which he clearly thinks very highly of.

[Howard Riefs]

Continuing the Darius' rating discussion... lifting this from Bill Schulz's 'Quest Completed' thread:

I am still a bit puzzled how he put Kingsley and Rock Creek in his top 100, but only gave them a 7 in The Confidential Guide.  [Actually, he did the same for quite a few courses, even as high in his list as Machrihanish at #55.]  I'm not the only one who thinks Rock Creek should be ahead of at least half of my other courses on his list, but I won't complain too much, as he has me down for twice as many top-100 courses as the GOLF Magazine panel does.

Either Darius is a tough rater on the Doak Scale and/or his World Top 100 List has different criteria.
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=55

[MCirba]

Just ordered my copy and i eagerly await seeing ratings on a number of modern courses created since the original. 

[Sean_A]

Continuing the Darius' rating discussion... lifting this from Bill Schulz's 'Quest Completed' thread:

I am still a bit puzzled how he put Kingsley and Rock Creek in his top 100, but only gave them a 7 in The Confidential Guide.  [Actually, he did the same for quite a few courses, even as high in his list as Machrihanish at #55.]  I'm not the only one who thinks Rock Creek should be ahead of at least half of my other courses on his list, but I won't complain too much, as he has me down for twice as many top-100 courses as the GOLF Magazine panel does.

Either Darius is a tough rater on the Doak Scale and/or his World Top 100 List has different criteria.
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=55

I never thought the Doak Scale was intended to be a ranking of courses.  It was my understanding that it was a preferential list of recommended courses.  Somehow over time it morphed into a ranking, probably because Doak used it that way at times...and that is a great shame.  I was really hoping Doak would push back on this and insist in writing that the numbers didn't strictly adhere to a ranking of quality, but a ranking of what people should play with a bit of blurb to help explain why..and thus make it possible for people to be either attracted or not to the course. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I never thought the Doak Scale was intended to be a ranking of courses.  It was my understanding that it was a preferential list of recommended courses.  Somehow over time it morphed into a ranking, probably because Doak used it that way at times...and that is a great shame.  I was really hoping Doak would push back on this and insist in writing that the numbers didn't strictly adhere to a ranking of quality, but a ranking of what people should play with a bit of blurb to help explain why..and thus make it possible for people to be either attracted or not to the course. 

Sean:


I've commented on this a number of times here, but will clarify again.  And I must admit this new project has made it more complicated, with my co-authors trying to assign their own grades on my scale.


From day one, the "bit of blurb" has been the main point of the book.  The numbers were only intended as a balance against what I'd written, so I could keep my reviews short and talk about positive or negative things, but then let the reader know that just because I'd criticized some holes didn't mean I thought the course wasn't great [or vice versa].


Unfortunately, when I finished the project I discovered that I'd given out right around a hundred grades of "8", and those were closely aligned to my views on what were the best courses in the world.  Back then I had a few courses as 8's which I didn't rate in the Top 100 -- places like North Berwick which most people dismissed as too short -- but over time, I've decided that most of those places I love DO belong in a top 100 list -- and others have agreed.  So now the number even more closely tracks the list.


Still, the definition of an 8 is that a course is worth a special trip to see -- not just a 100-mile trip, but a big journey.  And there are some that are certainly worth that much, even if I'm not sure they belong in the top 100.


I'm more surprised by Darius' ratings because they seem to skew opposite from mine -- he is putting courses in the top 100 but saying [according to the definition] that he doesn't think they're worth a special trip to see.  That seems odd to me, but he's entitled to his view.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm more surprised by Darius' ratings because they seem to skew opposite from mine -- he is putting courses in the top 100 but saying [according to the definition] that he doesn't think they're worth a special trip to see.  That seems odd to me, but he's entitled to his view.

After playing a number of the top 100 courses as defined by raters I would have to agree with Darius. There aren't a hundred trips worth taking just to see a golf course.

[Ronald Montesano]

In the current volume, there are 4 40s and 2 39s (4 with 10 and 2 with 3 10s and 1 9). There is 1 38, 1 37 and 1 course ranked 10-8-9-8. In other words, 6 courses that are certainly 10s, 1 that is borderline, and two more that flirt with it in the eyes of at least one rater.


There are four courses that total between 34 and 36. One of those courses is a "flirt" from above. 34 would be an 8.5 average, and we have 13 courses that rank between 34 and 40.


Thus is born a ranking of courses. Numbers and statistics don't lie, except when they do. Four gentlemen conspired in these volumes, but not all four have played all the courses, and certain ones might be labeled "Golfweek-style" or "Golf-style" or "Golfdigest-style." If the first book (all Doak) caused some confusion as to ranking/non-ranking, this series will go it one better, as four unique pairs of eyes are at work.


As far as the 100 trips notion goes, I cannot take the time to refute or support that assertion. Certainly, one can nail a passel of courses with one planned excursion (Long Island, Westchester, Philly, Toronto, Bandon, ad finitum) so it seems likely that 100 trips won't be necessary. However, if you are able to schedule 100 trips that include golf in this lifetime, I salute, respect and envy you.

[Ronald Montesano]

I also wonder if I and Tom are the only ones on GCA to play Meadowink in Murrysville, PA (between Pittsburgh and Latrobe, sorta.)

[Connor Dougherty]

Shoot! I wish I had seen this earlier. I've moved since the last issue was sent out, who would be a good person to get in contact with regarding a new address? I'm guessing it will be returned back in the mail, unless of course the new person in my apartment in Eugene decides to keep it, in which case...




GRAY! GET YOUR NINE IRON!!!! WE'VE GOTTA GET MY BOOK BACK

[Sean_A]

I never thought the Doak Scale was intended to be a ranking of courses.  It was my understanding that it was a preferential list of recommended courses.  Somehow over time it morphed into a ranking, probably because Doak used it that way at times...and that is a great shame.  I was really hoping Doak would push back on this and insist in writing that the numbers didn't strictly adhere to a ranking of quality, but a ranking of what people should play with a bit of blurb to help explain why..and thus make it possible for people to be either attracted or not to the course. 

Sean:


I've commented on this a number of times here, but will clarify again.  And I must admit this new project has made it more complicated, with my co-authors trying to assign their own grades on my scale.


From day one, the "bit of blurb" has been the main point of the book.  The numbers were only intended as a balance against what I'd written, so I could keep my reviews short and talk about positive or negative things, but then let the reader know that just because I'd criticized some holes didn't mean I thought the course wasn't great [or vice versa].


Unfortunately, when I finished the project I discovered that I'd given out right around a hundred grades of "8", and those were closely aligned to my views on what were the best courses in the world.  Back then I had a few courses as 8's which I didn't rate in the Top 100 -- places like North Berwick which most people dismissed as too short -- but over time, I've decided that most of those places I love DO belong in a top 100 list -- and others have agreed.  So now the number even more closely tracks the list.


Still, the definition of an 8 is that a course is worth a special trip to see -- not just a 100-mile trip, but a big journey.  And there are some that are certainly worth that much, even if I'm not sure they belong in the top 100.


I'm more surprised by Darius' ratings because they seem to skew opposite from mine -- he is putting courses in the top 100 but saying [according to the definition] that he doesn't think they're worth a special trip to see.  That seems odd to me, but he's entitled to his view.

Thanks Tom....not much different to what I thought with the big difference being that you decided to square up the loose ends with courses like North Berwick being top 100 with presumably a boost in the Doak score. That means you think Kington is comfortably top 100 in GB&I and probably top 50!  Well, if so, I agree with you. 


Ciao


Ciao

[Ryan Farrow]

I also wonder if I and Tom are the only ones on GCA to play Meadowink in Murrysville, PA (between Pittsburgh and Latrobe, sorta.)

Nope! One of the first golf courses I ever played.