Confidential Guide, Volume 3, Arrived Today

[David Jones]

I am delighted to say that Volume 3 has made it to Gullane today.  My wife and kids happen to be away for the night so it's a glass of wine and a voracious read!  It is a tremendous series and has pride of place on my bookshelf.  The depth in this volume is tremedous.  I've just come back to a trip to Long Island and Westchester County so fascinating to read Tom et al's views on some of the places I have recently played.  I'm afraid to say I just don't get Garden City the way they did and I'm glad to see the Friar's Head debate put to bed...........


There is one tiny, tiny point I just wanted to mention.  And I feel churlish for doing it.  Still, here goes.  Why are Par 3's, Par 4's and Par 5's apostrophised in the list section?  There is no reason to at all.  I know some people think 'it just looks right' and the TV networks occasionally do it too. I did a search and I see I am not the only one wound up about such trivialty - http://rec.sport.golf.narkive.com/qkIU2LgX/par-5-s


There, that's that.  Now, I'm off to the Midwest........

[Tom_Doak]

Why are Par 3's, Par 4's and Par 5's apostrophised in the list section? 

That's the way I learned to do it ... presumably from picking up how it was done in several other golf books.  Is that really the wrong way?


[If so, I wish you'd mentioned it a couple of volumes ago.  It won't make much sense to change it for the European and Asian volumes, since they probably don't care about our English styles anyway.]

[Ally Mcintosh]

Why are Par 3's, Par 4's and Par 5's apostrophised in the list section? 

That's the way I learned to do it ... presumably from picking up how it was done in several other golf books.  Is that really the wrong way?


[If so, I wish you'd mentioned it a couple of volumes ago.  It won't make much sense to change it for the European and Asian volumes, since they probably don't care about our English styles anyway.]

Don't worry about it. After numbers and acronymns, you are allowed to use apostrophes even when it doesn't seem to make grammatical sense.

So you are good to go.

[David Jones]

Oh my, now I am not reading the book but searching the internet on correct use of the apostrophe! -


In my defence - http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/11/pluralize-numbers-and-abbreviations-without-apostrophes.html


However, in Lynne Truss's 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves' she writes 'Until quite recently, it was customary to write "MP's" and "1980's" - and in fact this convention still applies in America'


Given the provenance of the book I think you're fine Tom.  Now, about Friar's Head........

[JJShanley]

It is a tremendous series and has pride of place on my bookshelf.

But when you take it to your club to show your friends after the round, will you leave it in...


DAVID JONES' LOCKER?!?!


Here all week. 

[David Jones]

Very good usage!

[John Kavanaugh]

Humility may be the buzz word of 2016. I found this on Wikipedia:
Humility is the quality of being humble. In a religious context this can mean a recognition of self in relation to God or deities, acceptance of one's defects, and submission to divine grace as a member of a religion. Outside of a religious context, humility is defined as the self-restraint from excessive vanity, and can possess moral and/or ethical dimensions.]Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue in many religious and philosophical traditions, often in contrast to narcissism, hubris and other forms of pride.

[BCowan]

Humility may be the buzz word of 2016. I found this on Wikipedia:
Humility is the quality of being humble. In a religious context this can mean a recognition of self in relation to God or deities, acceptance of one's defects, and submission to divine grace as a member of a religion. Outside of a religious context, humility is defined as the self-restraint from excessive vanity, and can possess moral and/or ethical dimensions.]Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue in many religious and philosophical traditions, often in contrast to narcissism, hubris and other forms of pride.

Jkava,

    Ur the quintessential culture warrior and I've been stressing that this whole year, glad uve been paying attention.  Repetition is old school I like it...

[Peter Pallotta]

Replace Deity with Nature and you can see why I've described some architects as humble.

It's not about downplaying or devaluing your talent; it's about a right relationship with That Which Is Not You.

[PCCraig]

I received my copy of the book this past weekend. This was the volume I was most looking forward to as I, like many others here, have the most experience playing courses in this volume of the book. My personal experience being with courses in Illinois/Chicago, Massachusetts/Boston, and Minnesota/MSP.


My favorite part of this volume is the Gourmet Choice section, by far. The write ups are a great combination of old standards like Merion, but also places like Lawsonia and Davenport.


I was a little disappointed in the State-by-State coverage, however. I know there are limitations on space, but there are too many old (frankly outdated) reviews mixed in with new courses that aren't really covered much at all. For example, Glen View Club in Golf, IL was added since the last edition and received a 6, which is a nice score. But the description only talks about it being the home club of Jock Hutchison and Chick Evans, and that it was routed by Flynn. Then it talks about the routing in really broad generalities. In both cases I could of figured that out on Google and Google Maps? It doesn't really say anything as to the merits of the course or why it deserves a 6? That review was from 2012 when I am assuming Mr. Doak was looking at doing a restoration project with the club.


Then there is an old review of Old Elm from 1994 which is also given a 6. But given the work completed since then by Drew Rodgers and Dave Zinkland it is probably an easy 7 or maybe an 8. So saying that it's an old membership and that all of the approaches are wide enough to accommodate running approach shots really doesn't really say anything about the course or why someone should go play it today?


In the case of Minnesota, I was really disappointed in the coverage. Outside of White Bear and Rochester, where Mr. Doak has/is consulting, the coverage was really thin and outdated. I think the golf in Minnesota is really underrated and very solid, so it is disappointing to see so little coverage. For example, one of the co-authors (Ran) never visited the State, and off the top of my head Masa only managed to visit Hazeltine?


I know that Darius spent some time in Minnesota last summer when he was traveling around the USA and visited quite a few golf courses in and around the Twin Cities, but I don't know if any made the book. Obviously he loves White Bear, and you could tell that his influence is shown in its review. But he visited my home course on the same trip where I walked the entire golf course with him (which was great fun and very informative for me). But it wasn't listed in the book. But at the same time Midland Hills and it's 1994 review of a '3' or '4' remains unchanged and is frankly outdated and inaccurate. So to me, if the book is to be used as a travel guide for golfers, it doesn't make sense to keep a 22 year old review (that doesn't really say much about the course, anyway, other than its a Raynor), and to keep out a course that one of the co-authors visited and hits many of the key items that is listed in the front of the book in the "what we like" section.


Minnesota is so much deeper than the typical "Hazeltine, Interlachen, White Bear" rotation that already gets too much attention. And it is a shame that a traveling golfer looking at the Guide with the idea of traveling to Minnesota will miss so many interesting golf courses.

[Kalen Braley]

Haven't ordered my copy yet, but will be forwarding along the link to the misses for a christmas wish list...


Did any Utah Courses make the list?  Just wonderin'


Thanks in advance!

[Tom_Doak]

PCraig:


I agree with a lot of your criticisms of the coverage of courses in Minnesota.  I think it was one of our weaker sections of the book, because my only real trip around was many years ago, and Ran and Masa had scant experience there.  The couple of times I did get up that way, I went to see Giant's Ridge and Northland, instead of more courses around the Twin Cities.


I'm surprised [but not shocked] to hear that Darius left out a course he'd seen on his trip; I would like to hold all of my contributors to the same standard that I hold myself [which is no omissions and no, "no comments"], but I can't make them admit to everything if they don't want to.  Either he had a reason he didn't want to review the course in question, or it's possible he just forgot it.  [There were actually a couple of courses I had to stick in at the last minute, remembering a long-ago visit of my own.]


That said, it bugs me when people tell me I "needed" to go see such and such course a second time, or go see more in a particular area.  I know you know that I've seen all of these courses on my own dime, for travel costs if not necessarily to pay green fees, and that my time for this second career is limited.  I'd hoped to get back to Minnesota for a couple of days last fall or this spring, but I just had too many other bases to cover, getting to upstate NY, and Maine and New Hampshire, and West Virginia, and Utah and Idaho, and Iowa and Lawsonia [for a second time 30 years after my first]. 


I thought it was more important to include courses in those regions, than include more from the Twin Cities, and I was not disappointed by what I found.


As for the two reviews of courses in Chicago, yes, those are my own.  In the case of Glen View, I did not go look at it to interview for the job -- one of my associates tried for the job, but I stayed out of it since two of my former associates were also bidding on the work and I didn't want to put my thumb on the scale.  But I did stop through and walk the course on a visit, just before they were going to start in on the job.  I thought it was a good layout, but that the previous attempt at the bunkering was not well done.  And, as for Old Elm, I would have liked to get back but did not find the time.  [Indeed, I stopped in to Glen View so I could include it, too.]


Should I have speculated as to how good they might be after refurbishment?  Should I rely on someone else's opinion and print that?  I say no.  I rate the course that I saw and put down the date I saw it.  I am quite comfortable stating that those courses were not any better than 6's [which is pretty good] when I saw them.


It's inevitable in any such production that some reviews are dated, and you've pointed out some of the worst such examples, out of a book that reviews 660 courses.  My question to you:  is that really worse than just omitting them entirely?  [Keeping in mind, that selective omissions start to raise questions about favoritism and dodging questions.]  Does my having reviewed Glen View and Old Elm a bit vaguely, to account for change, make you not interested to see them?

[PCCraig]

Tom Doak,

I am probably nit-picking. Overall it is an awesome book and one that I happily paid ~$80 for and will continue to read for years to come. I am well aware of the sacrifice that you and your co-authors make in order to compile so many of the ratings. When Darius visited our home course, we talked about the incredible amount of driving he was doing that summer (in his rental van stocked with copies of Planet Golf, nonetheless!). I am sure it is a great experience, driving around a country looking at golf courses, but at the same time certainly a sacrifice to be away from friends, girlfriends, wives, and families.

When Darius visited us, we set out to walk the course on a late July day in the middle of a local Twin Cities Senior League Tournament that the club was hosting. Getting to walk around hearing his thoughts on our golf course and other golf courses he has studied was just awesome. Afterward Darius was nice enough to talk to our membership, and we just so happened to have Jeff Mingay there at the same time, so by the end we were lucky enough to have the two of them answering questions and debating golf course architecture. That was incredible. And we continued our chat afterwards when a few of us took Darius out for a Jucy Lucy (a hamburger with the cheese stuffed inside, a local delicacy ). The point being is that I am not sour or anything that the golf course wasn't included in the Guide, only surprised given how little coverage Minnesota received since the last Guide came out. Either way, it was pretty cool hosting someone like Darius and getting to talk golf courses with him, just like I am sure it would be if you, Ran, or Masa showed up looking for a tour.

I don't think you needed to speculate as to how good you think a golf course is, or might be, after a pending renovation. I understand that each review is date stamped. If it is intended as a guide for golf travel, I just wish there was some more specific information about what I might be able to find at a golf course. For example, there are plenty of 6's in a State like Illinois. But it would be nice to know if there is a particular hole or feature that you think is noteworthy to see on a course that might peak a reader's interest to see.

Frankly, I don't know if it would be appropriate to omit a course that you haven't seen since the early 1990's such as a Midland Hills or Somerset here in Minnesota. In the case of Somerset, your review still rings true, but in Midland Hills I would say it does not. But if the premise of the book, again, is to be a Guide for travel then I only wonder if it might cause traveling golfers to miss something interesting. So for example, based on the "what we like" section in the book, I would assume most golfers buying your book would rather go play the really good punchbowl and biarritz holes at Midland before they would go play Hazeltine. But Hazeltine gets a ~6 and Midland Hills continues to get a 1994 rating of ~3 or 4, so I should go play Hazeltine instead?

[Tom_Doak]

So for example, based on the "what we like" section in the book, I would assume most golfers buying your book would rather go play the really good punchbowl and biarritz holes at Midland before they would go play Hazeltine. But Hazeltine gets a ~6 and Midland Hills continues to get a 1994 rating of ~3 or 4, so I should go play Hazeltine instead?

That's an interesting premise.  I doubt it's true that many of our readers would rather go play Midland Hills than the famous Hazeltine.  But unfortunately I can't make that comparison myself, because I have no interest at all in seeing Hazeltine based on others' opinions of it.  So I guess I suspect that you might be correct after all!


PS:  For me, Biarritz holes are generally not an attraction at all, unless they are really different than the standard version.  That may be one reason our views on Midland Hills differ.

[PCCraig]

So for example, based on the "what we like" section in the book, I would assume most golfers buying your book would rather go play the really good punchbowl and biarritz holes at Midland before they would go play Hazeltine. But Hazeltine gets a ~6 and Midland Hills continues to get a 1994 rating of ~3 or 4, so I should go play Hazeltine instead?

That's an interesting premise.  I doubt it's true that many of our readers would rather go play Midland Hills than the famous Hazeltine.  But unfortunately I can't make that comparison myself, because I have no interest at all in seeing Hazeltine based on others' opinions of it.  So I guess I suspect that you might be correct after all!


PS:  For me, Biarritz holes are generally not an attraction at all, unless they are really different than the standard version.  That may be one reason our views on Midland Hills differ.

So if I am following correctly Hazeltine gets a recommendation of a 6 based on the fact that it's famous? Is the target audience of the book really the person to seeks out a course in order to belt notch?


I am only using Midland Hills as one example of a greater theme. To me, the value in a book like the Confidential Guide is the recommendations of lesser known courses that a reader might not of heard of but might want to see if in an area. Not just scratch the surface and showcase places like Hazeltine or Interlachen. I would think the value is to tell more people about places like White Bear, Northland, Keller Golf Course, etc.?

That what was so great about the original book when, instead of recommending the obvious Interlachen in Minnesota, you made a comment saying "White Bear is the golf course I would want to play every day in Minnesota." (I am paraphrasing).

[Tom_Doak]

So if I am following correctly Hazeltine gets a recommendation of a 6 based on the fact that it's famous? Is the target audience of the book really the person to seeks out a course in order to belt notch?

I am only using Midland Hills as one example of a greater theme. To me, the value in a book like the Confidential Guide is the recommendations of lesser known courses that a reader might not of heard of but might want to see if in an area. Not just scratch the surface and showcase places like Hazeltine or Interlachen. I would think the value is to tell more people about places like White Bear, Northland, Keller Golf Course, etc.?

I don't believe I said that.  You'd have to ask others why Hazeltine got the 6.  I'd guess because it's challenging, it has some history, and it has a couple of very distinctive holes [10 and 16 by the old routing]. 


From the club's standpoint, of course, 6 is a low number for such a famous course, and I think it's fair to say that is not a strong recommendation from my co-authors ... and realistically, there are not too many courses that are consensus picks for the top 100 in America, which deserve a 5 ["about the level of an average course in this book ... we would not spend another day away from home to play it"].  Even though my own conclusion about it, when deciding whether to go, is that it wasn't worth spending another day away from home to see ... or worth taking the heat if I did go and only thought it was a 5.


I do agree that the value of the book is to recommend lesser-known places, and we have done so, a lot.  The numbers are only part of that, but the numbers are intended for general consumption, not just to reinforce my own personal view.  In other words, I do not have to rate every course I think you should see before Hazeltine, a higher number than Hazeltine.  Indeed, you can sort out a lot about how I feel about courses in major population centers just from observing when is the last time I went back to see them, or if I've skipped them altogether.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Pat, I get what you are saying, but there is not one single golf course guide that could ever be considered as the penultimate and comprehensive review of all courses.


Triangulate the "Confidential Guide" with other available resources.
How many courses are there in North America.....what....15,000...!?


Lots of courses in Chicago were omitted including some well-regarded ones. Shit, there are 200 -250 courses within 50 miles of Chicago alone.


But, I believe that Tom and Co. really did an amazing job at "culling the herd" overall.....with some obvious exceptions and T&C may be one of them.


Perhaps it will be added to the "Online Edition" next year....;-)

[William_G]

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

hahaha

almost as funny as seeing:

Sand Valley (Doak Course)

as one of the three courses we hope to see built, LOL

I think this would be better:

Gamble Sands (Doak Course)?

[Tom_Doak]

almost as funny as seeing:

Sand Valley (Doak Course)

as one of the three courses we hope to see built, LOL

I think this would be better:

Gamble Sands (Doak course)

I did a routing on part of the Sand Valley site that hasn't been used yet.  It would be a shame if they never build the course I routed, though it's a distinct possibility.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,
I enjoy Volume 3 immensely as I have the other two.
I am a little surprised that more ink was not spilled about Riverfront ... in particular how that early course and its green complexes may have been influenced by early ideas, experiences and memories and that continuum developed into later years and work.  I still note that the Renaissance Web Site still lists Riverfront No. 4 as one of their best Par 3's. ( I did a thread on the hole a few years back.)  I do note that the mentioning of Riverfront No. 14 in Volume 3 in a little bit of a tongue in cheek manner.  It is a very good Par 5 and I will do a thread on it this winter.

Darius,
I do not know if you post or lurk here, but I think I told you at Ballyhack that while you were at Cedar Point in Suffolk, you were no more than 12 minutes from Riverfront.  I certainly would have spotted you a round there.

[William_G]

almost as funny as seeing:

Sand Valley (Doak Course)

as one of the three courses we hope to see built, LOL

I think this would be better:

Gamble Sands (Doak course)

I did a routing on part of the Sand Valley site that hasn't been used yet.  It would be a shame if they never build the course I routed, though it's a distinct possibility.

I get that, thank you

I was wondering how you really felt about Eugene CC 10 years ago 

[Tim Martin]

Its clear that putting these volumes together was quite an undertaking. I own and enjoy the books. That said I don't really see the value of a dated review that does not take into consideration major restoration work that was done subsequent to the original version of the Confidential Guide. I would think this would be a semi-requirement just based on the amount of restoration work that has taken place over the last twenty years and subsequent to the original CG. The idea that "we couldn't get to it" is not a sufficient reason to go with a dated review. My understanding is that the new volumes are supposed to be an updated version of the original to cover courses not yet built, not yet reviewed and/or restored with the viewpoint of the new contributors included.

[Dave McCollum]

Its clear that putting these volumes together was quite an undertaking. I own and enjoy the books. That said I don't really see the value of a dated review that does not take into consideration major restoration work that was done subsequent to the original version of the Confidential Guide. I would think this would be a semi-requirement just based on the amount of restoration work that has taken place over the last twenty years and subsequent to the original CG. The idea that "we couldn't get to it" is not a sufficient reason to go with a dated review. My understanding is that the new volumes are supposed to be an updated version of the original to cover courses not yet built, not yet reviewed and/or restored with the viewpoint of the new contributors included.

Tom has explained very patiently and repeatedly his purposes.  You want a better guide, buy Wexler's black books or go the mag lists.  Whining that the CG is inadequate for your expectations just doesn't seem reasonable.  It is one man's take of golf design, now with some help from friends.  Do you have any idea what it would cost to revisit every course that made some changes (over 30+ years of golf travel), not to mention the time away from their day jobs?

[Michael Whitaker]

I have all of the CG books and enjoy them, but I'd love to see this project go live on the web so that updates could be made on an ongoing basis.

It could be offered on a subscription, if necessary, to cover overhead and generate operating capital. The biggest expense would be the time necessary to post the current material onto the site, but after that has been done the overhead would be minimal. If Tom is interested I'm sure we could get plenty of volunteers who would love to help set up such a website.

[Tom_Doak]

I have all of the CG books and enjoy them, but I'd love to see this project go live on the web so that updates could be made on an ongoing basis.

It could be offered on a subscription, if necessary, to cover overhead and generate operating capital. The biggest expense would be the time necessary to post the current material onto the site, but after that has been done the overhead would be minimal. If Tom is interested I'm sure we could get plenty of volunteers who would love to help set up such a website.

Michael:


I have thought of doing that once the series of books are complete.  I would probably offer it at a nominal rate to anyone who purchased the whole series of books, and substantially more for those who did not.  However, I don't intend to keep traveling into my 60's and 70's at the pace I've been going, so I'm not sure there will be that much more ground to cover when the books are done.


Tim Martin:


All the hype about "major restoration work" is a bit overblown in my view, in many cases.  I've done a lot of that work myself, and have not often felt that I could improve a course by more than one point on the Doak scale, by cleaning it up:  if the routing is the same and the greens are the same, that's the basis of the golf course.  So it's fair to assume that a course I reviewed twenty years ago might be a point higher on the Doak scale today.  At the same time, that means while a twenty-year-old review may be a bit outdated, it's not irrelevant.  [And I certainly don't assume that everyone buying today has a copy of my last edition of the book.  I'm sure that less than half the subscribers do.]