[Tommy Williamsen]

This came in my email today.


https://www.linksmagazine.com/how_to_rate_your_home_course/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insider11.2

[Tom_Doak]

That's from an article that's 2-3 years old [or more!].  I guess I should read the "rights" section of contracts for articles more carefully, though I doubt I signed one at all.

[Michael Whitaker]

I like Tom’s article very much and agree with just about everything he details.

A couple of additional thoughts:

Walkability: Tom gives minus points for poor walkability. I do as well, but I also give bonus points for good walkability. Tom is correct there is a zero sum gain on elevation change, but some designs will use one downhill hole to offset three uphill ones... while other designs will use one uphill hole to offset three level-to-downhill holes. I prefer the latter and deduct for the former.

Cart Paths In Play: It drives me crazy when a golf hole is spoiled because there are cart paths too close to the primary playing area. Balls bouncing wildly off the hole, running down a curbed “runway”, or making the results of a minorly missed shot 10 times worse than it should be... repeat, drive me crazy!!! I hate what the universal use of golf carts in America did to golf course design.

[Tommy Williamsen]

That's from an article that's 2-3 years old [or more!].  I guess I should read the "rights" section of contracts for articles more carefully, though I doubt I signed one at all.

I guess a good article never gets old. Hope you get a check in the mail.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom’s article stimulated a follow up in Links featuring reader comments and editor analysis:


https://www.linksmagazine.com/greatness_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder/

[JESII]

There's not a zero sum game in the golf holes regarding elevation. Maybe in the total walk from the locker room until you're back in the locker room but several courses have a definitively uphill green to tee bias so the tee to green total is downhill.


Muirfield Village is one. I think Huntingdon Valley would be another.

[Sean_A]

There's not a zero sum game in the golf holes regarding elevation. Maybe in the total walk from the locker room until you're back in the locker room but several courses have a definitively uphill green to tee bias so the tee to green total is downhill.

Muirfield Village is one. I think Huntingdon Valley would be another.

Plus, as dicusssed previously, it can be the case that holes go up and down quite a bit.  When looking at overall elevation change it doesn't look to be bad because all the individual ascents and descents within holes (or even walks to tees) are not measured.  It can make an incredible difference.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

There's not a zero sum game in the golf holes regarding elevation. Maybe in the total walk from the locker room until you're back in the locker room but several courses have a definitively uphill green to tee bias so the tee to green total is downhill.


Muirfield Village is one. I think Huntingdon Valley would be another.

Here's what I actually wrote about walkability and elevation change: 


More than one architect has talked of his preference for “18 downhill holes,” but if you’re going to get back to the clubhouse you’ve got to get those elevation changes back somewhere, and if you’re hiking up to every tee it will spoil the flow of the game.


I think we're on the same page, it was Sean's summary that painted a different picture.

[Michael Whitaker]

When looking at overall elevation change it doesn't look to be bad because all the individual ascents and descents within holes (or even walks to tees) are not measured.  It can make an incredible difference.

This is very true, Sean. Often times holes are judged to be "level" when there is actually a deep dip in the hole between the tee and green. One must hit their tee shot, walk down to the low spot, then climb up to the fairway on the other side... only to be facing an approach shot into a green above their head. Yet, this hole is considered "level" because the tee and green are at relatively the same elevation. A few of these holes in a row will wear out even the fittest of golfers!

[JC Jones]

What rating should one give a course they haven't played...or seen?

[Kyle Harris]

There's not a zero sum game in the golf holes regarding elevation. Maybe in the total walk from the locker room until you're back in the locker room but several courses have a definitively uphill green to tee bias so the tee to green total is downhill.


Muirfield Village is one. I think Huntingdon Valley would be another.

Huntingdon Valley, for sure. Was my first thought on this thread. Anyone care to guess my second? 

[Kyle Harris]

Tom’s article stimulated a follow up in Links featuring reader comments and editor analysis:


https://www.linksmagazine.com/greatness_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder/

I am much more comfortable with Tom overusing his pen than I am with Perry Dye overusing his bulldozer.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom’s article stimulated a follow up in Links featuring reader comments and editor analysis:

https://www.linksmagazine.com/greatness_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder/

I am much more comfortable with Tom overusing his pen than I am with Perry Dye overusing his bulldozer.

+1

[Thomas Dai]

And there’s the P-Scale. The pretentiousness scale.
Atb

[Carl Rogers]

I have wondered how Tom would rate Ballyhack.  Great land for golf?...
 certainly beautiful property. Walkability.... big minus?. Playability ..... bigger minus?  Or is it so unique, that categorization does not count.

[Mark_Fine]

I have always liked the "Doak Scale" for rating golf courses.  It is a 1-10 scale that most golfers can understand.  That said, everything is relative in course rating.  If you haven't already see the best designs, how can you know how good a golf course can get?  Everybody's 10's and 9's,...., are all relative to the best courses they have seen themselves.  Tom's article raises some good points one should be thinking about in the process.

[Niall C]

Mark

Actually that's the one thing about Tom's Confidential Guide that I've never been able to get to grips with. The idea of being best in a region/area or whatever, or distance you'd travel to play or whatever the definitions for each score is. They seem to be written with the US in mind rather than over here.

That said, the commentary in the books is superb and when you get down to it, giving each course a number allowing basic comparisons is easy to follow even if the definition for that rating is difficult to follow.

Niall

[Ken Moum]

Plus, as dicusssed previously, it can be the case that holes go up and down quite a bit.  When looking at overall elevation change it doesn't look to be bad because all the individual ascents and descents within holes (or even walks to tees) are not measured.  It can make an incredible difference.


Ciao

Maybe we need to figure this the way it's done in bicycle riding/racing.  The typical way to do it is to add up all the climbs to get total feet of climbing, or elevation gain.


For instance, on October 25, I rode 50 miles here in Mesa, AZ, almost all of it along irrigation canals.  I use an app called Map My Ride and it calculates a bunch of stats, including elevation gain. 


That whole ride was done with a minimum elevation of 1145 feet and a max of 1273 feet. But because it calculates elevation gain by adding up all the climbs, it shows that I had 522 feet of climbing.


In August I was in Sturgis, SD and did a 53-mile ride that had almost 2000 feet of climbing.


Since those rides started and ended at the same place, like a round of golf, only the elevation gained stat would give you any idea of how hard it was.

[Kyle Harris]

Mark

Actually that's the one thing about Tom's Confidential Guide that I've never been able to get to grips with. The idea of being best in a region/area or whatever, or distance you'd travel to play or whatever the definitions for each score is. They seem to be written with the US in mind rather than over here.

I can attempt to explain perhaps:


How many times do you drive past the Doak 6 to play the Doak 7 before you play the Doak 6 again?

[Sean_A]

Plus, as dicusssed previously, it can be the case that holes go up and down quite a bit.  When looking at overall elevation change it doesn't look to be bad because all the individual ascents and descents within holes (or even walks to tees) are not measured.  It can make an incredible difference.

Ciao

Maybe we need to figure this the way it's done in bicycle riding/racing.  The typical way to do it is to add up all the climbs to get total feet of climbing, or elevation gain.

For instance, on October 25, I rode 50 miles here in Mesa, AZ, almost all of it along irrigation canals.  I use an app called Map My Ride and it calculates a bunch of stats, including elevation gain. 

That whole ride was done with a minimum elevation of 1145 feet and a max of 1273 feet. But because it calculates elevation gain by adding up all the climbs, it shows that I had 522 feet of climbing.

In August I was in Sturgis, SD and did a 53-mile ride that had almost 2000 feet of climbing.

Since those rides started and ended at the same place, like a round of golf, only the elevation gained stat would give you any idea of how hard it was.

Ken

I am not so much interested in exactly measuring ups and downs, just pointing out that one guy's great walk backed up by "overall elevation change" is another man's difficult walk backed up by many elevation changes which many discount because of so called zeroing out.  It can be a huge fallacy. Plus, we all have our upper limits of elevation change for the balance between a good walk and interesting golf.  I generally work on a max of 20 feet per climb as an UPPER limit.  While my threshold may be somewhat higher when the shots are compelling, for me ideal golf terrain is much more in the mold of TOC and Deal.  The actual elevation change is minimal yet very noticeable in that we get ball flight issues without hill climbing.  A huge reason wjy TOC rates so highly for me is simply down to it being the best terrain for golf I have ever seen. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Plus, we all have our upper limits of elevation change for the balance between a good walk and interesting golf.  I generally work on a max of 20 feet per climb as an UPPER limit.  While my threshold may be somewhat higher when the shots are compelling,

You must find the shots on the 3rd hole at Cleeve Cloud VERY compelling.   

[Peter Pallotta]

I found the point about routing ('the least understood part of golf design') the most interesting: is there any more defining characteristic of an architect's work than the way he/she chooses to 'balance' the various elements/aspects involved?

I suppose all architects (past & present) would say that they factor-in all manner of considerations, from (to use Tom's list) avoiding monotony to making the most of the views & vistas to exploring the property to finding great holes.

But even if all architects actually did try to balance all those elements, I'd imagine there'd still be differing priorities and hierarchies of value at work -- and I'd guess that these differing 'routing value-systems' are the main reason why experienced & insightful folks can tell architects/their work apart, and why some prefer one type of work and others another type.

Is that true, you think?

[JMEvensky]

But even if all architects actually did try to balance all those elements, I'd imagine there'd still be differing priorities and hierarchies of value at work -- and I'd guess that these differing 'routing value-systems' are the main reason why experienced & insightful folks can tell architects/their work apart, and why some prefer one type of work and others another type.

Is that true, you think?

I had the same question (I think)--do architects have a go-to "trade off"?

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


I’ve been of the thought that the routing is the most reflective of the architects’ personality. Some are adventurous, some are not; some are risk=takers, some are not; some are aggressive, others are passive...and so on. But then I wonder if the greens are actually more reflective of the architects’ personality....

[Niall C]

Mark

Actually that's the one thing about Tom's Confidential Guide that I've never been able to get to grips with. The idea of being best in a region/area or whatever, or distance you'd travel to play or whatever the definitions for each score is. They seem to be written with the US in mind rather than over here.

I can attempt to explain perhaps:


How many times do you drive past the Doak 6 to play the Doak 7 before you play the Doak 6 again?

Kyle

I'm reasonably good at counting and can get from 1 to 10 without any mistakes most of the time. I'm also fairly adept at making a value judgement on whether one course is better than another, but all that has nothing to do with what I remember the definitions of the Doak scale in Tom's book so I'm afraid you've been on no use at all. But thanks for trying.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()