Can you love a Doak 3 or 4?

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I lived in Annapolis, I belonged to some very good courses. I have a national membership at a Doak six. I live at a resort with either a Doak three or four. I try to love the course. I built here as a second home in the 80s and have played the course all these years. I retired here full-time in 2010. I do love the resort, but not the course. I have tried to change my attitude but failed. I used to enjoy it. I want to enjoy it again.


Can you love a Doak three or four?

[Jason Thurman]

I love my home course. I'd like to make the case that it's a 4 but that might be a bit favorably biased.


I do think my home course is a "good" 3. On one hand, it lacks subtlety, strategic interest, and shaping elegance. The routing gets really tight in spots - the ideal line off the tee on 18 flies about 3 feet left of the heads of the guys standing on 17 tee for example, and that might not even be the most dangerous spot on the course. The master plan we paid for 10 years ago has never really been enacted, but a Board member with good intentions and terrible taste managed to get the world's worst artificial waterfall installed a couple years ago.


But it has a surprising amount of variety. From our "normal" tees at 6000 yards, I almost always hit at least 11 clubs and often more. The greens hold a decent amount of interest - they lack shaping elegance, but they do dictate position effectively. The property doesn't have a single level lie so every shot is different. We probably have too many trees, but there's not enough room between holes for full forests of them so you usually have some sort of recovery window and they provide challenge.


The biggest thing we have going for us is our club culture - the place is totally unpretentious, consistently in good shape, reasonably priced, very friendly, constantly active (we do over 30,000 rounds every year), and golf-only with a great practice facility. I've never gotten even a little tired of playing it in 6 years as a member - if you'd told me that would be the case when I joined, I'd have been skeptical. But if you get the vibe right, the quality of the golf course architecture doesn't have to dictate the quality of the golf.

[Frank M]

Can you love a Doak three or four?

Tommy, I say this with all due respect for Tom and yourself, but hopefully a subjective scale defined by a single individual outside yourself does not define what you love or do not love.


I love some courses that would be a Doak 0 and I love some courses that would be Doak 10's. Ultimately, they are both Frank 10's for various reasons and that's all that matters to me.


I was a member of a great club that would likely not fall above a Doak 2 for many many years...and I loved/love it just as much as anything else.


Doak scale is a nice discussion starter, but I would never consider using it to define what I love.

[Thomas Dai]

For ease of reference …..
[/size][/color]
[/size]“3. About the level of the average golf course in the world. (Since I don't go out of my way to see average courses, my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better and the best”[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]“4. A modestly interesting course, with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18, or at least some scenic interest and decent golf. Also reserved for some very good courses that are much too short and narrow to provide sufficient challenge for accomplished golfers.”[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Atb[/color]

[Matt Schoolfield]

Yes, and the obvious example for me is Lions Muny in Austin. There are so many things I love about the course and the place, but most of those things are deep subtleties that wouldn't show up on a Doak Scale score.

* The first tee is a pressure shot, but it's easy. About 200 yards or less, but you'll always have an audience watching. I love this.

* There are holes obviously set up to help beginners, like 3 and 6, which clearly allow for a healthy slice, but seeing as it's a municipal course that a lot of people learn on, it's refreshing to see beginners have a fun hole even without them really knowing why. It's not really relevant to me, but it's cute to see.

* The monster hole is 16, "Hogan's hole," not 18. The 18th is a drivable (or near drivable) par 4 for better players. As a match play advocate, I think this is a better dynamic.

* I even love that the small range is irons only. It's for warming up, not for spending your afternoons at.

I should also add that I try to stay vigilant against the hedonic treadmill in most aspects in life. I know I'm susceptible, which is why I stay incredibly focused on value in how I think about golf course ratings, and not just excellence. Most "objective" ranking systems simply ignore these costs (I speculate for very specific reasons, but I won't get into that here), but I think this is a mistake, and pushes people toward that tredmill. There is a type of snobbery that I worry about when a conception of excellence becomes detached from prudence. I see resort-style courses, and their expense of maintenance, as similar to eating dessert. It's fine to have a piece of cake every once in a while, but it would be ridiculous and unhealthy to suggest cake should be a normal part of an everyday diet.

Keeping to match play is another way I try to avoid the hedonic treadmill. The back-and-forth dynamics adds interest even where design is unsophisticated or spartan.

[Ira Fishman]

Kilspindie received a 4 if memory serves. What is not to love?


I do think it is easier to love a links 3 or 4 if you are not from the UK&I because we do not find them in the US.

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps clarify the question:

You can enjoy something and not love it, like perhaps a favorite drink or meal
And conversely you may not enjoy someone and still love them like say a relative.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Can you love a Doak three or four?

Tommy, I say this with all due respect for Tom and yourself, but hopefully a subjective scale defined by a single individual outside yourself does not define what you love or do not love.


I love some courses that would be a Doak 0 and I love some courses that would be Doak 10's. Ultimately, they are both Frank 10's for various reasons and that's all that matters to me.


I was a member of a great club that would likely not fall above a Doak 2 for many many years...and I loved/love it just as much as anything else.


Doak scale is a nice discussion starter, but I would never consider using it to define what I love.

For personal use, I give courses grades. My home course gets a C-. My away course is a solid B.

[Tom_Doak]

I would say that it’s certainly possible to love a 4, but if you love a 3 it’s probably for sentimental reasons (where you grew up, where you made an ace, etc.)


I rated my original home course Sterling Farms a 3, I think, but you could make the case for a 4.  I didn’t go there because I don’t really love it, and never made an ace.  And I’ve seen what better looks like.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy,


I don’t think it has a rating but if it did Rec Park in Long Beach, CA might be a 3. However, I do love it mostly because of the number of shots I enjoy playing. There is even a Par 4 (#11) where I love both the tee shot and the approach.


But Rec Park has a down side: the first four holes are often a pace of play disaster, especially on weekends.


By the way, local legend has it that Ben Hogan was a big fan of Rec Park. Who knows whether that is really true.


Tim

[John Foley]

My home course is probably a 4. Its a good everyday course that I and many others enjoy. Many better courses in the area but from a value & playability its what I need. Do I love it? I love a few holes and a few shots but there are more than a few that fails to keep our interest.


So sure you can love a 4 w/ great company & conditions but I'm going to reach & search out 6-8's and those I'll love easier.

[Jim_Coleman]

   You can insult a man’s wife before you can insult his golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

   You can insult a man’s wife before you can insult his golf course.

Your wife is a 3.


(See, you are wrong.)


Caveat:  this is hypothetical, I’ve never met Jim, or his wife.

[Craig Sweet]

No, I can't.  I refuse to play anything less than a Doak 7 

[Andrew Harvie]

I'd say so. I enjoy a 4 and would never turn down the opportunity to play one within my city with friends... I just wouldn't travel for one, which I guess is the point of the scale. There are a handful of 4's I enjoy/love, be it for sentimental reasons or I just think it's a fun place to play, but generally a 4 is, if anything else, solid, so it wouldn't surprise me if they each had their own fan bases!


I imagine those who are in rural areas without easy access to a 6 or above love the 4 in their town? 3 is a bit harder to like, by definition—that would be my cut-off.

[Sean_A]

Absolutely yes. The Doak number is a travel reference/recommendation. Really taking to a course is a more visceral experience. There is joy simply by being on the property. There are plenty of great courses which don’t turn my head toward love of the course.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

If your home course is a 3 or a 4 (or any other number for that matter) do you love it more or less the longer your a member and the more times you play it?
Atb

[Joe Wandro]

I’ve been surprised to hear from a number of GCA and construction folks who grew up on bad courses or in lesser golf regions. I think repeated play of a Doak 3-4 pushes many into the study of design. With curiosity and some common sense, a golfer will begin to naturally question design decisions and begin down the rabbit hole.


I love my home course, its a 4 for now, and got me into design. Apart from the nostalgia, the love is derived from the wild land and quirky blind shots.

[Bill Gayne]

Sure you can. If you've never played better than a three or four and that's all you know. I took up the game at North Fulton GC in Atlanta. With the condition it was in circa 1990 was probably a three with the potential to be a five. I think if there's upside potential of the three or four to become a five or six it's easier to love.

[Colin Sheehan]

Of course you can!

In the 1996 Confidential Guide Doak gave CC of Fairfield, my "Aberdovey," a 4!?!

It's the place where, after first caddying there and playing on Mondays and later working the bag room and picking the range, I went from loving the game to a lifetime of being a hopeless romantic.

Of course that one might be subject for discussion in the other thread about the delta of Doak scores because it is safe to say it's a 6, not only for its fantastic golf holes but the beauty of its seaside and harbor setting.

[Ben Sims]

   You can insult a man’s wife before you can insult his golf course.

Your wife is a 3.


(See, you are wrong.)


Caveat:  this is hypothetical, I’ve never met Jim, or his wife.

(Spit take) Ha!!! Late POTY candidate.


—break break—


To answer the OP, I’ll just say that this thread might be the one that broke the camels back for me. Maybe time we re-hack what the Doak Scale is and what it should (likely) be used for.


The outdoor gear review company Blister is the best in the biz. Bar none. No pay to play or advert dollars for gear reviews. They artfully combine objective and subjective information in a way that really helps consumers understand if a ski or a bike is right *FOR THEM*. This is how I use the Confidential Guide as well. The ratings help me understand how Tom sees a course and what he (or Ran, Masa, and Darius) thinks is notable about it. What I absolutely don’t do is decide if my local club is worth a damn based on a Doak rating. It’s there and I play it and I try to find the good in it.

[jeffwarne]

Of course you can love a 3/4(not sure if others would rate my beloved Goat Hill that high), and you can hate a Doak 6(can't think of a 7 I hate though there are quite a few modern "6's I feel like Tom felt compelled to rate that highly out of respect for the architect)


If you grow up playing a "3/4" course and "loving" it, then your travels take you to many Doak 7,8, 9's...
do you no longer love the course you grew up playing and loving?
(though maybe this would explain the divorce rate)


I think it's harder for Tommy to convince himself to "love" a course he clearly never loved to start-regardless of its place on the scale.

[Charlie Goerges]

If you're going to love it at this point, it will probably have to be for non-architecture reasons. That's probably enough, especially since you get to play a fair number of other courses. Maybe list the things you like about it now, like maybe it's close to home, you like the sandwiches in the grill or you shoot good scores there.

[Tim_Weiman]

If you're going to love it at this point, it will probably have to be for non-architecture reasons. That's probably enough, especially since you get to play a fair number of other courses. Maybe list the things you like about it now, like maybe it's close to home, you like the sandwiches in the grill or you shoot good scores there.

Charlie,


What you say might be true, but the example I cited above - Rec Park in Long Beach, CA - might be an exception. I once counted 8-10 shots that I really enjoyed played and that was precisely because of the architecture.


I wish Tommy Naccarato were here to offer his opinion, because I know he is very familiar with the course as it was originally designed and how it is today.


#5 is a Par 3 that has both an uphill and downhill version. Tommy once asked me if I knew where the original uphill tee was. I had no clue and was shocked to learn and see the hole was a Redan and probably a pretty tough one.


Tim

[Tommy Williamsen]

If you're going to love it at this point, it will probably have to be for non-architecture reasons. That's probably enough, especially since you get to play a fair number of other courses. Maybe list the things you like about it now, like maybe it's close to home, you like the sandwiches in the grill or you shoot good scores there.

Thanks. good idea.



1. The first tee is a mile from my house.
2. I have great memories of playing here with my wife and kids.
3. I won the member/guest twice with two different friends.
4. It is the easiest place to shoot my age. I did it before I turned 70 and the next three years before I did it anywhere else.
5. It is a pleasant, pretty uncrowded walk in the evening. I can play in under 90 minutes.
6. I have many friends here who are also retired.
7. I can ski in the morning and play in the afternoon.
8. It is seldom crowded. We get fewer than 20,000 rounds a year.
9. it is generally in decent shape. I interviewed the candidates for superintendent and chose the one we have now.
10. The par fives are very good.