Is Tom Doak the Robert Parker of our golf course architecture?

[Richard Choi]

Dan, even if I can tell them apart, the difference would be so small (at least to me), that I cannot justify 10X or 100X (or more!) price difference they would command.

In my opinion, the difference between a local average muni and a top end course like Pacific Dunes is is so great that I can easily justify the 4X difference in pricing.

[Adam Lawrence]

Mark - I really agree with much of what you state. However, I'm not sure why Parker is responsible for entertaining "differing views" than his. That, in my mind, is exactly why lots of critics exist and prosper in the wine world -- Alan Meadows (who appreciates nuance and "fidelity to place" as much as any critic I've read), J. Robinson, Broadbent, etc.

I'm not misrepresenting Parker's critics because I'm not representing them at all.

Adam -- If a winemaker wishes to produce a wine contrary to the traditions of those regions, isn't that their right? One can lament the fact they did it, and why they did it, but the bottom line is that DIDN'T have to do anything. It's just the wheels of commerce turning.

Dan - of course that is the case, I don't believe I suggested otherwise. My point was that it's a bad thing. As it would be if the influence of a golf critic convinced Merion's members to build a bunch of big lakes on their golf course. They have a perfect right to do so; doesn't mean I have to approve of it.

[Dan Boerger]

Adam - We're likely beating a dead horse here ... but if by producing wine that more people buy, or more people buy at a higher price, enables that winery to stay in business, or the wine owner to enjoy a better lifestyle (educate their children, vacation, I think you know where I'm going here ... ) then, IMO, it's certainly not a "bad thing". At least not a bad thing to many of those on the front line of the business.

[Dan Boerger]

Richard - And if you enjoy the 3 buck chuck more than the first growth Bordeaux bully for you ... you've hit the QPR (quality price relationship) motherlode!

[Phil Benedict]

I recommend The Emperor of Wine to anyone who is interested in learning more about Parker.  His original insight was assigning a numerical value to each wine, which hadn't been done before.  This is tremendously helpful given the complexity of the wine business.  The numerical rating has been adopted elsewhere - The Wine Spectator for example - but he was the first and easily the most influential.

[Mike Cirba]

I really can't see Tom doing a music video with identically dressed women in fashionable suits dancing behind him.

Although, if he does decide to go that route I'd much rather watch that than another episode of Big Break.

[Sean_A]

Dan

I am not sure folks are necessarily hammering on Parker.  I think folks are hammering on the concept of any one person exerting the influence Parker does in the wine business- even though I am not totally convinced he has had as big an effect on the Average Joe as some claim.  A lot of Parker's rep for his influence is centred around quite a small market of upscale Bordeaux buyers.  I do think it is very odd that a Chateau will wait for the Parker verdict before pricing their wine and that can't be a good thing for the consumer.  Lord knows that in the era of Parker the price of solid table Bordeaux to top Bordeaux has sky rocketed - again not good for the consumer unless one takes the view that the quality bar is raised by better consistency from year to year - but some of that can be explained be better or at least more modern practices. 

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

I really can't see Tom doing a music video with identically dressed women in fashionable suits dancing behind him.

Although, if he does decide to go that route I'd much rather watch that than another episode of Big Break.

Since my agent in such discussions is my wife, this is not likely to happen.

[Jason Walker]

I guess confusing Robert Parker and Robert Palmer is easy these days?  Or is the joke on me?

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

I assumed that Mr. Cirba knew the difference and was just having some fun, thanks to my already noted influence on the music industry.

[Ian Andrew]

Well now that's settled who's the Dirk Diggler of GCA?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I was hoping to see "Might as well face it, you're deep in the rough" nominated for a Grammy, but alas...

You should simply let your wife know that the identically-clad background dancers are simply a form of eye-candy meant to distract the viewer from your vocal performance, sort of like Pete Dye's visual deception techniques where he distracts the eye from what is a relatively easy target by giving the golfer something nearby to look at that's frightening..

If you reference Mackenzie's camoflauge techniques and the Boer War you may have a fighting chance.

[Niall Hay]

Wow

[Thomas Layton]

I think that a better wine critic metaphor for Tom Doake is Allen Meadows/Burghound.

Most folks in the golf world (i.e. most golfers) are not significantly concerned with architecture.  In the wine world, Parker and his followers are analogous to this broad group of people because Parker favors big, obvious, fruit forward wines that appeal to a broad market.  One could argue that the fruit bombs that Parker likes are equivalent to the eye candy that a very broad swath of golfers might like.

I see CGA folks as a narrower slice of purists who quickly get beyond the superficial characteristics in appreciating a golf course.  I would argue that the wine comparison for this group would be Burgundy where wines are mostly about nuance, elegance and complexity.  Allen Meadows/Burghound is the most influential critic for Burgundy.  As perhaps the most influential golf course architect for the GCA crowd, TD seems very much like AM/Burghound.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I think this is one of those situations where ignorance is bliss. I had no idea who Robert Parker was until I read this topic. If the bottle is in the €8-12 price range, I'll try it. Simple as that!

[Jack_Marr]

I don't think so. For a start, humans can't distinguish their tastes down to one point in 100, so Parker is a spoofer, in my opinion.

Tom Doak, given what he produces, is not a spoofer.

[Mark Pearce]

I don't think so. For a start, humans can't distinguish their tastes down to one point in 100, so Parker is a spoofer, in my opinion.

Tom Doak, given what he produces, is not a spoofer.

IOf course Parker's 100 point scale is no such thing.  75 points is undrinkable, so the scale is really a 20 point scale, starting at 80 where potability starts.  The need for a 100 point scale, rather than a 20 point scale is, I think, an American thing......

[Sean_A]

The Parker Scale does the math for you (no multiplying by 10, 5, 4 or whatever).  The scale makes it much easier to slag a wine without the score looking obviously poor.  I think 70 points are awarded for a wine making it to market in a bottle with a label - tee hee.  But then, Parkers Scale is really meant to distinguish SOME premium wines - whatever that price point is where you live.  In the UK it is about £15. 

Ciao

[Niall Hay]

Thomas and then Donal above make my exact point back to back, though I do LOVE the banter about RP and his obvious tendencies the average wine drinker has never heard of him….it’s the enthusiasts who really follow wines to point where RP rating means much. In the whole scheme of golfers if I posted is Parker the Doak of wine many in the wine world would ask exactly what Donal did “who is Doak?”…fact is the average wine drinker doesn’t follow Parker religiously and the average golfer doesn’t follow Doak (we GCA are not your average golfers nor apparently your average wine drinkers), but the enthusiasts and (at least golfing purists) follow Doak’s every move (along C&C and others). Both have well regarded opinions and both have created scales in which we rank courses/wines….now perhaps Doak is a little more traditional and that’s the opposite of Parker but their influence has been felt industry wide. Just as the average golfer will recognize a good course (though probably recognize the Nicklaus or Palmer design and possibly a RTJ by name)….the average wine drinker doesn’t care just as the average golfer doesn’t care….it’s only the hard core who even care to debate…..which is what makes it so much fun….

[Niall Hay]

I don't think so. For a start, humans can't distinguish their tastes down to one point in 100, so Parker is a spoofer, in my opinion.

Tom Doak, given what he produces, is not a spoofer.

IOf course Parker's 100 point scale is no such thing.  75 points is undrinkable, so the scale is really a 20 point scale, starting at 80 where potability starts.  The need for a 100 point scale, rather than a 20 point scale is, I think, an American thing......

Mark this is a very interesting point....20 point scale....spot on.

[Jack_Marr]

If it's a 20 point scale, then it's even worse, because raters can't mark the same wine twice with the same score when tasted blind. So their margin of error is even larger if it's effectively a 20-point scale.

I know this also from the whisky raters who pretend they can mark out of 100.

This, apparently, is the Parker model...

96–100   An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. I think wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase and consume.
90–95   An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. I consider these terrific wines.
80–89   A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor, as well as character with no noticeable flaws.
70–79   An average wine with little distinction except that it is soundly made. In short a straightforward, innocuous wine.
60–69   A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.
50–59   A wine I deem unacceptable.

Anyway, sorry if I moved this off-topic a bit...

[Mark Pearce]

Jack,

Your comments are, of course valid.  What then to make of golf magazines that differentiate courses in their rankings by hundredths of a point out of 10?  Is there any real difference between a 7 and an 8, let alone a 7.45 and a 7.56?

[Jack_Marr]

Mark

If they are marking down to two decimal places, then they're marking out of 1,000, which is impossible. I don't know how they mark courses. Would the decimal places be down to them averaging a number of raters' scores? I don't know the answer to this.

Also, judging a golf course, I believe, is in some ways easier than marking something like a wine. Maybe there are similar aspects in marking a feature of a golf course. But some people can have 1,000 times more sensitivity to one flavour than someone else. Also, it would be easier to recognise a golf course the second time you played it, while it's very difficult to identify a wine.

Here's an interesting article (I think...)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html