[jeffwarne]

 I was looking at Sean Arble's guesses on what Doak's CG numbers would be on some of his favorite gems.

(Clearly I need to get moving as I've only played one on the list)
I was very surprised at how low the numbers are, given how much Sean likes those venues, and how good Tom's taste is

Specifically, a course like Perranporth or Kington.

When I played Perranporth I was blown away and called it a mini Ballybunion (except without all the trappings )
The highs were quite high and I guess there were a few lows, but I don't remember any.
Was it short-perhaps-so what? Most people play up tees anyway, and even for an expert there was plenty of thrill, challenge and fun.

But then in Tom's book I see Atlantic in its original form, along with quite a few other modern, homogenized stuff getting 6's
(perhaps for the effort and/or conditioning) Very few highs, lots of glitz,all fair and no quirk.

I would play Perranporth 100 times before I would play Atlantic or any of those other modern Doak 6's.
(and I really like Atlantic having worked there for 6 years and seeing it evolve incredibly for the better-in fact I might even give it a 6.5 now )

My point is I often hear that some seemingly mundane or prosaic holes hold a course back.(although one could argue that many of these holes are quite good as well just more subtle, which is lost on some people)
I nearly gagged when a famous architect on the GC yesterday said he designs 18 signature holes (among multiple other cliches)

The highs of a course should be able to hold the attention of a rater assuming he has the intellectual capacity and patience to recognize the value of the holes that grow on one over time.

Can a course with some average/subtle holes and multiple highs overcome a course with no lows?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff,

You shouldn't need Tom Doak, me or anyone else to justify your opinion, but if you do need someone to confirm your ultimate question I suggest you go with that ol standby "The Ideal Course," by Wethered and Simpson.

[Mac Plumart]

Absolutely, Jeff!

This is why I travel to golf. I want to experience these epic golf moments. I'll deal with the mundane to poor moments, if I can get something I can't get at home. In fact, I'd much rather have one or two mindbenders and some eh. Than 18 pretty solid holes with no WOW.  When I'm traveling.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

You shouldn't need Tom Doak, me or anyone else to justify your opinion, but if you do need someone to confirm your ultimate question I suggest you go with that ol standby "The Ideal Course," by Wethered and Simpson.

Mark,
You didn't answer the question

and Mac, it gets a little tricky when traveling with a group as the leader if the subtlety and/or ordinary occurs early in the round.
Lots of 9 holers that have been expended to 18 have these moments. Porthmadog and  Pwllheli,  share a bit of this, as well as Pyle and Kenfig

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can a course with some average/subtle holes and multiple highs overcome a course with no lows?

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The ideal course *requires* average / subtle holes; otherwise, we would weary from sensory overload.

[jeffwarne]

Can a course with some average/subtle holes and multiple highs overcome a course with no lows?

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The ideal course *requires* average / subtle holes; otherwise, we would weary from sensory overload.

I couldn't agree more.
variety is the spice of lefe

sort've like we need the steep uphillers to make the downhillers seem fast

[Brent Hutto]

It would take a lot of "low" holes to offset even a handful of "highs" in my estimation of a course. Maybe that's why I tend to be an easy grader, so to speak, in my recollection of courses I've enjoyed. A boring or somehow annoying hole tends to be forgotten but the really memorable ones are usually good, fun holes that come to mind when someone mentions the name of the course to me months or years later.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I could be miles off with my guesses!  I only spoke to Tom very briefly about a few of the courses so my guesses are really just that - a bit of fun.

I am convinced archies "see" courses in a different light to golfers.  Issues like safety take on more meaning for archies and the routing is very important.  These are two areas I think areeither over-emphasized or I don't know much about.  You also have to remember the CG is a book of recommendations so the golfer has to be brought back into the mix.  My understanding is the original CG was for mates, but presumably even mates have a wide range of tastes.  So the golfer really means the golfer at large, not a small crowd of wing nuts.

I tend to think of courses as a whole; how the holes work together and flow to create a course.  I admit to really enjoying the unusual in design and especially good holes over seemingly useless land.  So for me, Perranporth is a keeper.  That said, there is an awful lot of quirk that a lot of folks will think is OTT and who can blame them?  I also admit to really liking Colt courses.  The guy just seemed to nail it, so often in a modest way, which is also very appealing to me.  To me, most Colt's are perfect examples of what the standard course should be.  I spose the same could be said of Ross.  I think of the two as cousins.  That said, given the opportunity, both could knock yer socks off with great designs.  IMO, they are the cream of the archie crop.

One great or unusual hole will, IMO, not carry the course especially if there are a handful of humdrummers.  If I bought the great/unusual hole theory of design The Cashen would be an awesome course, but I could never buy that in million years.  I have generally gravitated toward these types of courses (beautiful setting, some awesome holes, some horrible stuff and a poor walk) as calling them cart courses.  Once I know whats what, grab a cart, play the shots I want to play and drink a few beers along the way.  Its fun practice, not a golf course of high merit.

I know we have had this conversation before, but I can't see any issue with thinking a course is great, but not one which I admire.  I think Trump Aberdeen is miles better than Cleeve Cloud, but I would sooner play Cleeve Cloud because its modesty has a strong pull for me.  I don't think Tom saw Cleeve Cloud, it was a bridge too far in what was a jam packed schedule - one you would have admired . Still, he may regret that decision!

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The ideal course *requires* average / subtle holes; otherwise, we would weary from sensory overload.

Where does that leave a course like Pine Valley, which, as I understand it, has no average holes?  Great, maybe world's best, but not ideal?

[Sean_A]

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The ideal course *requires* average / subtle holes; otherwise, we would weary from sensory overload.

Where does that leave a course like Pine Valley, which, as I understand it, has no average holes?  Great, maybe world's best, but not ideal?

Jim

People have said, from the time PV opened, that the course was great, but not a course for all levels of golfers.  I guess if being playable for a wide audience is ideal, PV may not meet the standard. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean's guesses are quite low, actually.  I am glad I made that last trip to England as it helped me clarify some of my thoughts on what I ought to be rating.  Ran's input was also quite useful, forcing me to go back and consider the Doak scale; over time it has unfortunately morphed into whether I think a course belongs with all the other courses at the same number, but that wasn't what it was meant to be, it was [and will be] about whether the course is worth the trip to play.  So, I think he will be pleasantly surprised at what I think of Kington and Stoneham.

Perranporth, not so much.  For my tastes it was just too blind, and the smaller-scale details were not that great ... for example, some exposed greens with steep banks to all sides, that would be almost impossible to hit and hold in some conditions.  I appreciate that it is wild and different, and I appreciate that some people dig that, but for me there were just not enough outstanding holes to rate it highly.

It poured rain the day I had intended to see Cleeve Cloud, so I didn't go over to see it.  And I am sorry that I couldn't include it.  Hopefully, I will see it someday, for an online update to the book(s).  But I've got other continents to try and cover next.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Stoneham was one course I thought you would really like.  As imparted previously, give the greens some action and Stoneham comfortably runs with the London crowd.  The routing is very good except for perhaps the final hole making the climb to the house.  One hole I really like is the unheralded long one-shotter 7th.  I think it ties the 6-9 stretch togather very well.  In my book, Stoneham is a rock solid 6.  It definitely meets my worth a day trip criteria (windshield time same as time to play a round of golf and have drinks).  Its quite possible that if I knew Stoneham better (only played it maybe 6 times) I would say its worth an over night detour.      

Kington?  I don't really know what you made of it.  Despite its rep, it isn't a quirky course - its really a functional design which deals with the slopes quite well, if a bit unconventionally.  I spose if one admires how the routing uses the hill and still remains walkable, Kington will be in favour - well, that part of the design impresses me anyway - moreso than the shaping.  I dickered between 5 and 6.  I thought you might drop to 5 because the greens are quite flat (yet still interesting - curiously) and there are no bunkers.  On the other hand, there is no course I know of like Kington, so the sui generis factor is quite high.  If it were my book, the choice would be between 6 or 7.  If feeling generous, maybe a 7, but playing it safe, a 6.  In any case, I absolutely think Kington is worth an over-night detour.  If the club could find a way to keep the greens firm (probably remove thatch) I would say Kington is a course to plan a trip around.  

As you know, I hope to drag the Pests to Kington one year for BUDA, but I am still not convinced they will go for it.  Its isolated location is charming, but not conducive to box ticking.  That said, a wee tour spreding from Painswick to Minch Old to Cleeve Cloud to Kington to Church Stretton would be illuminating and a hell of a lot of fun for those with the right frame of mind.  

Ciao    

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

You know that I'd do BUDA at Kington in a flash.  Great course, great club and a Michelin starred pub just two miles away.  Sold.

[Sean_A]

I ate at the Stagg this summer - excellent food.  They have rooms as well.  In my zeal to attract Pests, I finally found the right accomodation.  You Comm cronies just say the word and Kington can happen.  

http://www.thestagg.co.uk/


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Thanks Sean, Tom,

Great thoughts/insights.

Sean,
Now you know why we had carts at The Cashen .

Good to hear Tom feels you may be underestimating his Dosk scale rating on a few of your faves.

Tom,
RE: Perranporth-we may disagree on a number (as we do on many courses)-but your comments above would definitely make me want to go seek it out.
Hence the importance of commentary rather than just a number.
Perhaps after you've expanded your travels, education and experience our views will match up better

Sean,
i think my ADD may carry me through on courses with  highs and lows (and as you know highs could be a variety of things for me including quirk, scenery, crude shaping, and/or playability or just something unusual such as Kington, Perranporth, Bull Bay, Shiskine,or Gweedore)
I've definitely got a pen and pencil mentality with nassaus and presses-(not stroke play score) so certainly a focus on that can carry me through the hum drum, yet i can multi task and enjoy great quirk, architecture, and scenery
Hence my higher opinion of Nefyn-in addition, it's a big hit with the punters I generally have in tow, to say nothing of the 2 pub stops.

Very little chance I could walk a course and not play it, though I did enjoy showing NGLA to my son in the Walker Cup.
Truth is I could pick up the phone and call the pro there (who's'a friend) and tee it up with my son, but I believe I need to create a bit of mystery and craving about certain courses and make him REALLY want to seek it out, so that when we do go it is a big deal.

Along those lines, and the original REASON Tom wrote the CG, I'm looking for a few select courses to take my son to when he comes over with me in July for an event I'm playing in.
Like anyone else on their first trip I'd like to expose him to a bit of everything , not bury him in tourist traps nor kill him with all quirk.
(though he is a fan of Goat Hill)

I'll message you with the proposed itinerary.

[Thomas Dai]

a wee tour spreding from Painswick to Minch Old to Cleeve Cloud to Kington to Church Stretton would be illuminating and a hell of a lot of fun for those with the right frame of mind.    

plus Welshpool, Knighton and Llandrindod Wells.
ATB

The 18th hole at Welshpool


Knighton


Llandrindod Wells


Photo as from the clubs own websites.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()