Can you love a Doak 3 or 4?

[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.
[/color][/size]8. It is seldom crowded. We get fewer than 20,000 rounds a year.[/font]
[/color][/size]9. it is generally in decent shape. I interviewed the candidates for superintendent and chose the one we have now.[/font]
[/color][/size]10. The par fives are very good.[/font]

[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.

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.

I think that's enough reason right there! Great memories, good scores, and how many places can you ski and golf in the same day? (and good par 5s, I'll bet there are much better courses without even one decent par 5)


Would it be better if the course was a Doak 7? Absolutely, but still pretty good.

[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.

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

I should say Tim, that my comment was made to Tommy W. specifically. I agree that a lower-rated course can be very loveable for architecture reasons. I'll say that I've spent many hours on the phone with the emperor talking about the lesser-known courses he loves like Rec Park and Santa Anita and his enthusiasm is contagious! I've even helped him out with topo maps for some of his favorite southern CA courses. One day I hope to visit him there and see them all in person.

[Tim_Weiman]

Charlie,


I had the pleasure of playing Rec Park with Tommy after I had already played the course more than 100 times. Incredibly, Tommy made me feel I had never seen the course before. His knowledge of the original version was just that great.


Tim

[mike_malone]

I have an “ambition “ criterion that I use. I played Centerton in NJ a day or two after Winged Foot West. At $25 it was a much better experience since it was just trying to provide several interesting shots through 18 holes. I’m sure it isn’t more than 3.


I think Three Little Bakers was likely a 4 before it died but I always enjoyed it.


I grew up at DuPont. The Nemours course was likely a 3 but my dad called it “ sporty” compared to the drab DuPont course ( pre Lester George’s sensational renovation).

[Mark_Fine]

This might’ve already been stated but a Doak score really has nothing to do with what you love or what are your favorites at least in my opinion. Some of my favorite golf courses particularly the ones I grew up on were threes or fours at best and I still love them, even though I’ve played many of the best in the world.  Great architecture is one thing but having fun and loving a course is/can be another. 


I will also add that there are great tests of golf that aren’t necessary the greatest golf courses.  The greatest courses are both. This is obviously subjective but so is giving a course a Doak score as well as deciding what courses you love.  Some for example might love hard and challenging but those courses all don’t always get high Doak scores.  It is very easy to make any course difficult.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This might’ve already been stated but a Doak score really has nothing to do with what you love or what are your favorites at least in my opinion. Some of my favorite golf courses particularly the ones I grew up on were threes or fours at best and I still love them, even though I’ve played many of the best in the world.  Great architecture is one thing but having fun and loving a course is/can be another. 


I will also add that there are great tests of golf that aren’t necessary the greatest golf courses.  The greatest courses are both. This is obviously subjective but so is giving a course a Doak score as well as deciding what courses you love.  Some for example might love hard and challenging but those courses all don’t always get high Doak scores.  It is very easy to make any course difficult.

Mark, my question is, can you love a course that isn't very good?


I have watched the criteria change for golf courses. GD changed the "difficulty" category to "challenge." I was at two courses this year that have fallen out of the top 100 and are not even in the top 200. Both said that their course was good because it was difficult. One course has the two longest tees slope at 155. That doesn't impress us anymore. We look for different things now.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I understand your question and you definitely can love a Doak 3 or 4.  One of my favorite courses as a teenager was a course that was in a beautiful setting and also was very tough but architecturally it was not very good and maybe a Doak 3 but we loved it.  It still brings back many memories and I would go play it again for sure. 


Yes GD used to have that "tough but fair" definition that I never liked at all and thankfully they changed it.  I had many discussions with Ron about that.  It went back to the days when GD was rating the toughest tests of golf and not necessarily the greatest golf courses.  Again it is easy to make any golf course hard but hard doesn't always mean good. 

[James Reader]

If Sherwood Forest really is a 3, then definitely.

[PThomas]

I grew up playing a city of Chicago course, the 9-holer at Marquette Park - we used to take city buses there! - which was a
Doak 2 or 1....but I loved that course because it meant I was playing golf that day