I got a copy at the airport yesterday and it is definately a must read.  The author road tripped with Tom down through New Zealand, Taz, and Australia.  Plus some pics of Tom at this office.  Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, its the one with the US Open preview and the Taylor Made R7 on the cover.  

It's funny, when is Tom Doak going to lose the "renegade" label? When will The Confidential Guide... be left out of the consideration, and it just written that he's doing great work.

Reminds me of Rod Whitman's situation. Every article that's written about Rod in Canada starts with, "You've never heard of Rod Whitman, but..." When is someone simply going to write, "Rod Whitman is the best Canadian golf architect since Stanley Thompson. IF YOU HAVEN'T HEARD OF HIM, YOU MUST BE LIVING UNDER A ROCK."

Jeff

I'd like to promote your guy, but Doak has been on here - he has expressed himself - and his reputation has grown as a result.

MORE OF YOU SHOULD DO THE SAME !

Willie

It's funny, when is Tom Doak going to lose the "renegade" label? When will The Confidential Guide... be left out of the consideration, and it just written that he's doing great work.

Is Doak really a renegade?  He seems to both admire a considerable amount of work from his peers, and to be admired in return.  "The Confidential Guide" may not be that reverential; but, there's also a lot of positive things said about architecture in there.  And he doesn't reserve his admiration exclusively for the classics, though he obviously celebrates them.

I'd rather call him a rivivalist.  He seems to be resurrecting and celebrating practices from previous eras.  If a contemporary of his utilizes these practices, he'll certainly recognize them.  

I don't think it's any accident that his firm is called Renaissance Golf Design.

C

Am I the only person who when told about Ron/Rod Whitten/Whitman have to ask for clarification on which one they are talking about......not that knowing the name of an obscure Canadian architect makes you sound like a golf freak or anything.   If Rod is going to be a household name he needs a hook...the Rod/Ron thing is too confusing for most people.   I would recommend going back to his given name of Rodney or Rochester or whatever it may be.

I took a peek at this article yesterday in a store and it was a pretty long article.  Seemed thorough on Doak's history.  Pics from his home.

Even a sidebar mention of golfclubatlas.com and a sampling of his posts.  Yet another influx of new lurkers/posters from this (since new members are being accepted again)?

Tony -

Someone else on the site will remember the specifics better than me, but the general gist is a system that identifies how good a course is by how hard you should be willing to work to get to see it (the full explanation is in The Confidential Guide...). For instance, a "10" is defined something like: "Drop everything, book the next flight and get here soon, because you don't know how good golf can be unless you've played here," whereas a "6" is something like "one of the better courses within a 100 mile radius. If you're close, make the drive to see it, you won't be disappointed."

Tom also states that his scale is purposely slanted to parse between the upper ranges of golf courses, so the "average" golf course is a "3" on his scale. Additionally, he states that anything rated "6" or better gets his seal of approval (I think it's 6, it might be 7).

To really understand it fully, you should read the accompanying reviews in the book as well.

10 - NEARLY perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing.

   I can't help but wonder what Mr. Jack Nicklaus thought about Mr. Doak's remarks about his work.   Although he didn't bash Mr. Nicklaus, he didn't exactly give him much respect either.   Is that the way a collaboration should start off?  I haven't read anywhere where Mr. Nicklaus has said anything derogatory about Mr. Doak's work.  Hmmmmm!

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on May 12, 2004, 12:39:00 PM

Mike - is that a recent change or was I just given wrong info?  That does make more sense... no golf course is perfect, right?

TH

Those descriptions you received are quite a bit abbrev.  10 stood out more than the others.

Perfect for who?  

AHA!  Gotcha.  And yes, perfect would always be in the eye of the beholder, and different beholders do have different values and interests.  

Tom Doak is quoted in the article saying that of the "seven great pieces of land" that he has seen over the last two years he is "doing five of them".  I assume he is referring to

1. Sebonack
2. Kilshannig
3. St. Andrew's Beach
4. Cape Kidnappers
5. Barnbougle

...but perhaps he is referring to the projects in Colorado, Washington & California that are also mentioned in the article.  I discounted the Rawls Course because I have read that it was an very uninteresting piece of land.  So, are these the five great pieces of land he was speaking of....where top 100 courses are waiting to be shaped?