The Doak 6 Rating

« **Reply #25 on:** November 28, 2007, 11:17:55 AM »

I was forced to look up "heuristic" on the online dictionary. I sort of knew what it meant. Nice.

I really like the last couple of comments. I raised this subject for a couple of reasons. We had just discussed the Doak "0" rating, and I thought the Doak "6" ranking, in particular, was worth exploring. I like evaluating courses purely on merit, and I don't want to think of them in terms of the distance are worth traveling for. The "6" ranking seems to be an important break point in the scale which separates good from great.

Mike, maybe the answer is the other Houston courses are a "5". The "6" ranking may be overused. Let's say a wealthy businessman came to you and gave you a nice budget and said. "Build me a championship quality golf course." You put your heart and soul into the job, spending lots of time on details. After that, the proof is in playing the course, and closely correlated to how fun and exciting the shots are. I'd say a "5" is solid but unexciting, a "6" yields some real excitement, and by the time you get to "7", you have built something which regularly yields exciting plays, where players moan and groan and cheer and ooh and aah, and of course, laugh a lot, every time around.

Back into my cage. Jeff, you're right though. It's much ado about not much.

« **Reply #26 on:** November 28, 2007, 11:31:33 AM »

I agree with those observations, Mike and John.

No need to confine yourself to the cage, John. The topic needn't be especially weighty to be interesting. It's all in good fun.

« **Reply #27 on:** November 28, 2007, 11:41:09 AM »

John K.
I may have overestimated some of the 5s.

In Doak's description -- a 7 is generally not anything unique to the world of golf.
Your description doesn't sound like the above.
I would not have that much fun on a course that wasn't unique.

If I built a course where you had that much fun as a result of the architecture - it is easily an 8 -- unless you are like Huckaby and you have that much fun playing any course in the country.

Does the fun come as a result of your play, your personality or the course?

« **Reply #28 on:** November 28, 2007, 12:24:14 PM »

Well, there's that nervous excited laugh that comes with exciting golf. Mostly, the laughing comes by surrounding yourself with funny people, which I consider a high priority.

Both Plainfield and Pasatiempo are 7s in the original book, though Mr. Doak may bump those up to 8 in his notes after thoughtful restorations. I've played Pasa many times, and it's a gas. I only got one shot at Plainfield, and it's very similar in some respects. Wild greens, good terrain and nice variety.

Mike, maybe you're right about 8 vs. 7. I described the 7 as full of excitement, which is also true of a 10. Once you get to 7, you're talking about the top 1/2 of 1% of all courses, so I just assumed once you get to that level, you ought to be enjoying yourself in a big way.

It's hard to rule out the possibility that modern architecture is leaping forward, that the lessons learned from the last 100 years, coupled with the current resurgence in bold and daring features, will result in more 7-level courses.

How's your big project going? Will we laugh and ooh and aah at the sheer beauty of it? Are there 12 second, big breaking putts to admire?

« **Reply #29 on:** November 28, 2007, 12:49:11 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 17, 2007, 11:19:45 AM

I think that the bulk of modern courses (if not the majority) may rate a 6 on the Doak scale. They're all well constructed, impeccably groomed, and few of them have really stupid features. . . .

Since Tom is the source, I suppose by definition he is right, but this description is completely different than my understanding.

I think of a 6 as very high praise, well above average and likely a course considered one of the best or the best in a decent sized city. If good greens, great conditionining, and no stupid features are all that are required for a 6 then I would think that Minneapolis must have 30 of them.

« **Reply #30 on:** November 28, 2007, 12:56:35 PM »

Quote from: Art Roselle on November 17, 2007, 12:36:00 PM

... It reminds me of slope ratings. The average slope is supposed to be 113, but I don't think I have ever played a course that has a slope below that. There must be a lot out there, but they don't exactly draw a crowd.
...

Of course they draw a crowd. That is where the public in general plays golf.
If I remember correctly the slope rating of the course my company golf league plays at is a 96.

« **Reply #31 on:** November 28, 2007, 02:57:28 PM »

John,
I think Pasatiempo and Plainfield are both very strong 7s, borderline 8s like you've indicated.
Not every seven is that good.

Have you been reading my blog?
The course is nearly grassed out.
It will be a blast early next year - so yes and yes to your second questions.
I'll bring my stop watch my second time out.

How long is a regular golf shot?
5-6 seconds?

« **Reply #32 on:** November 28, 2007, 04:22:25 PM »

Gents:

People need to get real with citing Doak numbers from a time frame that's a bit outdated in plenty of instances. I don't doubt Doak himself would say anything less.

When I hear a course is rated "6" -- I would certainly put it on my radar screen for possible play -- likely I would drive up to 100 miles from my home base in No Jersey to play it. In comparable terms -- if I was living out west -- I could stretch the mileage total to 300.

« **Reply #33 on:** November 28, 2007, 04:25:34 PM »

Thanks Pards....

Matt,
How many 6s are there in NJ?
Cheers

« **Reply #34 on:** November 28, 2007, 04:44:28 PM »

Mike:

Good question ...

I'd say no more than 10 courses could be at the level or higher.

In no particular order of emphasis:

Pine Valley
Plainfield
Essex County
Hollywood
Ridgewood / East & West
The Banks Course at Forsgate
Montclair GC (#2 & #4 nines)
Galloway National
ACCC

*I'd throw Knoll / West at the six level once George Bahto finishes his work there.

Possibly 3-4 others would merit a 6.

Others would rate Baltusrol (both courses) as being a six -- but I'm not overly thrilled with either of the two. If anything the Upper might sneak into the grouping. Some on GCA would gush about Somerset Hills being in that grouping -- that's a close call for me -- likely would just miss out for me. Ditto on Hidden Creek - good layout but not exceptional for me. Metedeconk National -- simply demanding, not architecturally compelling. The same can be said for me on Trump National -- very demanding but architecturally just not that compelling.

Mike, I grade tougher than many others !

« **Reply #35 on:** November 28, 2007, 06:48:45 PM »

Yes, I would have thought

Somerset Hills
Trump National
Hidden Creek
Hamilton Farm

all would be deserving of a 6, without of course actually playing only Hidden Creek, which was nice. Different. REAL wide in places.

« **Reply #36 on:** November 28, 2007, 08:12:55 PM »

Matt,
You sure do grade tougher.
Except your numbers aren't Doak numbers.
We may have it in the same relative location, just our numbers are different, and this thread is about the Doak 6.
Are you keyed into the Golfweek numbers?
As those are lower as well - well actually different all together as they are not logrithmic but linear.

Hidden Creek is a Doak 7.
the 8th hole is very unique.
the 4th hole is great
some other holes stand out more
the greens are beautiful
it fits its surrounds
very well conditioned

Ballyowen is a Doak 6.

Matt,
of the 9 you listed which ones are 6s please?

Here are Doak #s for NJ from the guide:
(yes some have changed, but I think they have all improved, with the exception of Baltusrol Lower getting narrow ass fwys)
Baltusrol U & L = 6
ACCC = 6 - pre Doak
Forsgate = 6 (I think it is a 7)
Hollywood = 7
Medford Village = 6
Pine Valley short course = 6
Plainfield = 7
Ridgewood = 7
Somerset Hills = 7

Cheers

« **Reply #37 on:** November 28, 2007, 08:31:04 PM »

I would be interested to see how Tom Doak would rate Beverly now that the renovation has been completed. In the past it was rated a 5. This appears to be on the low side given its status amongst the golf rich area of Chicago. A 6 or 7?

« **Reply #38 on:** November 28, 2007, 08:41:11 PM »

Jack:

When I saw Beverly it was pretty down and out, and so choked by trees that you could barely see what was going on. I'm sure it's better now, but since I haven't been back, I can't give it a different number.

« **Reply #39 on:** November 28, 2007, 09:04:05 PM »

i think Beverly is definitely at least a 7 and very possibly an 8

« **Reply #40 on:** November 29, 2007, 10:06:53 AM »

Mike:

There's no doubt that people will interpret a Doak 6 number differently than Tom Doak himself.

I've seen / played the NJ courses for well over 30 years on a wide range of circumstances and have seen nearly all of them evolve over time.

In regards to answering your question -- I'd say the following are likely in the 6 category ...

Ridgewood / E&W
Montclair / #2 + #4 nines
ACCC

A few of the other ones I originally posted would naturall be higher. It's possible I could rate Hidden Creek as high as a 6 but I would need a few more rounds there to change my mind on that score. I do agree with you on Baltusrol -- likely the Upper would get a higher score from me given the nature by which the Lower has evolved.

What people may find amusing is that I don't give courses that are necessarily tougher a free pass -- in fact, I often grade them tougher because of the absence of other compelling reasons to play them.

« **Reply #41 on:** November 29, 2007, 10:33:56 AM »

Matt,
I'm still trying to understand your scale.

What are the ratings for the following:

Ballyowen
Twisted Dunes
Scotland Run

« **Reply #42 on:** November 29, 2007, 10:45:20 AM »

Mike:

Ballyowen -- solid 5 -- maybe 5.5

Twisted Dune -- 5.5 when turf conditions are in line with the design -- otherwise a 5

Scotland Run -- just under 5 -- a 4.75

You keep saying you can't understand my scale -- I don't know what specifically confuses you.

Doak defines a 6 as a course that you would not mind traveling to -- if my memory serves. Usually that would entail some sort of travel from your home base to the course in question.

Mike, keep in mind I apply an equally tough grade for those baseball players who think they are Hall of Fame candidates too!

« **Reply #43 on:** November 30, 2007, 10:57:26 AM »

Someone sent me a post offline and I need to mention that the application of rating numbers often can be immensely different because of the pool of courses someone has played.

My numbers tend to skew towards the lower side when I apply the strictest definitions that the Doak scale represents given the sheer number of courses I've played in my lifetime.

That doesn't make my numbers more on target but it does give me a wider pool in which to compare / contrast, etc, etc.

« **Reply #44 on:** November 30, 2007, 11:44:35 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 28, 2007, 08:41:11 PM

Jack:

When I saw Beverly it was pretty down and out, and so choked by trees that you could barely see what was going on. I'm sure it's better now, but since I haven't been back, I can't give it a different number.

I'm a member, so note the potential/actual bias, but Beverly is surely a much better course than it was when Mr. Doak gave it a nickel. I'm sure there's no doubt that it merits a 6. The 7 is surely debatable, but there is an argument that a couple factors might bump it up there. First of all, Beverly surely has the best set of four par-5's in Chicago. Second, there is an amazing variety of green sites. With the exception of the bit-of-an-abortion eighth green, they are all challenging and different.

The other interesting factor is more of a vibe thing; Beverly is jammed into an incredibly busy urban setting. You get planes, trains and ambulances in virtually every round. At the same time, the course is oddly tranquil and timeless.

So I'd give it a 7, but wouldn't whine too much if others suggested 6. 8 would be a bit of a stretch even for a cheerleader like me...

« **Reply #45 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:02:12 PM »

Matt,
Thanks I understand.

A Doak score doesn't change because you've seen more courses, only if those new courses show you didn't properly asses the merits of the previous.

There aren't a fixed number of 6s, so if you see some better 6s it doesn't make the lessers a 5 - they are still a 6.

There are also no fractions in Tom's book.

I'd call it a Jersey Golfer 5.5 or a Ward 5.5 if I were you....
Brand recognition buddy!
Cheers

« **Reply #46 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:07:49 PM »

Quote from: Terry Lavin on November 30, 2007, 11:44:35 AM

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 28, 2007, 08:41:11 PM
Jack:

When I saw Beverly it was pretty down and out, and so choked by trees that you could barely see what was going on. I'm sure it's better now, but since I haven't been back, I can't give it a different number.

I'm a member, so note the potential/actual bias, but Beverly is surely a much better course than it was when Mr. Doak gave it a nickel. I'm sure there's no doubt that it merits a 6. The 7 is surely debatable, but there is an argument that a couple factors might bump it up there. First of all, Beverly surely has the best set of four par-5's in Chicago. Second, there is an amazing variety of green sites. With the exception of the bit-of-an-abortion eighth green, they are all challenging and different.

The other interesting factor is more of a vibe thing; Beverly is jammed into an incredibly busy urban setting. You get planes, trains and ambulances in virtually every round. At the same time, the course is oddly tranquil and timeless.

So I'd give it a 7, but wouldn't whine too much if others suggested 6. 8 would be a bit of a stretch even for a cheerleader like me...

Terry,

I'd have to agree with you that Beverly is easily a 6. I've enjoyed the course each time that I have visited. It is a great escape within the busy city.

« **Reply #47 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:25:31 PM »

Mike:

You might have missed my point.

The fact that a person sees a greater number of courses allows for a broader assessment of candidates and with that will likely come a more discerning / application of rating numbers.

As the scale goes higher from 5 to 6 to 7 to 8, etc, etc the mountain becomes especially steep - at least for me. There are some people who have played a disproportionate share of their golf in say the midwest or southeast and if they have not really sampled the high quality private layouts that are located in the I-95 corridor between Philadelphia through the NYC area (along with LI) then their rating numbers will need to be adjusted accordingly.

In regards to fractions -- that's true. I could certainly label courses a "6" but other "6's" would likely be either weak / strong version of the same number -- that's why I provided fraction breakdown. Clearly, courses may be adjusted up or down depending upon turf conditions and other year-to-year factors that may influence a slightly higher or lower assessment.

Keep in mind this too -- Doak's assessment of so many courses he opined on in "Confidential Guide" were one-time visits -- and a number of them came only from eye-ball assessments -- not through playing of them all.

News:

John Kirk

Jeff Spittel

Mike Nuzzo

John Kirk

Jason Topp

Garland Bayley

Mike Nuzzo

Matt_Ward

Mike Nuzzo

Matt_Ward

John Kirk

Mike Nuzzo

J_ Crisham

Tom_Doak

PThomas

Matt_Ward

Mike Nuzzo

Matt_Ward

Matt_Ward

tlavin

Mike Nuzzo

K. Krahenbuhl

Matt_Ward