Doak zeros....

« **Reply #50 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:05:34 AM »

I think Inniscrone is the worst course I've ever played - at least the worst course that was intended to be serious. It's a 0 on my scale, if not Doak's. Yes, there are worse courses, but for most of them the owner and/or architect really wasn't trying.

« **Reply #51 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:12:27 AM »

Jim:

There probably are up to nine or so holes at Inniscrone that for one reason or another some golfers have problems with in play and in concept and maybe a course with that many holes with perceived problems deserves to be a Doak 0 with some golfers. But do you deny that there are probably another nine holes at Inniscrone that are interesting and fun in design and in play? Or do you really think the whole course stinks?

« **Reply #52 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:22:39 AM »

There are a few holes are aren't bad - #1, #6 #9, #11, #12, #15 (if my memory serves me on those). There are several that are brutal - #3, #5 (maybe the worst par 3 I've ever seen) #7, #10 (maybe the worst par 4 I've ever seen), #16 (an unbelievably bad hole), #17, #18. I can't think of of a hole there I look forward to playing. Maybe I'm being a little harsh, but maybe not.

« **Reply #53 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:32:49 AM »

Jim:

From everything I've ever heard from anyone #3 (the short driveable par 4) would be a short par 4 star on any golf course. That hole is a multi-optional strategic gem. The only problem with it initially was its fairway was something of an aggressive option for the tee shot on #7.

« **Reply #54 on:** November 14, 2007, 08:05:37 AM »

You've hit on my problem with it. You can kill people playing #7. It's a serious routing issue. I suppose the hole is ok. But so was the play at Forbes Theater.

« **Reply #55 on:** November 14, 2007, 08:14:44 AM »

MikeS

I played Newton Commonwealth a few times 35 years ago but can't remember a thing about it. Does that mean it's a zero, or was it so good that I was completely stunned?

Rich

PS-I'll grant you that Hubbard Heights was a 2--that middle bit with the high wire fences, rubber mats and crossing dirt fairways tied in perfectly to the "West Side Story" look and feel of the surrounding neighborhood.

PPS--hope you didn't grow up there.....

« **Reply #56 on:** November 14, 2007, 08:18:06 AM »

I mean Ford Theater. I think.

« **Reply #57 on:** November 14, 2007, 08:30:45 AM »

Quote from: Jim_Coleman on November 14, 2007, 07:05:34 AM

I think Inniscrone is the worst course I've ever played - at least the worst course that was intended to be serious. It's a 0 on my scale, if not Doak's. Yes, there are worse courses, but for most of them the owner and/or architect really wasn't trying.

I guess that's why we have horse races. I can't disagree more with your assessment of Inniscrone.

But, could a few trees planted near the 7th tee help minimize the problem with number 3? I think so. And #3 is a fantastic hole. Could the green at number 1 handicap hole #4 be made a bit fairer? Sure, I wouldn't quibble with that, but I still love the hole. Particularly from tips, the teebox from a much different angle.

And is Jim Coleman really Joe Logan in disguise?

Logan of the Philly Inky hated #10 as well. I just don't get that hatin' on this hole. Could it be the water treatment plant in view prejudices the hole? What's wrong with requiring a precise 200 yard shot from the tee to get to flatter areas in the fairway for a 150 yard shot over a hazard to small but trapless green?

And I would just love to have all members of GCA play #16 multiple times then give their opinions of it. It is a fantastic par 4, IMO, unlike any I've ever played. Yeah, the high handicapper isn't going to like it. Well, is that so bad? It has options galore. The straight route using the left fairway is tight, but shorter, and can give the best look and angle into the green. The right fairway is wider but longer and unless you are a real big hitter, you have a blind shot in.

#17 is hard to take for most after playing the previous. I would probably think this hole could have made the area short of the green a bit more hospitable. The 18th is not a great finishing hole, I will concede that.

Perhaps people might like to view some photos of the course and see Inniscrone in all its glory.

Rumor has it that Forewinds is trying to sell it. They are the 3rd owners already. I'd hate to see this wonderul early Hanse design close up shop.

http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Inniscrone/

« **Reply #58 on:** November 14, 2007, 08:33:25 AM »

I'll tell you one thing about Old Head ... you would have to be in a really pathetic state of mind to have a bad time there. And perhaps it's the capitalist in me ... but I can't help but think the tax paying residents of Kinsale, by and large, enjoy the economic boost Old Head has provided.

« **Reply #59 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:02:43 AM »

Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.

With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.

I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.

Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .

Ted

« **Reply #60 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:09:35 AM »

Gillette Ridge in Connecticut seems to fit the definition. Overpriced. Terrible layout. Wasted property.

However, if it was the only option around, I would play there . . . so even at its worst it is still better than nothing.

« **Reply #61 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:42:28 AM »

Quote from: Doug Wright on November 13, 2007, 05:59:53 PM

0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.

Broadmoor South (fortunately NLE, NKA "The Mountain Course" ). Exquisitely bad, and probably wasted a lot of $$ in construction. This Palmer/Seay course basically slid down the mountain into disuse. I understand it has been totally redone by Nicklaus Design and is now The Mountain Course, which I haven't played.

I mentioned recently that I thought Eagle Vail is a Doak 0. Looking at the definition, maybe not since I'm not sure they spent a ridiculous sum of money there. Plus the opening tee shot off the side of the hill is pretty fun. OK give it a Doak 0.5

I've played a lot of other contrived and unnatural courses but they don't meet the Doak 0 definition literally.

The new Broadmoor mountain is pretty fun. (never played the old one) Not a good value the money of course, and not as good as the East course.

I thought Eagle Vail was ok. What do you think is so bad about it?

« **Reply #62 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:55:34 AM »

Quote from: Richard Farnsworth Goodale on November 14, 2007, 01:01:11 AM

Tom

Thanks for giving Hubbard Heights a 1. It shows that you have a heart...

As for Cypress GC, if you check out Barney's latest thread regarding building golf courses on top of cemetaries, you will see that only 9 were plowed under and 9 remain (and at a very respectable 6.900 yards for two loops, too!).

I played there a couple of times in the late 70's early 80's and it was not at all bad, IMHO. Sure, searching for lost balls amongst the gravestones was not everybody's cup of tea, but the architecture was OK, and the experience unique. I'd give it a Doak 3.

Rich

PS--for those who do not know, Colma, CA, where "The Other" Cypress is located, was a town incorporated specifically to serve as the graveyard for San Francisco after the spread of disease from corpses following the 1906 earthquake was seen to be intolerable. 73% of the land in the town consists of cemetaries. Perfect fodder for Barney's golf course development dreams....

I think the Cypress that got a Doak 0 was located near Long Beach. San Francisco would be a long way to transport dead bodies.

« **Reply #63 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:05:44 AM »

AS is correct - the Cypress from Doak's book is in SoCal. The beloved Cypress in Colma is well-described by Rich and seems to change its form annually... for awhile it was a really tough 9 hole par 37... not sure what it is now but I hear it's recently changed again. Doak 3 sounds about right to me. I used to play it quite a bit.....

TH

« **Reply #64 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:13:24 AM »

Quote from: Ted Kramer on November 14, 2007, 09:02:43 AM

Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.

With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.

I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.

Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .

Ted

Ted,

I completely agree with you. I think in the past I've said it's a Doak 5 or 6 and I'll stand by that.

I just know Sweeney hates it and I was busting him for liking ShoreGate better, which is perhaps the most bloated, excessive, virtually unplayable golf course I've seen.

« **Reply #65 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:16:11 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 13, 2007, 11:40:58 PM

Renaissance Park, NC (since closed I think, landfill special)

Tom - you'll be "pleased" to know that Renaissance Park is still alive and well, near the CLT airport. Each time I drive by I see a multitude of carts and the parking lot is full. If low- cost courses such as they introduce and keep people in the game, they can't be all bad (non- GCA speaking).

I've only played it once, and that was enough. But I do remember a fun downhill-dogleg-drivable par 4...so I'm going with 0.56 and not a zero!

« **Reply #66 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:25:15 AM »

So do we have any consensus 0's or than what TomD didn't explicitly mention in his book or otherwise?

As stated before, I think The Ranch can probably be safely put in the 0 category. Looks like the group is still haggling about on the rest of em...

Reminds of Life Of Brian when he's trying to buy that disguise and they merchant won't sell it to him cause he won't haggle...good stuff.

« **Reply #67 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:25:49 AM »

Quote from: MPCirba on November 14, 2007, 10:13:24 AM

Quote from: Ted Kramer on November 14, 2007, 09:02:43 AM
Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.

With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.

I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.

Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .

Ted

Ted,

I completely agree with you. I think in the past I've said it's a Doak 5 or 6 and I'll stand by that.

I just know Sweeney hates it and I was busting him for liking ShoreGate better, which is perhaps the most bloated, excessive, virtually unplayable golf course I've seen.

Busting balls is always acceptable . . .
Just wanted to chime in and offer another perspective.
I'd like to play ShoreGate and see it for myself.

-Ted

« **Reply #68 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:30:09 AM »

Quote from: MPCirba on November 14, 2007, 10:13:24 AM

Quote from: Ted Kramer on November 14, 2007, 09:02:43 AM
Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.

With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.

I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.

Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .

Ted

Ted,

I completely agree with you. I think in the past I've said it's a Doak 5 or 6 and I'll stand by that.

I just know Sweeney hates it and I was busting him for liking ShoreGate better, which is perhaps the most bloated, excessive, virtually unplayable golf course I've seen.

I'll agree w/ Mike on Pine Hill. I'd give it a 6 on the TD scale. I think there are a number of nice holes, #12 perhaps being my fave.

I'll quibble w/ Mike on Shore Gate. Too say 'virtually unplayable'! Ouch. Pretty harsh, IMO. But it can't be a Doak zero (I know you aren't saying it is that Mike).

One course in the Philly area I played right after it opened that I vowed to not go back b/c I disliked it is so much is the former Somerton Springs/Twin Towers now called Linfield National, I think. I believe they've since modified the course a bit, but originally it was the most dangerous course I've ever played as holes were too close together. That is as close to a Doak scale 0 as I've ever played, but then again I'm an easy grader.

« **Reply #69 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:31:30 AM »

And Mike, I'd like to clear something up with you from a past debate. . . .
You once claimed that after playing #12 at Pine Hill the player needed to walk back up the hill that he/she just played down in order to play #13. I disagreed with you. I was wrong. You also called Pine Hill a Doak 5 or 6 and I called it 6-7. Again, I think I was wrong. I agree with the 5-6 more than my original 6-7.

-Ted

« **Reply #70 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:40:27 AM »

Quote from: astavrides on November 14, 2007, 09:42:28 AM

Quote from: Doug Wright on November 13, 2007, 05:59:53 PM
I mentioned recently that I thought Eagle Vail is a Doak 0. Looking at the definition, maybe not since I'm not sure they spent a ridiculous sum of money there. Plus the opening tee shot off the side of the hill is pretty fun. OK give it a Doak 0.5

The new Broadmoor mountain is pretty fun. (never played the old one) Not a good value the money of course, and not as good as the East course.

I thought Eagle Vail was ok. What do you think is so bad about it?

Eagle Vail? Contrived (all the mountain holes), boring and unmemorable; also encroaching housing nearly everywhere. Other than that it's fine.

Glad to hear the new Mountain Course is OK; to even mention it in the same sentence as the East Course is saying something.

« **Reply #71 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:53:30 AM »

1. Country Club of the Poconos
2. Bear Brook - Fredon, NJ....almost impossible for anyone above 15 handicap to play...18 "signature" holes, but it had the best kept greens in Sussex County, NJ... Jim Rusnic is an excellent Super.
Twin Brook - Warren, NJ - the closest I ever had to walking off a course....removal or 1,500 christmas trees would be a good start.

« **Reply #72 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:03:02 AM »

"And I would just love to have all members of GCA play #16 multiple times then give their opinions of it. It is a fantastic par 4, IMO, unlike any I've ever played. Yeah, the high handicapper isn't going to like it. Well, is that so bad? It has options galore. The straight route using the left fairway is tight, but shorter, and can give the best look and angle into the green. The right fairway is wider but longer and unless you are a real big hitter, you have a blind shot in."

JoeB:

Inniscrone's #16 is most definitely a highly controversial hole but not without its supporters. I believe GI's Michael Bamberger thought the hole was wonderful.

I have no doubt at all that the architect(s) knew very well it would be controversial and highly so.

It's interesting to me that you think the right fairway is for big hitters. The architect himself told me that was not exactly his intention when he designed the hole. He said that fairway was mostly for short hitters and some missed shots to be played to in two.

My advice to him long ago was that #16 would be so much more acceptable for most everyone if that bank to the right of the green was reworked into short grass to allow it to be something of a down ramp from the right fairway or something of a kicker from the left fairway.

That, in fact, would provide a number of additional options which have never existed on that hole.

« **Reply #73 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:05:19 AM »

Quote from: Bruce Katona on November 14, 2007, 10:53:30 AM

1. Country Club of the Poconos
2. Bear Brook - Fredon, NJ....almost impossible for anyone above 15 handicap to play...18 "signature" holes, but it had the best kept greens in Sussex County, NJ... Jim Rusnic is an excellent Super.

Bruce,

I second your nomination of Bear Brook. It's absolutely horrific, and among other abominations, features a 600+ yard uphill, 90-degree dogleg left with a blind pond in play followed by two lengthy wetland crossings.

Hole Six

One of our more scenic holes, the first par five you face is also testing. Even the most hearty won't try to get home in two. You'll need to carry a broad natural area to reach the green. Don't worry, you can buy more golf balls in the pro shop at the turn.

The Bear's Tip:
Careful of that pond on the right. It actually comes out further into play than it looks.

And that's probably one of the better holes.

However, since I'm not sure they had much of a grander goal than selling housing, it's probably not a true "0".

Ted,

Thanks for letting me know that. I thought perhaps I was being overly critical of Tom Fazio, but it's nice to know you concur with the numerous plusses and minuses of PH.

Joe,

No, ShoreGate is a 0. $:-\$ Or at least it was when I played there about 5 years back. I can't imagine what they could have done to improve it short of blowing it up.

Linfield National is just a horrible and dangerous golf course, and it's even worse with the new changes. However, since they had few pretensions I think it's probably more a 1 or 2.

« **Reply #74 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:12:22 AM »

Inniscrone is one of those places that falls along distinct lines.

Those with taste and elegance and a sense of adventure love it.

Those who are melded to their card and pencil hate it.

Seriously, there are a handful of holes at I'crone that don't work well, including 5, 10, 17, and 18. It could also be reasonably argued that 8 doesn't play as a redan and is too shallow for the type of shot required.

I love every other hole.

News:

Jim_Coleman

TEPaul

Jim_Coleman

TEPaul

Jim_Coleman

Rich Goodale

Jim_Coleman

Joe Bausch

Dan Boerger

Ted Kramer

Dan_Callahan

astavrides

astavrides

Tom Huckaby

Mike_Cirba

Matt MacIver

Kalen Braley

Ted Kramer

Joe Bausch

Ted Kramer

Doug Wright

Bruce Katona

TEPaul

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba