[Paul_Lorenzen]

Hello - have seen many references to this as a new reader. Please explain the scale and its origins. Secondly, is there a list of courses and their Doak Scales?
Thanks, Paul

[Ed_Baker]

Welcome Paul,

The Doak Scale comes from Tom Doaks book "The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses".

From the book jacket..."Each course is rated on a unique 1 to 10 scale based on how far out of the way the golfer should go to see the course."

Basically anything 5 and above is a course worthy of Mr. Doaks approval.

The book is readily available through any major bookseller and does provide a list of rated courses.

[John_Conley]

If you find this site interesting, you absolutely must get a copy of "Confidential Guide".  Try Amazon or your favorite bookseller.

Doak's scale is very stringent, and logarithmic in nature.  An average course in America is a 2 or 3, and he attempts to split hairs as you get very high.

There are probably only a dozen courses in the world worthy of the elusive 10, and not more than 50 or so more that garner 8s and 9s.

Several of America's top courses get a 6 from Tom, and my feeling is that numbers thrown out by GCA posters are much more generous than Mr. Doak.

As mentioned, you'd be very happy playing a steady diet of 5s for the rest of your life.

Doak Scale is a lot different than saying to your friend, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate ________?" since most people would think in terms of gymnastics or other things where low scores don't really exist.

If the Doak Scale has a shortcoming, it is probably that so few courses get high numbers and so many fall into the 5-6 range.  You may think some 6s are way better than other 5s when the logarithmic scale implies they are close to each other.

If you understand the Richter Scale, you have a head start on the Doak.

[Mark_Fine]

Pretty good summary John.  As you know, I use this scale quite a bit and have found it to be very much to my way of thinking.  His description and use of a 4 confuses me a little but otherwise it's great.  I like to think I'm as tough as Tom in handing out high numbers but then again, it's all relative.  A 6 for me sure doesn't make the major Top 100 lists and I doubt many if any do for Tom as well (though several at that level slip into the GW Top 200 lists).  

Mark

[ForkaB]

John and Mark

If the scale is "logarithmic" a "9" is 10 times "better" than an "8."  If it is a "Richter" scale (which is logarithmic, but which also must be multiplied by pi to measure 3-dimenstional force) a "9" is 31.459X "better" than an "8."

Surely, neither of these is what Tom is means, when he is trying to distinguish, say, between Olympic-Lake and SFGC?

[GarySmith]

Rich,

I damn sure hope Doak wasn't applying the Richter scale to the system.

I'm confused enough already.

[Gib_Papazian]

Brains,

What is it like to be the most intelligent person on the planet?

Literature, mathematics, history, it makes no difference. You are frightening.

[ForkaB]

I'm not perfect, Gib.  I still haven't been able to make my way through the copy of Nostradamus that my mother-in-law gave me for Christmas a few years ago.  Can you summarize in 100 words or less what your man thinks about the future of the pot bunker?

Thanks

Rich

[Paul Turner]

Gib

Yep, Rich has been on MASTERMIND an old BBC TV show for certified geniuses.  It didn't make him rich however, the total prize fund was about 50 quid.

[Paul Turner]

I also really like Tom Doak's adoption of chess notation for holes in his Gourmet Guide.

!!! A World Class Hole

!! An excellent hole

! A good hole

!? An interesting hole, that may not be best.

?! A questionable hole, but it may have some merit.

[George Pazin]

Rich -

It's only 10 times better if it's a base ten logarithm - being an Ivy League educated archie, TD might be using some other logarithm like a natural log, which would only make a "9" about 2.7 times better than an "8".

[ForkaB]

OK, George.  I hereby confer upon you the "Brains" moniker for the next month.  Listening out there Gib!

....of course, even a 2.7 factor is a gross exaggeration of the difference (if any)between an 8 and a 9......

[Jim Reilly]

I also favor a 10 point scale as it does allow a greater distinction between the best courses.  In fact, it may not be enough.  How many times have you found yourself describing something as a "high 6" or a "low 8"?

I also don't think I could use the scale in isolation.  That is, an individual ranking means nothing to me.  It is only by starting with a peg course that I am able to assign a number to something else.  I'm curious if others are of the same mind and, if not, what criteria they use to rank a course in isolation (Tom's criteria aren't very useful to me).

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I've said this before but I think ranking courses is very much relative to what you have seen (or haven't seen) for that matter.  An 8 for one guy might be a 4 or 5 for someone else.  But at least Doak's scale allows (to some extent) golfers with wide experience levels to compare courses with his relatively simple 1-10 criteria.  
Mark

[Paul_Lorenzen]

Thanks guys for explaining the Doak Scale - next stop is to Amazon.com for copy of Confidential Guide.

Now - who are these guys, Mssrs. Richter and Logarithm?

[THuckaby2]

George and Rich are hereby "Co-Brains".  Wow.

Hmmm... find myself agreeing with points all over the map lately.  I see what Jim R is saying as well as Mark F (although I sure didn't like it awhile ago when he said I overvalued Bandon Dunes due to my perceived "lack" of exposure!).

In any case though, in harsh reality, Mark does make a good point.  My 6 won't equal that of an NGLA member who's played all the great courses, no matter how much I've seen, read, view, etc.  Personal exposure, experience, etc. just can't be taken out of the equation, and I am more likely to be overly impressed than the NGLA member who plays Cypress out here just for kicks, no matter how much I deny it!

So to that end, although I agree completely with Jim and find myself using shades of numbers in the Doak scale all the time, I haven't found a more useful way to do this.  I do like the Goodale/Michelin way also but that requires one to be even MORE strict with the numbers...

Oh well, this is all fine grist for the golf architecture mill.

TH

[John_Conley]

I said the Doak scale is logarithmic, and I stand by that concept.  As someone already mentioned, I didn't say it was base 10 (which I think the Richter scale is).

As you "go up" in Doak scale rank, more and more courses shake out.  Let's say only 20% of the courses that rank 5 or higher rank 6 or higher.  Then only 20% of those rank 7 or higher.  Etc...

How many courses have a bona fide printed ranking of 8 and higher?  Not many.

Mark:

Interlachen in Minnesota gets a 6 from Tom.  The course is not even close to falling out of the GOLF Top 100 or Golf Digest Top 100.  Some courses get 7s that miss either list, so it is imprecise to compare the two.

I believe you give your home course an 8, which puts it in rarefied air and makes me want to play it if I ever am in Pennsylvania.

Regardless, anyone who likes golf courses should own a copy of the Doak "Guide" and form their own conclusions.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
If Tom gives Interlachen a 6 that would tell me he doesn't believe it is a Top 100 golf course.  I'm sure he's seen at least 100 courses that are 7 or more.  I know I have.  Like he says, "if we agree on 80% or so that's all one can expect".  
Mark

[John_Conley]

Mark:

My initial post merely said that many of our rated courses in popular magazines get 6s, which they do.  I could pore over for other examples, but my book is on loan yet again.

If people are trying to get a score of 7 to align with any Top 100 list, it is not printed in "Confidential Guide" that this was the intent.  

7 is not really objectionable on the Doak scale.  As you mention, a lot of courses earn this mark.  When you see scores of 8-10, those numbers are reserved for only the elite.  I stand by my statement that SOME others have a tendency to overrate.  I was referring to a general group (of rater's on this board), not all.

(Full disclosure:  I believe only one course in the Twin Cities rates a 7, White Bear Yacht Club.  This means either 1) I am too biased to be objective, 2) the region is under-appreciated, 3) I don't know much about golf courses, or 4) the very nature of Tom's application of the Doak Scale - potentially imprecise because of differing levels of familiarity with courses reviewed and visits scattered over about 20 years - is subject to it's own vagaries.

I am sorry if you thought I was referring to you or anyone else when I mention my perception of liberal application of said scale.

For a non-user, the important distinction is that it isn't the same as when someone says "on a scale of 1-10", which to me implies a Likert-type scale with normal distribution.

Some on this board have even questioned Ron Whitten's use of 1-10 on HIS OWN webcolumn.  I believe that to be one with a more normal (or at least bell-shaped) distribution.

Doak scale is logarithmic in nature.  Should others be bound to use it when they don't understand it?  Obviously not.  Telling someone like Paul Lorenzen that a course is a 5 on the Doak Scale of 0-10 will not make him want to go play it, which is why Whitten isn't using it.

Any comments I have ever made about the scale begins with instructions for people to buy the book - for a number of reasons.  Once they've done that there will be no problem.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
No problem.  We're on the same page!
Mark

[Jim Reilly]

I agree with Mark that a certain amount of exposure is indispensable.  A while back someone was discussing a trip to Myrtle Beach and throwing around 7s as if they were a dime a dozen.  While this fellows analyses of the courses was competent, I had the impression that he hadn't seen a lot of courses in the 7 plus range.  Now, I haven't seen the courses he was discussing so maybe they are 7s, but somehow I doubt it.  

Assuming a certain familiarity with the best designs is a prerequisite to being able to give an informed rating to a course, as with most things, the law of diminishing returns applies.  That is, you will gain more from the first 25 7-10s that you see, than you will from numbers 26-50 and so on.  Much as scientists were able to predict elements in the periodic chart before they were discovered, a person with some imagination who has seen a couple 10s and many 5s, will likely be able to recognize a 7 when they come upon it without having seen a 6 or an 8.  I have found that as the list of courses I have seen increases, that I have become more confident in my own assessment of courses.  When I first saw Yale (I had already been to Scotland and Ireland at this point, but hadn't seen many 7+ parkland courses living in Southern California), I thought it a 9 that was in rather poor condition.  However, with Doak giving it an 8 and some magazines not even ranking it, I questioned my assessment and thought perhaps I had overvalued it.  Over the years I've seen a lot more solid parkland courses and my estimation of Yale has been confirmed (I discount the conditioning so if they really put Yale in perfect nic, it would still be a 9 for me; we'll see if I still think so after I see NGLA for the first time next month!).   My point is that breadth of experience not only improves your ability to judge courses by giving you a body of knowledge to draw on, it also gives you the confidence to buck the crowd when required.  

[THuckaby2]

Jim - well said re exposure... I believe this is what Mark Fine is getting at.

Sent you an email re other things... please reply if you get it.  My email is all screwed up.

TH
tom.huckaby@clorox.com

[John_Conley]

Paul Turner:

Thanks for decoding the chess notation.  I haven't played the game for 20 years and didn't know the significance of the punctuation.  I don't think it is in the book?

I give your insight !!

JOHN

[Paul Turner]

John

No I can't take credit for the insight, I sort of understood what the various ! and ? meant, but Darren Kilfara explained the chess analogy to me when we recently played The Addington.

And I forgot, a ? means a dodgy hole.

They are in the Confidential Guide.  In the front section for his 31 Gourmet's Choice e.g. The Redan gets !!!

[Jim Reilly]

Charlie,

I certainly don't want to drive anyone away.  However, if someone posts a review of a course on this site and says a course is a number between 1 and 10, I think it is assumed it is on the Doak scale unless it is qualified otherwise.  My point is that the 1 to 10 Doak scale only works for me in the context of comparing courses.  In order for me to do this with comfort, I needed to see a certain number of courses.  Tom's criteria for assigning numbers doesn't work for me.  I was wondering if others had developed their own criteria so that they after seeing a course, they might say "that's a __ " without referencing it to other courses. I haven't been able to and I was wondering if others had.

As far as critiquing others' reviews of courses, well isn't that the point.  If I took a trip to MB and found a single resort with an 8, a 7 and a couple of sixes (I'm not saying that what this other DGer posted), you better believe I would be posting about it when I returned home.  However, based on the quality of the soil in the Myrtle Beach area, the environmental restrictions that would likely keep most courses out of any dunes in the area and the MB target market, I would expect to have to defend these ratings vigorously.  While I think opinion can account for up to a point difference in a ranking of a course, on this site I've come to expect no more than that.  Otherwise Heather Glen is of equal merit to Ballybunion if someone thinks it is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()