News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Doak 6 Rating
« on: November 16, 2007, 10:42:20 PM »
We recently discussed the Doak "0" rating.  A far more interesting discussion can be had discussing the Doak "6" rating:

6  -  A very good course, definitely worth a game if you're in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see.  It shouldn't disappoint you.

Tom's verbal description of the rating system places a lot of emphasis on the distance one should travel to see/play a course.  In general, I believe his goal is to develop a 0-10 scale with a normal distribution, centered around 3, so that the median golf course is a 3.

So let's take out the travel descriptions for a minute:

5 - A good course
6 - A very good course
7 - An excellent course

Everything over 5 is recommended.  So here are a few comments to get things started.

1.  Everybody believes their home course is at least a 6.  Tom gave the two Pumpkin Ridge courses a 6 and a 5, whereas I see them as 6s.

2.  It seems there are a lot of solid (very good) courses being built these days.  Are there a lot of 6s out there now?  Do we move the curve so an average course is closer to a 4 now?  Or do we toughen our grading process so we (he) give 6s a little less generously?

3.  The big jump in Doak ratings happens when a course is rated 7.  Once a course is rated 7, you know it's special.  What are the reasons behind a 7 rating?  I say a big difference with an excellent golf course is the decision making the player faces, how much he has to consider his shots.

OK.  Hope this generates interest.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2007, 11:00:20 PM »
John Kirk- (ain't it a hoot theres a real archie with the same name?)
 The only question I have is... if 7 is excellent, what is 8, 9, and 10?
Exceptional, almost great and great?

P.s. Had the surgery today. All went well. So far I haven't felt a thing. 8)
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2007, 12:31:09 AM »
John,

I like your idea of thinking about this statistically, but that means I have to get mathematical on you. Excuse me while I achieve a high dork factor with the following comments.

I can't make a normal distribution work.  If you have a mean of 3 you need a large standard deviation to have values up to 10.  Then you will also have values below 0, and we know the Doak scale is all positive numbers.  

Ideally, we should analyze all the data in The Confidential Guide to devise a custom distribution that is the best fit for The Critical Mind of Tom Doak.  I'll get right on that.  :D

Better than the normal is a triangular distribution, with a most likely value of 3, a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 10.  

My calculations indicate:
*Both the mean and the median of that distribution would be about 4.  
*Less than 2% of values at 9 or better, less than 10/1000 courses are 10s.  That seems about right.  
*1 of 8 courses would be 7 or better, and 1 of 4 courses would be 6 or better.  Does that work for you?  

For me in addition to the factors you mention, I'd say a "special"  golf course is one I can't wait to play again.  They draw you in for another trip around.  

Playing at Bandon Dunes with one of my pals on his first visit, my second, I pressed him to name his favorite course after we had played all three.  He said, "The one I just played."

Rich Goodale

Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2007, 01:00:06 AM »
Eric

There are ~32,000 golf courses in the world.  I don't have the CG in front of me, but of those 32,000 these guesses are close enough for government work:

~10 "10's" (.0003 of the population)
~25 "9's" (.0008 of the population)
~100 "8's" (.003 of the population)
~500 "7's" (.015 of the population)

So, we're down to the 6's and we're just beginning to hit the bottom 98%! (and I'm probably overstating the numbers of Doak 7's and 8's). We're also getting into really subjective territory, as comparing say Muirfield and Shinnecock (to sort out the 9's and 10's) is a lot easier than comparing either of Pumpkin Ridge's courses to other possible 6's, partly due to the sheer number of courses we are talking about, but also due to the geographic spread and diversity of design.  How do you really compare say Brora to Dallas National?  The honest answer is, you probably don't, except in very general and subjective terms.  Which is what all golf course rating systems are.  So...

...John K III

If you think your courses are both 6's, call them 6's!  I doubt if Tom D will sue you....
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 01:00:30 AM by Richard Farnsworth Goodale »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2007, 01:33:36 AM »
I would guess the number of courses Tom has rated "7" is much closer to 150 than 500.  Maybe I'll go ahead and count, or see if he has that listed in his book.

It gives some perspective on the nature of great courses when you realize we're talking about the best 1-2%.

Michael Robin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2007, 02:06:42 AM »
Feel good Adam. Hope the recovery is quick and that you'll be ready for 36 holes in Holyoke next May. So as not to be completely OT, our club there I think is a 9, yes?

Best,
MR.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 02:08:54 AM by Michael Robin »

Jim Nugent

Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2007, 03:17:04 AM »
John,

I like your idea of thinking about this statistically, but that means I have to get mathematical on you. Excuse me while I achieve a high dork factor with the following comments.

I can't make a normal distribution work.  If you have a mean of 3 you need a large standard deviation to have values up to 10.  Then you will also have values below 0, and we know the Doak scale is all positive numbers.  

Ideally, we should analyze all the data in The Confidential Guide to devise a custom distribution that is the best fit for The Critical Mind of Tom Doak.  I'll get right on that.  :D

Better than the normal is a triangular distribution, with a most likely value of 3, a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 10.  

My calculations indicate:
*Both the mean and the median of that distribution would be about 4.  
*Less than 2% of values at 9 or better, less than 10/1000 courses are 10s.  That seems about right.  
*1 of 8 courses would be 7 or better, and 1 of 4 courses would be 6 or better.  Does that work for you?  


12.5% of all courses are 7 or better?  If there are 26,000 U.S. courses, that means 3250 courses are at least 7's.  Sounds way high to me.  

If the same distribution applies globally, there are at least 7500 courses rated 7 or better in the world.  Again sounds way high.  

On your other points: I know very little about statistics.  That said, I think you are not using the math correctly.

Doak's scale, as I understand it, is really just a ranking.  It says a 10 is better than a 9.  It does not say by how much.  A 10 might be 30 times better, or 0.1% better.  There is no way of knowing or calculating.  

And Doak's scale does not really say 10 = 10, or 9 = 9.  Does Tom think all the courses he rated as 10's are equally good?  What about all the 9's, or 8's, or 5's or 3's?  

There is no mathematical rigor in the scale.  It's just Tom's subjective way of putting courses in a kind of ranked order.  So it doesn't seem to me that calculating an arithmetic average, or standard deviations, means anything in this case.  Similar to how they mean nothing for Golf Magazine's and Golfweek's rankings.  

In Golfweek, e.g., you get the apparent anomaly that the 3rd highest ranked modern course, Whistling Straits, gets an average score of 8.59.  That score should disqualify it from the top 3, the top 5 and the top 15.  This is what happens when you try to apply arithmetic means to what is really just a ranking of order.    

Like I said, I know next to nothing about statistics, so maybe I'm way off base about all this.  

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2007, 10:03:20 AM »
Feel good Adam. Hope the recovery is quick and that you'll be ready for 36 holes in Holyoke next May. So as not to be completely OT, our club there I think is a 9, yes?

Best,
MR.

Michael, I'll be ready for 18 in January. 71 degrees yesterday and it's going to hit 77 this week.

I'm under the impression that there could be 25-30 greats around the world. If that's true I rate it 10. Even if it's not true I rate it there.
One of my failings is I haven't gone to the same lengths of many who seekout these great courses.

My opinion of the course was formed before I became a member. Since then, every round has confirmed what I suspected. Mr. Doak was given a unique opportunity and he was driven to make it the best he could. I suppose he's the only one who knows if that's really true, but, from someone who appreciates having a medium that is so elastic and so much fun, on a daily basis, I say he out did himself. Of course his crew deserves alot of credit too. Starting with Bruce Hepner, Don Placik(?) and, even though there's been recent posts hinting that Mr. Urbina lamented not working more in Holyoke, I sure do attribute some of the arrangements of the parts to him. I also know, since Jim lives in Denver, he does comeout to play. Just three weeks ago, the crew came out just to play, and then just last week, Tom brought out his new intern. Having played with last year's intern, I suspect he was showing the new guy what finish work should look like.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 10:25:31 AM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Mark Manuel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2007, 10:23:06 AM »
Statistics aside, I think average folks have a mental block using a scale of 0-10 that doesn't use smootheven distribution.   That may be where the Doak scale struggles a little bit.  I think we all want to believe that our home club is at least in the top 10 or 20% of the courses in our respective countries.  So putting the emphasis on a large group of courses at 6 is hard.  

We all want to believe our girlfriends/fiances/wives are at least a 9, why not our golf courses?  Might not be reality, but...
The golf ball is like a woman, you have to talk it on the off chance it might listen.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2007, 10:35:26 AM »
It's all subjective.  If you don't look at comparative ratings as completely subjective, you can go a bit nuts.  Trying to do all this mathematical / statistical analysis heads in that direction.  ::)

My favorite Doak category is "a course worth making a special trip to play."  That is the most descriptive to me.

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2007, 11:14:11 AM »
OK, so my triangular distribution model doesn't work.  But one of the great things about golfclubatlas.com is it's easy to find out how wrong you can be!  

Jim N,

For every set of numbers that you suspect describes random variation you can try to fit a distribution to the observations and then do some statistical calculations.  There are several possibilities but none of them may fit.  When you say those statistics are meaningless, you may not be analyzing a random variable.  In Doak's work for the CG, the inputs are not randomly selected, as Doak chose the courses he evaluated, he didn't pick them out of a hat. The output is certainly not random, as the observer has (at least) some biases that figure into the scoring.  He may also be determined not to give more than a few courses 9 or 10.  His distribution might look completely different than yours or mine, but I thought around here we accepted his as the gold standard :D  and John's comment about his results being a normal distribution sparked my just-for-the-hell-of-it alternative statistical evaluation.  Maybe among the 28,232 (?) courses Tom hasn't seen, we could, based on statistical analysis of his accumulated data, predict that there might be one or three more 10s out there.  But he might say he's definitely seen all the 10s already.

So if it's not random and all subjective, that's fine with me, and if my answer to the question "what makes a 7 stand out" apply to me only, that's fine too.  What's your answer?  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2007, 11:19:45 AM »
Mark M:

Your objection represents exactly why the Doak scale is what it is.  What's the point of writing about golf courses if you label most of them really good? -- GOLF DIGEST already gives everything three stars.  The point is to discriminate, so you'll understand which courses are worth traveling to and which aren't.

John K:

I think you are right about the number of 7's (around 100) and that the distinction between 5's, 6's and 7's is an important one.  It is much more in the eye of the beholder that the gap from 7 to 8.  I have compared these gaps to "quantum levels" that either you're in one or the other but it's a big leap up.

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.  (Indeed, some of the courses which I rated a 0 would be a 6 for others.)  There are a lot more 6's in the world than there were when I wrote The Confidential Guide, and my own associates say with some confidence that we ought to be able to build a 6 on any site, if we just go out and do a good routing and build a good set of greens.

If it's a below-average example, handicapped by the setting or by housing or by a mailed-in design, then it's probably a 4 or 5 instead.

So then what's a 7?  A 7 is a course that sets itself beyond the typical Tom Fazio or Jeff Brauer or Tom Doak course.  If it's just an average example of our work, then it isn't worth traveling to play, any more than any other of our courses.  A 7 has to have something about it that's really special -- a unique setting, a better set of greens, a couple of truly great holes, etc.  Almost by definition, that would make it a legitimate contender for Best New Course of the Year (as opposed to all the 5's and 6's which advertise that they were "nominated" for the award).

I have not had enough experience dining around Europe at pricey restaurants to know for sure, but my impression is that the Guide Michelin reserves its first star for a "7" on the Doak scale and that an "8" gets two stars and there are only 25 or so restaurants that get three stars.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2007, 11:32:33 AM »
(I carefully wrote this before Tom D. responded, so I'll post as written.  I see he has refuted some of what's here)

As advertised, I flipped through the pages of the Confidential Guide, counting 7s.  There are about 100 in the book.  It was an interesting exercise.  Tom Fazio is the modern architect with the most courses ranked 7 or better, though the courses Tom Doak selected as 7s (Wild Dunes, Wade Hampton, Pelican Hill, for example) are not the current darlings of the "best of" lists. You would either conclude that Fazio builds a lot of 7s, or that much of his his modern work would be regarded as 6s.  Nevertheless, there's a great deal of respect there.

Let's say that Tom missed a few in his travels.  Add in the second Golden Age courses from 1995-2006, plus some sympathetic restorations of classic courses, and maybe there are 150 courses worthy of a 7, with about 80-100 in the U.S..  That's 0.5% of all courses.  Eric, I think we're still looking at a bell curve centered around 3 or 4, truncated at 0.

There was a recent thread that the "best of" lists experience a significant drop in quality about halfway down the list, that any of 300-500 courses could represent the 75th best modern course.  This would support Doak's delineation between 6 and 7, that once you get two thirds of the way down the list, you run out of excellent courses.  I think it shows that raters need to figure out a little better what the next best courses really are.  Where does "very good" actually become "excellent"?

I'd like to think there are quite a few 7s being built these days.  Let's take an example.  I played Colorado GC once last year, and though it did not thrill me, it is an excellent course, with a great deal of variety and challenge, with a reasonably interesting walk.  It is also artistically built and shaped into the terrain.  I thought it was about a 6 when I played it, but a strong case can be made to call it a 7.  Anyway, this is me making my usual case for the modern architects.  They don't get the best pieces of property, but a lot has been learned in the last 20 years, and excellent courses are being built.

All of this analysis of Tom's method may drive him crazy.  It's his own personal rating system which became popular with his friends, so he published it.  On the other hand, the Golfweek rating system is similarly designed, so the method has been adopted.  
 


 

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2007, 11:40:47 AM »
So then what's a 7?  A 7 is a course that sets itself beyond the typical Tom Fazio or Jeff Brauer or Tom Doak course.  If it's just an average example of our work, then it isn't worth traveling to play, any more than any other of our courses.

I often use my beloved popular music for analogies here.  Abbey Road is a typical Beatles album, but it's very highly regarded.  I'd like to think the typical course by the greatest architects are worth seeing, regardless of travel distance.

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2007, 11:59:45 AM »
 I'd like to think the typical course by the greatest architects are worth seeing, regardless of travel distance.

John, I want to agree, but last time I was in Traverse City with some golf enthusiasts, I didn't find much enthusiasm for traveling to High Pointe, especially in comparison to the (admittedly spectacular) available alternatives.  

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2007, 12:05:10 PM »
Aw shucks (giggling), a flaw in my personality has been identified.  I just like to settle in.  I don't get up there much.

Art Roselle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2007, 12:36:00 PM »
Any discussion of distributions around all 32,000 courses is tough to gauge from just counting the courses rated in The Confidential Guide.  Despite his best attempts, Tom could not quite play or rate all of them.  There are also many new courses and many that have been altered since he saw them.  Most importantly, even though he hits great spectrum of courses, the rankings probably skew toward better (or at least better known) courses, so that the average in the book is almost certainly higher than the average of the whole population.  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.

Despite all of that, I agree that 7 seems to be an important step from "good course that is worth playing if you happen to have the chance" up to "very good course that is worth going out of your way to play."  That distinction seems to be the real test of what is "special".  However, even if the highest rankings are more subjective, it feels like it starts to get very selective above 7 (as it should).  Based on how few reach each subsequent level, the ratings seem to rise more in line with the Richter Scale.  A 9 is not just a little better than an 8.  It is multiples better (although "better" as always, is in the eye of the beholder).  

Matt_Ward

Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2007, 03:49:06 PM »
What's important to point out for those who have really read Doak's "Confidential Guide" is his own preferences / biases are part of the book. How so?

Well. Doak isn't really enamored with much of what calls itself desert golf. No doubt plenty has happened since his book has come forward and I'm sure he would be the first to agree. There's also a preferred bias to classic designs -- some of which are nothing more than quirky to the max for my tastes but that's what makes his take on things interesting.

Keep in mind also many of the courses mentioned here on GCA are the cat's meow in terms of fanfare and build-up and are likely near the top of the charts. I mean just about eveything one can imagine -- short of the toilets -- has been discussed concerning Merion, PV, CP, NGLA, ANGC, etc , etc.

I agree with Art R who outlines that sheer volume of total courses and what ones would really prompt someone to make a particular visit to play.

John Kirk:

Keep this in mind -- the Golfweek system is a CONSENSUS driven formula. Some may prefer it -- I'd much rather have the comments from a singular person who is well seasoned and can provide a consistent steady definition rather than some sort of formula where multiple ratings are pushed together in order to give one a consensus outcome.



Mike Sweeney

Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2007, 09:36:48 PM »
http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/features/the_doak_scale.aspx

7. An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

I have always looked at it as a basis of travel. 100 miles from my apartment are:

* North - Misquamicut - a unique Ross is a special setting on the Rhode Island ocean/sound.

* East - Atlantic - a Rees Jones top 2-3 in his portfolio?

* South - Huntington Valley CC - The best 100% Flynn? (never saw Lancaster).

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2007, 02:00:37 AM »
A course worth driving 100 miles to see from Edinburgh isn't the same as a course worth driving 100 miles somewhere in eastern Arizona.

I've always had trouble with that 100 mile thing given that I live in Iowa, which is not exactly busting at the seams with all world golf courses.  There's a course about 20 minutes from where I live that I think is a bit quirky but a hell of a course that GCAers would love.  I think it'd be worth driving 100 miles to see no matter what direction you are coming from.  But not 200 miles, since you'd have almost reached Chicago in one direction and you'd be over halfway to Sand Hills in the other! ;)

It wouldn't be worth a 100 mile drive if it were on Long Island, because there are too many other better courses out there (well, maybe it still would, since almost all the good ones there are private!)  But, depending on what part of Long Island you plopped it on, it'd be worth maybe a half hour drive.

So that's what, a 6.5?
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Andrew Hastie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2007, 06:54:01 AM »
Quote from Tom Doak.

To me, the point is moot: The West is a 10 on the Doak Scale and the Composite is slightly better.
The link to the whole article
http://www.linksmagazine.com/golf_travel/international/australia/royal_melbourne_golf_club.aspx

If some thing is slightly better then a 10. I guess that would make it a 10.5 or a 11.So maybe there room for even better then "Nearly Perfect".


10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent—immediately


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2007, 08:20:40 AM »
[quote author=Tom_Doak link=board=1;threadid=32122;start=0#msg630760 date=1195316385



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.  (Indeed, some of the courses which I rated a 0 would be a 6 for others.)  There are a lot more 6's in the world than there were when I wrote The Confidential Guide, and my own associates say with some confidence that we ought to be able to build a 6 on any site, if we just go out and do a good routing and build a good set of greens.

Quote

This is something I've noticed about the Doak scale, so I'm glad Tom chimed in with his reasoning.
If I'm reading this right an older/classic course that rates a 6
is typically far superior to a modern "6". (but may not be as well constructed or conditioned or too short)
(The criticism about a course being too short doesn't hold water with me unless that player is already playing the back tees.)

I've played many a modern yawner Doak rated a "6" , and many older courses I loved that Doak rated as low as 2-4.

The older 4,5-6's have been way better than any of the modern "6"'s. In fact I've never played a classic Doak 4 or 5 or 6 that I didn't like/love. (and can't really think of a modern Doak 6 I love)
It shows I just don't really care about poa free greens, perfect tees, and other fru-fru.

I guess I need my own scale ;D
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2007, 08:24:02 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.  (Indeed, some of the courses which I rated a 0 would be a 6 for others.)  There are a lot more 6's in the world than there were when I wrote The Confidential Guide, and my own associates say with some confidence that we ought to be able to build a 6 on any site, if we just go out and do a good routing and build a good set of greens.

If it's a below-average example, handicapped by the setting or by housing or by a mailed-in design, then it's probably a 4 or 5 instead.

So then what's a 7?  A 7 is a course that sets itself beyond the typical Tom Fazio or Jeff Brauer or Tom Doak course.  If it's just an average example of our work, then it isn't worth traveling to play, any more than any other of our courses.  A 7 has to have something about it that's really special -- a unique setting, a better set of greens, a couple of truly great holes, etc.  Almost by definition, that would make it a legitimate contender for Best New Course of the Year (as opposed to all the 5's and 6's which advertise that they were "nominated" for the award).


Helps to post the quote ;)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Jeff Spittel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2007, 08:31:56 AM »
I need the number of that travel agent who can get me onto PV and Merion.

I think perhaps we are going a little overboard trying to interpret the quantitative ratings that correspond to Tom's qualitative assessments. The scale provides an excellent heuristic framework for the traveling golfer, and I'm fine leaving it at that.
Fare and be well now, let your life proceed by its own design.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Doak 6 Rating
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2007, 10:35:13 AM »
I think I agree with Jeff S.
Is this about what you said?:

The Doak scale is best in determining if you want to come to Houston, not which course to play.

I live in Houston.
Currently there is no course higher than a 6 in the city.
There are many 6s that I enjoy playing.
There is definately a heirachy to the 6s.

If someone was visiting me I wouldn't just say they were all the same - play any of the 6s, it doesn't matter.  I'd take them to play my favorite which I think is significanly better than the other 6s.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back