[Rich Brittingham]

Nice interview with Tom posted on Golf Digest
 
http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/2009/02/tomdoak 

[PThomas]

thanks Rich

and there's hope:  Tom said he "Probably" won't reprint the Confidential Guide

boy would i love to see his thoughts on all the courses he's seen since his last version

[Kyle Henderson]

Cool article. Thanks for posting.

Tom Doak: For what it's worth, I don't think that caricature is very flattering. You need to have Josh Smith paint you up all purdy and the like.

[PCCraig]

Great article.

Some good questions as well as some puff balls. I did like Tom's response to changes to Augusta.

[Chuck Brown]

Nice interview in a short space!

So besides Royal Melbourne, help me out with a list of the others that make that region such an attraction to Tom Doak.  Are they all Sandbelt courses?

[David_Elvins]

Nice interview in a short space!

So besides Royal Melbourne, help me out with a list of the others that make that region such an attraction to Tom Doak.  Are they all Sandbelt courses?

Also on the Sandbelt, Kingston Heath is ranked 20-30 in the world, Metropolitan and Victoria have been ranked in the top 100 within the last 20 years or so.  And Tom has commented favourably on Woodlands.  Peninsula and Yarra Yarra also feature some great holes. And Commonwealth has the potential to be better than all except Royal Melbourne.  That is a high concentration of good courses within a ten mile radius. 

There is nothing good in Melbourne other than the sandbelt courses although the Mornington Peninsula an hour and a half away has some OK ones.

[Andrew Bertram]

Chuck

Witin 10 minutes of each other are as follows:

RMGC West and East
Kingston Heath
Metropolitan
Victoria
Commonwealth
Woodlands
Yarra Yarra

Peninsula South and North are about 25 minutes away.

All are wonderful courses and all are accessible for international visitors on most weekdays. Victoria and Peninsula have accommodation which gives course access, even on weekends.

A lot of groups of golfers have been travelling from all other parts of Australia the same week in Spring or Autumn every year for years to play the sand belt courses and would not contemplate travelling anywhere else.

 

[Kalen Braley]

This was the best bit of the interview when asked about travel advice:

"Travel light. Most people carry way too much stuff, and it's a nuisance. Eat local. Eat seafood when you're near the sea and eat beef when you're in Nebraska.

[Anthony Gray]

  The comment that impressed me the most was when asked about a weakness he said his courses may be too playable. This tells me his goal is for the average golfer to have fun. I feel the ideal course leaves you refreshed at the end of the round insted of beat up.

  Anthony

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Nice interview in a short space!

Is it possible that you saw only the first page of the interview, and missed pages 2 through 4?

The Golf Digest site has some terrible page-navigation links, but they are there at the bottom.

Compare and contrast with digg.com, which makes it exceedingly easy to find the next page.  Or even know of its existence.

[Jim Nugent]

Tom said he is supposed to talk with Tiger about course design.  Interested to hear what becomes of that.

Also, Tom said, "I think a lot of times we haven't given the real good guy enough to do."  I got the sense that was Jack Nicklaus' complaint about Tom's work, and also what Jack felt he especially brought to the table. 

[Ian Andrew]

"I think a lot of times we haven't given the real good guy enough to do."

I would love to ask him if that was a reaction to watching the match played at Cape Kidnappers.

Great interview by Ron - I liked the questions he asked and the responses he got. I think we're pretty overdue for a second Doak interview on GCA.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

We've been working on making more interesting tee shots (without bunker proliferation) for the past couple of years.  So, watching the young guns at Cape Kidnappers wasn't the cause, but it did reinforce the importance of it.

The impetus has actually been from several posters here over the years.  I still argue with them because they place TOO MUCH emphasis on the driving game -- because that's what they're good at -- but I realized that's no different than my own emphasis on short-game challenges.  So, I decided that whatever I can do to make tee shots harder for the long hitter, WITHOUT making them much harder for the average golfer (because average golfers aren't good drivers), I should do.

Jim N:  I don't know what Jack Nicklaus' complaints are about my work, because he still hasn't seen ANY of my courses other than Sebonack.  And I didn't think strategies to counter long hitters were the strength of his design input.  He tends to build holes that reward long driving, with the occasional hole that a prudent player would lay up on.  We all tend to design to our strengths, and Jack is no different.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

Good interview and appreciated the insights.  Is there anything more you can elaborate on as it concerns to having discussions with Tiger?

Thx,

Kalen

[Tom Huckaby]

So, I decided that whatever I can do to make tee shots harder for the long hitter, WITHOUT making them much harder for the average golfer (because average golfers aren't good drivers), I should do.

Fascinating.

You know if you succeed in this, you just may well create the holy grail of golf courses:  high course rating, low slope.  Some of yours get to this already....  keep it up!

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

No, we still haven't met yet (apart from the time when he was 16, and I played behind him in a charity event at Riviera).

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom,
I agree with Huck..that is fascinating.
As one of those straight drivers of the ball, I for one would like to be rewarded more than is often the case.
That is one of the things that so impressed me with Ballyneal, the diversity of teeshots and several that really did reward the person who can keep it in play.
The use of contouring the fairways and the ensuing bunkering at Ballyneal I thought was very clever.

I appreciate in this era of bombers how hard it must be to walk that fine line of driver fairness and that short game challenges are perhaps an easier way to evaluate the repective ablilty levels of golfers?

[Carl Nichols]

I still argue with them because they place TOO MUCH emphasis on the driving game -- because that's what they're good at -- but I realized that's no different than my own emphasis on short-game challenges. 

We all tend to design to our strengths, and Jack is no different.

Tom:
You may have said this previously, but am I correct that this means that you're a short-game wizard of sorts?   

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

I'm a feel player and always have been.  I USED TO BE very good around the greens.  Now I'm very inconsistent, but I can still occasionally pull off a shot that you haven't seen before.  For example, probably the best shot I hit this year was a chip on the 14th at Sand Hills ... I had short-sided myself and my opponent was putting for eagle, so I had no choice but to chip the ball out of the native and two-hop it in the mowed rough and just trickle out onto the green ... and I got it inside two feet and won the hole.

And I'm still a very good putter.

[Ian_L]

Are you interested at all in designing a course that could host a major championship, if you could make it playable for the average golfer?  Do you think any of your current courses could be adapted to host a major?  Sorry if you've answered this before.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

You could host a major championship next summer at Rock Creek or Tumble Creek or Pacific Dunes or Stonewall or Sebonack ... you could have hosted one at Beechtree, except it'll be gone.  You could play a major at Shiskine if you wanted to (although the players would have to have a real sense of humor there).  If it's a good course, it could host a tournament, and the best players should rise to the top, whether they shoot two under or twenty-two under.

I suspect what you really mean is, do I want to design a course which would make it difficult for Tour players to break par over 72 holes?  That seems to be most people's definition of a "major championship course," but it's not mine.

Could we do that?  Sure, but it doesn't make sense to do it unless you have a client for whom that is the #1 goal, and who has the connections and the cash to make it happen.  And I don't know if those are the kind of clients who will gravitate toward hiring me, because they'd have to convince me that is the right thing to do ... it's so much easier to hire Jack Nicklaus or Rees Jones, who seem to think that EVERY course should be like that.

[Dan Herrmann]

Touche!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

You said, "The impetus has actually been from several posters here over the years. (curious as to who?) I still argue with them because they place TOO MUCH emphasis on the driving game -- because that's what they're good at -- but I realized that's no different than my own emphasis on short-game challenges."

Quick question -- why the need to follow the herd -- why not just be stubborn and stick to your guns (preferences) ?

Follow-up -- Since you feel the need to do a course(s) with that in mind -- do you feel your overall work will be considered incomplete unless you do?
I think of your efforts in this regard as a world class player who has won three majors and now seeks the fourth to complete a career grand slam.

You also mentioned, "We all tend to design to our strengths, and Jack is no different."

Is it then fair to say -- your "weakness" would be to have a course where driving is the first among equals."

Follow-up -- did Nicklaus provide you with any real understandings of his "strength / driving" when you teamed up together at Sebonack. If so -- what was it ?

Picking up on another quote that's been mentioned ... "I think a lot of times we haven't given the real good guy enough to do." Does that mean the playability dimension has been the driving force (no pun intended) for all of your designs to date?

Can it not be possible to marry those two items together or is that more of an ideal that sounds good in theory but cannot be captured unless the most suitable piece of property is available?

Last question -- isn't it fair to say that driving the ball is the most demanding aspect to master -- both in terms of sufficient distance and the wherewithal to work the ball on command?

I'm guessing you feel otherwise but for some reason feel compelled NOW to do such a thing. I have often thought that Tom Doak runs counter to the group think mentality of many in the golf universe.

Many thanks for your answers ... I'll have more to say and question pending your replies. Appreciate it ...

[Ian_L]

I suspect what you really mean is, do I want to design a course which would make it difficult for Tour players to break par over 72 holes?  That seems to be most people's definition of a "major championship course," but it's not mine.

Could we do that?  Sure, but it doesn't make sense to do it unless you have a client for whom that is the #1 goal, and who has the connections and the cash to make it happen.  And I don't know if those are the kind of clients who will gravitate toward hiring me, because they'd have to convince me that is the right thing to do ... it's so much easier to hire Jack Nicklaus or Rees Jones, who seem to think that EVERY course should be like that.

Do you think the course would be weaker (by your definition) if you had to make it that hard for tour players?

Personally, I wish there was a way to abolish par as the primary scoring system for these events so people wouldn't get so caught up thinking a course's challenge pertains to how well it holds up against par.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

The most interesting holes to watch the young pros play at Cape Kidnappers were the par-fives.

As it turned out, it was the 16th hole more than any other that separated them from each other, even though it's a very short 5 and A.K. had something like an 8-iron into the green ... in fact, at 490 yards, he didn't even realize it was a par five.  The four players made 3, 4, 4, and 5, but Snedeker's poor tee shot and Mahan's great putt (after a slightly hedged second shot) turned out to be the difference.

The second and fourth holes were equally fun to watch, because they were the only holes that the guys had a long club in their hands for their approach shots.  Both holes give you a bail-out left (with a very difficult chip) and both have a bunker at front right, so when the guys took enough club to get over the bunker AND hedged left ... which three out of four did ... they beat themselves.

320-yard holes and 580-yard holes are the ones which will be most exciting to watch the pros play.  And yet most architects keep building 490-yard par-4's which are impossible for the amateur, but only difficult for the pros if they drive it into the rough.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()