[Dan King]

I've played a couple of the zeros and some of the ones and twos. If we are going to have to rate The Ranch in San Jose we are either going to have to use fractions or negative numbers. They'd have to make some significant changes to get it up to a zero.

I enjoy Wawona in Yosemite. It's not much of a course, perhaps even deserving it's two, but I always had mucho fun there and the setting is wonderful. I'm also a fan of Old Del Monte. It has some really good holes (and some really bad holes.) Doak says it is dangerous, but I've played there numerous times and I never felt in danger.

In my copy he has the Peter Hay Par-3 course in Pebble Beach as a 1.

Some how Carmel Valley Ranch got a four (see quote below.)

Cheers,
Dan King

Until recently, all I had to do to get a look around a golf course was walk in the front door and tell them I worked for Pete Dye. But in Northern California, that approach only gets you a look of sympathy, because the only Pete Dye course they're familiar with is Carmel Valley Ranch, which is the most preposterous course Pete ever built.
 --Tom Doak (on Carmel Valley Ranch in The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses)

[Kalen Braley]

I too would rate Old Del Monte at least a 3, if not a 4.  It has some very interesting holes and is certainly better than a "beer chugging scramble" type of course.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Hello, dear all!

This thread is slightly OT since this site is dedicated to GCA and I am asking an "anti-GCA" question.

I have played quite a few decent to good golf courses in my life but I think I have never been on something really horrible (except for San Luis Rey Downs which was really boring and non-inspiring but I am not sure where this course really falls in).

So, could you do me a favor and list the Doak 0/1/2 courses in your area so I could play some of them when and if I am there.

Best and thanks in advance,
Ivan

These courses are few and far between in the Guide for a couple of reasons. I seem to recall having seen in my reading of past threads Mr. Doak writing that he had written about every course he had played or seen but that he only went to courses recommended to him by others, or something of that nature. So the courses in the guide tended to gravitate towards the upper end of the scale more so than the average courses do. So, the truth of the matter is, 1's and 2's exist everywhere, and by his own admission, Mr. Doak has not seen many of them, thankfully for us, some of the negativity in these designs may have rubbed off on him had he seen too many of them.

But these courses are somewhat easy to find, just look for underfunded municipal courses or low cost rural golf courses, good chance they are a 1 or 2.

[Dan Herrmann]

Evergreen Golf Course, North Tonawanda, NY
Pickering Valley GC, Phoenixville, PA

[Adrian_Stiff]

The trouble with a 0-10 scale is that most people see 5 as the average, so by definition a 3 or 4 seems poor. There are some good courses that get a 4 and some great ones that get a 5.... A doak 2 PROBABLY is more the indication of average.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

The trouble with a 0-10 scale is that most people see 5 as the average, so by definition a 3 or 4 seems poor. There are some good courses that get a 4 and some great ones that get a 5.... A doak 2 PROBABLY is more the indication of average.

Isn't the definition of a 3 something in the vicinity of "the average course in America?" I seem to recall that being the case.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Doak got it right.

Looking at these standard distributions, the data set for golf courses is likely to look like the green line as opposed to the other normalized ones.  Most courses are indeed a 2 or 3...and there are few courses 5 or better!  I guess it speaks to the overall state of the quality of courses that are actually out there...not just the ones we prefer to play.

[Jud_T]

Why would it be a normal distribution?

[Kalen Braley]

Why would it be a normal distribution?

In measuring golf courses, of which we have tens of thousands of data points, if you ask a random person on the street, one could reasonably expect to find a normal distribution of the quality of courses.  However, this doesn't appear to be the case and Tom's scale reflects that somewhere between 2 and 3 lies the median.

So as Adrian stated, if most people think the average would be 5...then they would be very wrong.

[David Kelly]

Why would it be a normal distribution?

I don't think it would be. I think the distribution would look like a ramp with the high side on the left.  I suppose you could argue that it could start going up at 1 ,2 & 3 and then start its descent.  Either way there are a ton more 0s than there are 8s ,9s, and 10s.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Perhaps, if you think of FIVE STARS being good, and ONE, TWO AND THREE stars being the normal band of how the average courses are distributed, it puts it in better perspective just where the top courses are.
It does not really matter but I guess a course would use a DOAK 4 as part of their marketing ploy, but if they were given 4 STARS by Tom Doak they might...... if that makes sense.

We all know a 4 or a 5 is pretty good I guess thats all that matters.

[Sean_A]

I think Adrian is right although 3 is probably the average rather than 2.  Even so, how many courses are really below average to the point where one would say it sucks (essentially 0, 1 and maybe 2)?  I don't think we can look at golf courses in terms shit, poor, average, good and excellent.  The worst course I have seen in England is unfortunately the closest to my house - Bidford Grange.  Even with all its faults there is enough there to give it a 2 or 3 on the Doak Scale, but it doesn't matter for me because I won't go back unless its free and for a good reason.  To me, the Doak Scale loses credibility at the high and low end as this is where opinion (or pet peeves/favourite concepts) really take over.  I have seen a lot of rough n' ready munis and I still don't think I have seen anything less than 2-3. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I believe I wrote somewhere in the foreword to the book that the average American course was probably a 3 on the Doak scale.  [The average course in England and Scotland is probably a 4 or 4 1/2.]  To me, there was no point in trying to distinguish between the 3's and the 2's and the 1's, if no one would want to go out of their way to play any of them.  I am sure that most people would rate my 2's higher than a 2 ... but probably not as high as many of the courses to which I gave a 4.

A 5 is more like the average of the courses I personally have seen -- and the subset of courses I've seen is FAR better than average.

Scottsdale GC was a development course down in town, well south of the TPC.  Don't know if it's still there, or under a different name.  The Golf Club of Scottsdale wasn't built when I wrote the Guide ... I know that because I once looked at the raw property for a potential client who failed to put the deal together.

Old Del Monte, I haven't played since I was 13 or maybe 15 years old.  What I remember of it are a couple of holes where there were big trees RIGHT IN THE WAY which you could easily drive behind or into.  Otherwise I can't remember a thing about it!

[Bill Ward]

 
[/quote]

If you are dying(pun intended) to play Cypress, we have our own Doak 0 Perry Dye masterpiece here in Sacramento called Bartley Cavanagh. It was built at the same time as Cypress and on land too small for a golf course. I played Cypress when it was open and Bartley is just as bad and very similar design. Bring your hard hat, balls fly over the mounding between the holes constantly and fore is not used enough.
[/quote]



I played Bartley Cavanaugh once.  Would make a really good motocross track. 

[Padraig Dooley]

I think Adrian is right although 3 is probably the average rather than 2.  Even so, how many courses are really below average to the point where one would say it sucks (essentially 0, 1 and maybe 2)?  I don't think we can look at golf courses in terms shit, poor, average, good and excellent.  The worst course I have seen in England is unfortunately the closest to my house - Bidford Grange.  Even with all its faults there is enough there to give it a 2 or 3 on the Doak Scale, but it doesn't matter for me because I won't go back unless its free and for a good reason.  To me, the Doak Scale loses credibility at the high and low end as this is where opinion (or pet peeves/favourite concepts) really take over.  I have seen a lot of rough n' ready munis and I still don't think I have seen anything less than 2-3. 

Ciao

Sean, played Bidford and could certainly give it 0, it truly was awful especially as it was next to Stretford, one of the nicest spots in England! Although since it wasn't a high budget spend and a terrible waste of money maybe 1 might be a truer reflection.

I'd vote for a place neat Doncaster called Owston Hall for 0 but again low budget spend might save it!!

[Jud_T]

 

[Greg Murphy]

Zero
Karsten at Arizona State

Bill,

Really? ASU Karsten a ZERO? Why?

[Brad LeClair]

I would be interested to hear what others have to say about Granite Links in Quincy, MA.  In my mind, that is as close to get gets to Doak's definition of a "zero"

[Matthew Petersen]

Zero
Karsten at Arizona State

Bill,

Really? ASU Karsten a ZERO? Why?

Greg,

This is one of the zeroes actually given out by Tom in the CG. Check out this post of his in a thread on terrible sites for a course, which gives you an indication of what he was thinking with his rating:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,8421.msg160491.html#msg160491

[Sean_A]

I think Adrian is right although 3 is probably the average rather than 2.  Even so, how many courses are really below average to the point where one would say it sucks (essentially 0, 1 and maybe 2)?  I don't think we can look at golf courses in terms shit, poor, average, good and excellent.  The worst course I have seen in England is unfortunately the closest to my house - Bidford Grange.  Even with all its faults there is enough there to give it a 2 or 3 on the Doak Scale, but it doesn't matter for me because I won't go back unless its free and for a good reason.  To me, the Doak Scale loses credibility at the high and low end as this is where opinion (or pet peeves/favourite concepts) really take over.  I have seen a lot of rough n' ready munis and I still don't think I have seen anything less than 2-3. 

Ciao

Sean, played Bidford and could certainly give it 0, it truly was awful especially as it was next to Stretford, one of the nicest spots in England! Although since it wasn't a high budget spend and a terrible waste of money maybe 1 might be a truer reflection.

I'd vote for a place neat Doncaster called Owston Hall for 0 but again low budget spend might save it!!

Padraig

Yes, for £12 to go round twice one can't complain too much.  More importantly, why in the hell did you travel to play Bidford?  You must have been given some bum info.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Looks like a fairly awkward piece of property....

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Karsten+Golf+Course+At+ASU,+East+Rio+Salado+Parkway,+Tempe,+AZ&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.910968,82.089844&ie=UTF8&hq=Karsten+Golf+Course+At+ASU,+East+Rio+Salado+Parkway,+Tempe,+AZ&hnear=Karsten+Golf+Course+At+ASU,+1125+E+Rio+Salado+Pkwy,+Tempe,+Arizona+85281-2110&ll=33.426284,-111.91987&spn=0.006384,0.014108&t=h&z=17

[Matt Day]

how do the Doak courses rate in the Doak rating system?

[Bill Brightly]

I would be interested to hear what others have to say about Granite Links in Quincy, MA.  In my mind, that is as close to get gets to Doak's definition of a "zero"

Read the Confidential Guide, you can get it cheap on EBAY

[Padraig Dooley]

I think Adrian is right although 3 is probably the average rather than 2.  Even so, how many courses are really below average to the point where one would say it sucks (essentially 0, 1 and maybe 2)?  I don't think we can look at golf courses in terms shit, poor, average, good and excellent.  The worst course I have seen in England is unfortunately the closest to my house - Bidford Grange.  Even with all its faults there is enough there to give it a 2 or 3 on the Doak Scale, but it doesn't matter for me because I won't go back unless its free and for a good reason.  To me, the Doak Scale loses credibility at the high and low end as this is where opinion (or pet peeves/favourite concepts) really take over.  I have seen a lot of rough n' ready munis and I still don't think I have seen anything less than 2-3.  

Ciao

Sean, played Bidford and could certainly give it 0, it truly was awful especially as it was next to Stretford, one of the nicest spots in England! Although since it wasn't a high budget spend and a terrible waste of money maybe 1 might be a truer reflection.

I'd vote for a place neat Doncaster called Owston Hall for 0 but again low budget spend might save it!!

Padraig

Yes, for £12 to go round twice one can't complain too much.  More importantly, why in the hell did you travel to play Bidford?  You must have been given some bum info.

Ciao

Sean, there was an event on in Bidford, was on again the following year, wouldn't go back.

[Andy Troeger]

Pretty sure that American Golfers Club in FL has been gone for a long time--it was a little executive course on a piece of property that was far too valuable for a $20 course. I spent about 5 years warming up for the season at their pitch and putt course as a kid on spring break. It was a fun little thing to play, but a 1 was probably about right for the "big" course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()