[Adrian_Stiff]

We talked about this once before, how would you score this one?

[Jason Topp]

My modified scale goes like this:

10 - worth groveling
8-9 - worth a pilgrimage for the course alone
7 - a treat that makes a worthy destination if the logistics fit
6 - a terrific course if in the area
5 - happily accept an invitation
4 - better than average
3 - average
0 - offensive in some way

Depending on the individual, Painswick could be anything between a 2 and an 8. For me, I would give it a 5 or 6 but a number does not really give the experience justice.

[James Bennett]

I thought that on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being the lowest rating, a zero is about right. It is off-scale - Painswick just doesn't conform to a typical rating idealogy.  Now, on a quirk scale, it exceeds North Berwick West.

[Scott Warren]

I'm with James, it defies any traditional rankings methodology. It's a unique course.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I need to give it a number though. I have already decided now but it took me ages, just wanted to know what others would number it on the Doak scale, no * or ! allowed

[Scott Warren]

In that case, if forced, I'd give it a 5.

[Bill_McBride]

In that case, if forced, I'd give it a 5.

Doak 4 but most fun match play course ever.  Buda III (?) was quite entertaining!

[Paul_Turner]

it would definitely be "boxed" in the CG.

[James Boon]

Adrian,

Considering the man who actually gave us the Doak sclae has speculated in the past that he would have just given the course an asterisk, who are we to argue?

I am glad I did not have to assign a Doak scale rating to this course, because it is so different than anything else I don't know where I would have started.  It might just have received an asterisk and no number!

If we are talking about a scale that is for recommending courses to people, I'd say a 5 or 6, as any higher may build up someone hopes too much for them to really get what the course is about?

Cheers,

James

ps For anyone not yet acquainted with Painswick...
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35805.0.html

[Sean_A]

I think Painswick is a 4 on a generous day.  However, for anyone interested in architecture, I would say the course is a must see.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Please explain.  Based on your previous comments and pictures I'd have thought it in the 5-6 range, i.e. something not to be missed when in the area, even aside from my proclivity for such tracks...

[Bill_McBride]

Sean,

Please explain.  Based on your previous comments and pictures I'd have thought it in the 5-6 range, i.e. something not to be missed when in the area, even aside from my proclivity for such tracks...

Jud, I am a lover of Painswick but there are many problems.   Poor conditions (although the greens are okay).  Walkers and dogs everywhere (it's on common ground).   

But it's more fun to play than a barrel of monkeys!

[Kalen Braley]

Bill,

How does one "play a barrell of monkeys"? 

Based on the reviews I've seen of the place and the pics...this would be an absolute 7 in my book.  If I got anywhere near the place, it would have to be a must play....With so much unconventional stuff going on, I can't see how it wouldn't be.

As it relates to my dream golf course...I would certainly look to places like Painswick, North Berwick, and Lincoln Park for inspiration!!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Please explain.  Based on your previous comments and pictures I'd have thought it in the 5-6 range, i.e. something not to be missed when in the area, even aside from my proclivity for such tracks...

Jud

The conditioning of the course, especially in winter, can be quite poor.  I am not one to dwell so much on this, but its hard not to when playing in a mud bath.  The course is quite short and plays this way - loads of driver/wedge or chip holes - so length variety is a weakness.  All but four of the holes are drivable - thats too many imo.  The greens aren't terribly interesting and where there is interest, often times if they ran any higher than 7ish they could quickly become unplayable.  The net effect is very bumpy greens.  The course relies heavily on par 3s to create the challenge.  There are may holes which are not special (#s 13,  14 & 18), too severe (#s 1 & 2), AND SOME DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS HOLES (#s 8, 9).  There are also some crackers such as #s 4, 6 and 11 which elevate the experience.  In the main though, giving the course anything higher than 4 really raises expectations across the board which the course really can't meet on a consistent basis.  Thats why its best to ignore a number and just tell folks to see it if they like proper old-time golf.  A gem is its best description which really boils down to a qualified recommendation.   I live only 50 minutes away and play the course maybe once a year.  

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

How does one "play a barrell of monkeys"? 

Based on the reviews I've seen of the place and the pics...this would be an absolute 7 in my book.  If I got anywhere near the place, it would have to be a must play....With so much unconventional stuff going on, I can't see how it wouldn't be.

As it relates to my dream golf course...I would certainly look to places like Painswick, North Berwick, and Lincoln Park for inspiration!!

Painswick and Lincoln Park have a lot more in common than North Berwick, which is a stout challenge.   Both P and LP are undersized and poorly conditioned compared to NB.   

[Jay Cox]

I think Sean's comment that he lives close by but only plays Painswick once a year hits on the problem with trying to assign one number.

If a visitor has generally been exposed to a  lot of good golf courses, and has the same sensibilities as most posters on this site, it seems like many of us would recommend that he see Painswick over, say, Broadstone if he only had time for one round at one of them.  But if the same visitor was asking what course to join to play as his primary course for a number of years, I think many of us would recommend just the opposite.

The same rating problem exists for a lot of other relatively unique courses -- Tobacco Road, for example -- but it seems like it's most exagerrated with respect to Painswick.  It's so unique, and so true to a lot of the principles GCA admires, that we might be tempted to recommend it over a course that gets a 7 or even an 8 if the visitor already has played plenty of 7s or 8s.  But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 7 or 8 itself.

[James Bennett]

I need to give it a number though. I have already decided now but it took me ages, just wanted to know what others would number it on the Doak scale, no * or ! allowed

Adrian

I thought through this a bit more since my initial post.  I haven't seen the posts above yet.

If I was a 'card and pencil' rater, I would give it a 2.

If I was a 'matchplay' rater, I would give it a 4.

I don't honestly think I could rate Painswick, despite its attractions, as more than 4.

If I was allowed to be a 'quirk' rater, I would give it a 10.  Hence the attraction to GCA geeks.

I like Painswick, but I doubt that I would enjoy playing there every week.  However, playing there with a fellow GCA geek is sublime.

James B

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

4. It should be seen and played if you just love the game. It also helps for one to be a lover of different and quirk.

[Sean_A]

8. It should be seen and played if you are a golf architect fan or historian. The same if you just love the game.

8 is unbelievably high - as in at least top 75 in the world.  Any tour operator who sold that or told folks that Painswick is worth a pilgrimage for the course alone would soon be getting an earful from all concerned. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Well I was asked to mark it on the Doak scale and I was between two numbers. The DS means 3 is an average golf course, whilst I love it and have done since 1973 I tried to be as fair as possible in grading it based on reality, not this sites skewed opinion toward the quirkier stuff. There are 49 courses in Gloucestershire and its certainly not a top 10 course in the county, some think its so poor they refuse to play matches there, it does have fans but it never draws members, people dont go join there if theres another one nearer, equally theres a lot of people that have never played it that are put off by the blind par 3 holes, the length and the awkward bounce.

I scored it a 3. I would like to know what Tom would score it if he was forced too.

I focused on what a 4 and a 5 are, and a 6 is a golf course that would be close to GB & I top 100, a 7 would be a course between 51-100 and anything better than 8 is top 25 stuff.

It was a difficult one to number though because if you are a fan of the stuff we like on here, then its a must see.

[Jon Wiggett]

The conditioning of the course, especially in winter, can be quite poor.  I am not one to dwell so much on this, but its hard not to when playing in a mud bath.  

Sean,

I don't see why the winter condition should enter into the judgement of its quality. Play it in the summer as I am sure it was intended to be. If winter playing conditions have to be considered then what does that do to many of the US courses in the northern half or those in Canada?

Jon

[Adam Lawrence]

I'm afraid conditions at Painswick are going to be worse than usual for a while at least. Morons.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Course-vandals-sought/story-15096824-detail/story.html

[Sean_A]

The conditioning of the course, especially in winter, can be quite poor.  I am not one to dwell so much on this, but its hard not to when playing in a mud bath. 

Sean,

I don't see why the winter condition should enter into the judgement of its quality. Play it in the summer as I am sure it was intended to be. If winter playing conditions have to be considered then what does that do to many of the US courses in the northern half or those in Canada?

Jon

Jon

Its a completely different matter if a course is closed due to weather.  So far as I am concerned, if the course is open and charging money, than there is a minimum standard which should be upheld.  In my experience, often times, Painswick doesn't meet that standard in the winter due to wet and sloppy conditions.  In England, golf is a year round game so courses should be playable year round.  What do you think the push back to bents and fescues has been about this past decade?  In part its about providing a better year round playing experience.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I scored it a 3. I would like to know what Tom would score it if he was forced too.

I focused on what a 4 and a 5 are, and a 6 is a golf course that would be close to GB & I top 100, a 7 would be a course between 51-100 and anything better than 8 is top 25 stuff.

It was a difficult one to number though because if you are a fan of the stuff we like on here, then its a must see.

Paul Turner certainly had it right:  if I'd included Painswick in The Confidential Guide, I would have put it in a box, to draw attention to it.

If forced to give it a number, back then at least, I think I would probably have given it a 4.  It's certainly more interesting than the average course, so I'd want that to be clear.  But, I gave a 4 to several courses which I thought were too weird or too short for a significant percentage of connoisseurs to enjoy ... in fact, I think I included that in the definition of a 4 that I put in the book.  [I believe Merion West was one other course that received a 4 for some of the same reasons.]

Honestly, part of the number rankings were considered based on who I thought my audience would be, and whether they would agree with my own feelings.  I wasn't sure back then whether Ben Crenshaw and Bill Shean and George Peper and the other 37 recipients of the original book would be open to a course like Merion West, or Pennard [which I gave a 6 even though I love it], or certainly Painswick.  Heck, I'm not even sure if I would have been open to Painswick if I had seen it 30 years ago ... playing it multiple times in the Buda Cup, and especially that great match I played with Rich Goodale and Peter McEvoy, was what helped convince me that even the best players would really enjoy it.  So, I think at this stage I would probably give the course a 5 or a 6 if I was rating it for the Guide.

However, as much as people here use the Doak Scale, I wish you'd all keep in mind that the numbers were really just a back-up to what I was actually WRITING about each course I reviewed, and that the review itself is more important.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am with the side that conditions are important though weighted more to the summer but it still needs to be reasonable in the winter if the doors are open. Painswick can be hell when its very bouncy in the summer, the greens are unwatered so April May and October are probably best months. I dont remember t being a wet course years ago and I think that land should drain well naturally. I suspect its the limitations of not being able to worm the fairways that causes the muddyness, I have noticed lots of wormcasts on my recent visits. The greens are pretty good in the winter and contain good amounts of fescue. The fairways are a coarse almost Rye like grass, hardly and of the finer grasses and huge content of weeds. Sadly plenty of golf courses dont come up to par in the winters in the UK, its just the way it is with our climate, not many places can you play 365 without oversowing, it keeps UK golf cheaper but yes there is a bit of a quality drop.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()