A Little Help for The Confidential Guide

[Sean_A]

Doak rating rule of thumb:

True Doak # = (Any individual's Doak #) - (1, 2 or 3, depending on the rater)

Of all the bizarro things I read on here, people other than Tom posting Doak ratings might be consistently the weirdest. Or maybe I'm just the only person who can't read Tom's mind.

George:

I think your formula is about right.  I don't mind people trying to use my scale, but it's hard for them to do so without it sounding like it's my rating and not theirs ... and that's the part that's sometimes bothersome.  In fact, one reason to update the book is to provide my own ratings for some more courses, so that others will stop posting inflated ratings.

Funny, I find that it depends on the type.  Championship courses tend to be Doak Score minus 1 or 2.  2nd/3rd tier courses tend to be Doak Score plus 1 or 2. 

Ciao

[Mark Saltzman]

Doak rating rule of thumb:

True Doak # = (Any individual's Doak #) - (1, 2 or 3, depending on the rater)

George, yes it certainly is unusual that others post Doak ratings (not that I don't do it).  At the end of the day, the Doak scale gives a definition of a score from 0-10.  That actual words Tom used to define the ratings means less to me than the courses that were assigned each number.

Using only courses I've seen from The Confidential Guide...

10 - Shinnecock; Crystal Downs; Muirfield = top-25 world

9 - Prairie Dunes; The Golf Club; Sand Hills = top-25 US / top-50 world

8 - Southern Hills; St George's; Lahinch = top 50 US / top-100 world

7 - Hamilton; Pasatiempo; World Woods; Franklin Hills = top 100 US

6 - Canterbury; Oak Tree National; Crag Burn = Top 100 Modern or Classic / Candidates for top 100 US

5 - Spanish Bay / East Lake / Royal Aberdeen = Top 200 Modern or Classic

Anything 4 or below would likely only be found on a best-in-state list (US courses only).

I am sure this is not how Tom sees his rankings, but it's basically how I convert Doak scores.

On that note, Shooting Star is top-25 modern, and for me is comfortably among the best 100 courses in the United States = 7

I think Promontory (Dye) is Top 100 modern = 6

Salt Lake CC is currently Top 200 Classic = 5  

Glenwild is Top 200 modern = 5

I think Victory Ranch could be Top 200 Modern = 5

Hmm no response.  Am I the only one who thinks this way?

[Rick Shefchik]

If you're on the fence about Hanover CC, I'll vouch for its quirk. There used to be a ski jump in the middle of the back nine; I don't recall whether they took it down during the Prichard renovation, but the fact that it was there is a pretty good indication of how severe the terrain is on a number of holes. Not much Ron could do about that.

There is an interesting side note on the course's history: Ralph Barton was a Dartmouth grad and learned the game on the Hanover Country Club course. He was hired as a math professor at the University of Minnesota, and he helped start both the University of Minnesota course and Midland Hills Country Club. He was instrumental in hiring Seth Raynor to design Midland Hills, and became his on-site foreman while the course was being built. Barton learned so much from Raynor -- and carried out his instructions so well -- that Raynor hired him away from the University of Minnesota to work for him fulltime. Barton eventually went into golf course design on his own, and one of the courses he worked on was -- Hanover Country Club. He designed nine new holes at Hanover CC, but I believe they fell into disuse by the '60s, except for a couple that were located on the east side of Lyme Road and were used as practice holes when I was there in the '70s.

I doubt that any of that makes Hanover CC a must-see course, however.

[Sven Nilsen]

Doak rating rule of thumb:

True Doak # = (Any individual's Doak #) - (1, 2 or 3, depending on the rater)

George, yes it certainly is unusual that others post Doak ratings (not that I don't do it).  At the end of the day, the Doak scale gives a definition of a score from 0-10.  That actual words Tom used to define the ratings means less to me than the courses that were assigned each number.

Using only courses I've seen from The Confidential Guide...

10 - Shinnecock; Crystal Downs; Muirfield = top-25 world

9 - Prairie Dunes; The Golf Club; Sand Hills = top-25 US / top-50 world

8 - Southern Hills; St George's; Lahinch = top 50 US / top-100 world

7 - Hamilton; Pasatiempo; World Woods; Franklin Hills = top 100 US

6 - Canterbury; Oak Tree National; Crag Burn = Top 100 Modern or Classic / Candidates for top 100 US

5 - Spanish Bay / East Lake / Royal Aberdeen = Top 200 Modern or Classic

Anything 4 or below would likely only be found on a best-in-state list (US courses only).

I am sure this is not how Tom sees his rankings, but it's basically how I convert Doak scores.

On that note, Shooting Star is top-25 modern, and for me is comfortably among the best 100 courses in the United States = 7

I think Promontory (Dye) is Top 100 modern = 6

Salt Lake CC is currently Top 200 Classic = 5  

Glenwild is Top 200 modern = 5

I think Victory Ranch could be Top 200 Modern = 5

Hmm no response.  Am I the only one who thinks this way?

Was there a question?  Kalen said the same thing you did without noting the courses he's played.

[Mark Saltzman]

Sven, I can't find a post by Kalen where he says the same thing I did. There was no question. I said that the definitions Doak used for his scores are not how I determine the ratings I give, but rather think of each number as corresponding to a ranking (as I laid out above). The courses I listed are used as benchmarks for me. I was curious if others think of the scores in a similar way or simply use Tom's definitions.

[Jim Johnson]

Tom, I'm curious which courses you saw/played in the Dakotas during your trip last week.

Jim:

I played the Golf Club at Red Rock in Rapid City, SD -- designed by my old friend, Ron Farris, who posts here on occasion [and who is the project manager for my project in China right now].  After that, a friend and I went up and played the North Dakota Golf Challenge -- Bully Pulpit, The Links of North Dakota, and Hawktree.

My wife and I enjoyed Red Rock last summer. And we've played the Challenge several times.
Very curious as to your thoughts on the Links of ND. We last played it 2 or 3 years ago; they were just about to re-seed their fairways with a different type of bentgrass, which surprised me, thought they might switch to kentucky blues, less headaches I would think.

Sorry, don't mean to thread-jack.

Jim

[Carl Nichols]

If you're on the fence about Hanover CC, I'll vouch for its quirk. There used to be a ski jump in the middle of the back nine; I don't recall whether they took it down during the Prichard renovation, but the fact that it was there is a pretty good indication of how severe the terrain is on a number of holes. Not much Ron could do about that.

There is an interesting side note on the course's history: Ralph Barton was a Dartmouth grad and learned the game on the Hanover Country Club course. He was hired as a math professor at the University of Minnesota, and he helped start both the University of Minnesota course and Midland Hills Country Club. He was instrumental in hiring Seth Raynor to design Midland Hills, and became his on-site foreman while the course was being built. Barton learned so much from Raynor -- and carried out his instructions so well -- that Raynor hired him away from the University of Minnesota to work for him fulltime. Barton eventually went into golf course design on his own, and one of the courses he worked on was -- Hanover Country Club. He designed nine new holes at Hanover CC, but I believe they fell into disuse by the '60s, except for a couple that were located on the east side of Lyme Road and were used as practice holes when I was there in the '70s.

I doubt that any of that makes Hanover CC a must-see course, however.

Rick:

I think they took the ski jump down before the Prichard renovation -- there were safety concerns that prompted its removal (plus it wasn't getting used . . . at least officially). 

I agree with what many on here have said about Hanover CC.  But I don't think any of it makes it the first course I would recommend Tom visit in NH.

PS:  I think the practice holes across Lyme road may still be there, but now that there's almost a full hole practice area on the course's side of the road, I'm not sure they get much use. 

[Carl Johnson]

After my trip to the Dakotas last week, I have reviews of courses in 43 states for the next edition of The Confidential Guide.  Before publication -- two years away at the earliest -- I'm determined to include at least one course worth reviewing in every state, except Alaska, unless someone convinces me there is a course there that deserves a special trip.

The other states I am missing are New Hampshire, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Utah.

If I am going to review just one or two courses in those states, which would be of most interest to readers?  The only one I've got a good list for is Utah -- courtesy of Matt Ward! -- where I hope to see Red Ledges, Promontory, Glenwild, and/or Sand Hollow.

I will ask for similar help for overseas destinations another day.  For now, please keep your recommendations to the six states I've listed.  Thanks for your help.

Tom,

For those of us who are in the not-completely-initiated category, would you have time for a little background?  I took a look at an early edition of the guide in a bookstore in the Village of Pinehurst five or six years ago, but did not want to spring for the book at the $$$$ they were asking.  Here are some of the thngs I'd like to know (maybe just answer by reference to other threads on this site).

A brief history of the guide?  What is the scope of the revision?  Are you just adding new courses?  Are you going to include peviously-rated courses and ratings on an updated, or not, basis?  In general, how do you decide what courses to include?  For example, why not the "best in Alaska"?  Granted, it would be an expensive and time-consuming trip (I know, because I'm going there in several weeks, though not for golf), but what the heck.  For the folks there, those courses are all they've got.  What are the ratings criteria?  (I've seen those, but don't recall where.)  Anything else by way of background?

Thanks, Carl

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - along the lines of Carl's post (sorry, just saw it): 

aside from the changes that have occurred in/with you over three decades, what would you say is the single biggest/most important change in the 'rating environment' since you first published CG?  And, if you can pin point that, do you think that this change has/will in turn affected how you are approaching/writing this new version?

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

For those of us who are in the not-completely-initiated category, would you have time for a little background?  I took a look at an early edition of the guide in a bookstore in the Village of Pinehurst five or six years ago, but did not want to spring for the book at the $$$$ they were asking.  Here are some of the thngs I'd like to know (maybe just answer by reference to other threads on this site).

A brief history of the guide?  What is the scope of the revision?  Are you just adding new courses?  Are you going to include peviously-rated courses and ratings on an updated, or not, basis?  In general, how do you decide what courses to include?  For example, why not the "best in Alaska"?  Granted, it would be an expensive and time-consuming trip (I know, because I'm going there in several weeks, though not for golf), but what the heck.  For the folks there, those courses are all they've got.  What are the ratings criteria?  (I've seen those, but don't recall where.)  Anything else by way of background?

Thanks, Carl

Carl:

Just as well you did not spring for the $$$, since a new edition will make the collectors' value of the previous editions go down considerably.

The original edition of The Confidential Guide was given to 40 of the people who had helped me the most in completing my travels around the golf world from 1980-87.  The intent was to repay them by sharing what I'd learned about which courses were worth the effort to visit.  It also allowed me to muse on my thoughts about good and bad golf architecture, through the prism of course reviews.

I had never considered publishing the book, but once the word was out about it in the golf business, I'd get calls from people who had pirate copies, and all sorts of feedback about it and requests for it ... and all that before the internet existed!  Anyway, I was encouraged by several people to get it out to a wider audience, and when times got slow for my fledgling design business in the mid-90's, I put it out there -- first in a limited edition of 1000 copies [with no pictures], and later in a "real" published version which sold 12,000 copies.

I have not revisited the book since 1996, because I agreed with several friends' advice that it would be unwise to play both designer and critic at the same time.  But I've missed getting out to see others' work (old and new), and I've missed writing about golf courses.  But with the boom in building new courses about over, I've got the time to think about a thorough revision.  And my status in the business is secure enough now that I don't think I'll be criticized as writing the book to advance my design career.

The original book included reviews of EVERY course I had ever seen -- one of the most controversial parts of it was that it had merciless reviews of some courses that were never intended to be anything more than a place to hit it around.  The new version will have many more courses to draw from, and there won't be room for them all, so the focus will shift to courses I would recommend for you to play.  The old reviews will be thoroughly edited if I've seen the course again, and maybe even if I haven't.  The book will still be critical -- it wouldn't be true to the original if it wasn't dead honest and no-holds-barred -- but it probably won't rankle as many people this way.  [Or maybe it will, since other designers aren't busy, either, and will have plenty of time to complain.]

I would like to include as many places around the world as I can -- some people will be surprised at the scope of it -- because golf is more of a worldwide game than it was 20 years ago, and there is a whole new audience for the book IF it includes enough courses that potential readers have played.  But I'm thinking that Alaska is one place few people would ever think of traveling with their clubs, so unless someone tells me of a great course in Alaska that's flying under the radar, I'll probably skip going there, and go review somewhere more interesting, like, say the Himalayan Golf Club in Nepal.  [Google it, and let me know if you see anything similar in Alaska.]

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - along the lines of Carl's post (sorry, just saw it): 

aside from the changes that have occurred in/with you over three decades, what would you say is the single biggest/most important change in the 'rating environment' since you first published CG?  And, if you can pin point that, do you think that this change has/will in turn affected how you are approaching/writing this new version?

Peter

Peter:

When I first wrote The Confidential Guide, I included a lot of "hidden gem" courses that were really completely unknown to most readers -- UK readers may have known of Pennard or Woodhall Spa, but Americans certainly did not; and American readers may have heard of Crystal Downs, but knew nothing about it.  And hardly any of them had ever been to Kingston Heath or Cape Breton Highlands.  Today, of course, there are so many more "rankings" out there with so many courses named on one list or another, but without any real information about them, and there are plenty of photos of many of them on Golf Club Atlas, but often without a simple and clear recommendation of whether they are worth the effort or not.  I think all of that will drive the demand for reviews.

Also, as I said to Carl, the game has much more of a foothold in Asia and Europe today, and I think it's important to start educating those golfers on the difference between expensive courses and really good ones.  But, I've got to have enough examples of golf courses in China and South Korea and Europe to make it work.  People decide to buy the book by reading my reviews of courses they've played, so there's got to be enough common ground between their world and mine to draw them in.

[Pete_Pittock]

Tom,
    If you are doing a great circle route to Asia Anchorage is on the way. Three of the top 5 courses are comfortably within an hour of the Anchorage airport (Eagleglen, Moose Run and Anchorage). I haven't played any of those but I did play Settlers Bay in Wasilla, probably in mid 1970s, with an extra set of clubs my relatives had. Back then I thought it was a notch below any of the second rung of Oregon courses of that era but way better than the Lake Vancouver course.
    Tiger Bernhardt could give you the best rundown on Louisiana.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:

Don't mind me, I'm just cranky today.

Tom:

This statement from your last post raised my eyebrows:

"I think it's important to start educating those golfers on the difference between expensive courses and really good ones." 

1.  Begs the question if inexpensive good courses can be found in Asia (I'm assuming there are a few in Europe), or if you were discussing recommendation for travelers from those areas when they are abroad.

2.  I'd love to see a list of U.S. courses that are expensive but not really good.  I've got a couple I'd recommend, but I'd prefer not to pick on the general Orlando area in that way.

3.  How much does this equation come into play:  High cost to play = big maintenance budget = being rated highly by those who value conditioning more than other factors?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

This statement from your last post raised my eyebrows:

"I think it's important to start educating those golfers on the difference between expensive courses and really good ones." 

1.  Begs the question if inexpensive good courses can be found in Asia (I'm assuming there are a few in Europe), or if you were discussing recommendation for travelers from those areas when they are abroad.

2.  I'd love to see a list of U.S. courses that are expensive but not really good.  I've got a couple I'd recommend, but I'd prefer not to pick on the general Orlando area in that way.

3.  How much does this equation come into play:  High cost to play = big maintenance budget = being rated highly by those who value conditioning more than other factors?

Sven:

Really, I just meant I was going to focus on quality architecture, as a counterpoint to the magazines (and the courses' own PR) which tend to promote how perfect the conditions are, and stress photographs over substance.

Unfortunately, as you touch on in your last point, there are lots of golfers who haven't thought about architecture very much, who just assume quality is about conditioning, and choose what course to play on vacation on the assumption that the highest-priced course must be the best one.  [When I lived in Myrtle Beach, this was literally true -- the courses that RAISED their prices, wound up being the most heavily booked.]

I am not sure if inexpensive good courses can be found in Asia [or if any inexpensive courses can be found there].  I just want to highlight what I think are the best courses, and why.  If that draws them in a little, then maybe they'll start to wonder why those ragged links in the UK got even higher ratings in my book, or be spurred to take a trip to Australia to find out what a 9 or a 10 on the Doak scale looks like.

[Sven Nilsen]

So there's more than one 9 or 10 in Australia?  Interesting, makes me look forward to the new edition even more.

[Joe McCormac]

Tom-
Although it will not help you with your next edition, any idea what happened (other than closed) to Pine Island near Biloxi, MS?  It was a Pete Dye course I played with my father 25+ years ago. 

I really enjoyed the course.  Built among the marshlands on seemingly seperate islands, it seemed unique to the area.  The google machine has nothing to offer.

[cary lichtenstein]

I'm selling mine to the high bidder...any bids

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

How about a two or three quick paragraphs about best military courses?

[PThomas]

the courses that RAISED their prices, wound up being the most heavily booked.]

a Giffen good, if I recall correctly from my 6 economic classes

[Jason Topp]

Tom:

When visiting Sand Hollow I would also visit Kokopelli.  Conditioning is a bit rough but I found it the most interesting of the other options around St. George and the setting is very unique.

[Will Lozier]

If you're on the fence about Hanover CC, I'll vouch for its quirk. There used to be a ski jump in the middle of the back nine; I don't recall whether they took it down during the Prichard renovation, but the fact that it was there is a pretty good indication of how severe the terrain is on a number of holes. Not much Ron could do about that.

There is an interesting side note on the course's history: Ralph Barton was a Dartmouth grad and learned the game on the Hanover Country Club course. He was hired as a math professor at the University of Minnesota, and he helped start both the University of Minnesota course and Midland Hills Country Club. He was instrumental in hiring Seth Raynor to design Midland Hills, and became his on-site foreman while the course was being built. Barton learned so much from Raynor -- and carried out his instructions so well -- that Raynor hired him away from the University of Minnesota to work for him fulltime. Barton eventually went into golf course design on his own, and one of the courses he worked on was -- Hanover Country Club. He designed nine new holes at Hanover CC, but I believe they fell into disuse by the '60s, except for a couple that were located on the east side of Lyme Road and were used as practice holes when I was there in the '70s.

I doubt that any of that makes Hanover CC a must-see course, however.

Whatever it makes it...great story!  In 8 years of living in both Burlington and Bath, ME, sadly I never made it down. 

Cheers

[Pete_Pittock]

Tom:

When visiting Sand Hollow I would also visit Kokopelli.  Conditioning is a bit rough but I found it the most interesting of the other options around St. George and the setting is very unique.

Jason,
Internet shows it closed June 1st. Someone wrote that it is closed for good, and they heard it was over water rights.

[Stephen Davis]

Tom:

When visiting Sand Hollow I would also visit Kokopelli.  Conditioning is a bit rough but I found it the most interesting of the other options around St. George and the setting is very unique.

Jason,
Internet shows it closed June 1st. Someone wrote that it is closed for good, and they heard it was over water rights.

That is too bad. It was a decent course that needed more time to grow in, but had a nice design. It was also refreshing as it was about 10 degrees cooler up there than at the other courses nearby.

[Brian Chapin]

I'm determined to include at least one course worth reviewing in every state, except Alaska, unless someone convinces me there is a course there that deserves a special trip.

This sounds an awful lot like MLB including an "All Star" from every team and at the same time having home feild advantage at stake for the World Series to try to make the game "meaningful".  If you have to go looking so hard for a worthy course in those states it seems to me you are probably just watering down the overall quality of the book.  That's not to say that the clubs listed so far couldn't be any good (I don't think I've been to any of them).. just that the idea of listing a course just because its in an unrepresnted state seems silly to me.

[Jason Topp]

Tom:

When visiting Sand Hollow I would also visit Kokopelli.  Conditioning is a bit rough but I found it the most interesting of the other options around St. George and the setting is very unique.

Jason,
Internet shows it closed June 1st. Someone wrote that it is closed for good, and they heard it was over water rights.

That is too bad. It was a decent course that needed more time to grow in, but had a nice design. It was also refreshing as it was about 10 degrees cooler up there than at the other courses nearby.

I wondered about that.  I tried to link the website but could not find it.