A Little Help for The Confidential Guide

[George Pazin]

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?

Actually, I think most people do this - I played such and such, it was a (true ) Doak 5, and this course is better, so it must be a 6, or whatever.

Regardless of whether one uses your method or follows Tom's words, it's just a bit odd to me the way people throw around "Doak" ratings. Perhaps it just me, I will admit to a certain preference for being exact in expressing such things, but certainly everyone would admit that there is a gigantic difference between someone who has played a handful of top 25 or whatever courses and someone who has played most (and even designed and built a few!), when one is making the claim that such and such a course is "worth driving 100 miles to play".

[Carl Johnson]

Tom,

For those of us who are in the not-completely-initiated category, would you have time for a little 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 . . . .

Thanks for the response.  You've clarified a lot for me.  Carl

[Brad Tufts]

Hi Tom,

I can echo what most have said about NH, with a couple additions...

Hanover CC holds a special place in my heart, as I went to golf camp there at age 15, my wife went to Tuck, and I now count Dartmouth as a work client, so I have played it many times pre and post renovation.  The history is neat, but the current course is not noteworthy on anything more than a regional level.  The old Barton (possibly) holes across the street now used as practice holes are pretty neat if you know where you are going.  There are about 5-6 greens still there, but navigating the multiple corridors and blind hillsides is a bit tough for a first timer...I wouldn't be surprised if a newbie missed one.

Lake Sunapee and Manchester CC are great old Ross courses, and MCC is the perennial #1 course in the state by GD's metrics.  The Balsams is a great Ross layout too, and is hidden merely by the fact that it is almost in Canada, and located at the top of a mountain.  All are worth a look if time is on your side, probably ranked Balsams, MCC, LS for uniqueness.  Bald Peak also gets great reviews (partly because of its Myopia/Chicago Golf-type exclusivity?) but I have yet to play there.

Lake Winnepesaukee, GC of New England, Montcalm, and Baker Hill are the new courses on the block, but I have only played the first two.  LW is a treat, but thoroughly modern.  Some beautiful wooded landscapes and rock outcroppings throughout, although with blinding white sand...  GC of NE is also a good layout from the Palmer group, and wouldn't be out of place in the Western US.

Portsmouth CC is a neat early-mid career RTJ course with several holes along Great Bay, the inland salt water waterway.  They hosted the New England Amateur a few years back.

Other courses to research are North Conway CC, Keene CC, Nashua CC, and Wentworth (Rye Beach), probably in that order.  None of those will make any "best of" lists outside of NH, but all have some history...NCCC goes back to about 1900, Wentworth is a Ross/Silva, and the other two have Wayne Stiles roots.

Has Attitash mentioned golf again lately?

[Jud_T]

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?

Mark,

I think this way, but in a backhanded manner.  If every course that guys on here gave a 7 or an 8 to were to fit, the top 100 would have 300 courses in it.  It's amazing the amount of grade inflation that's thrown around as everyone here wants to put an exclamation point on courses they like.  So I suppose I look at the criteria, mentally assign a course, for instance, a 7, then knock it down a peg when I realize that it really belongs outside the top 100.  It's gotten to the point on here that a 5 or a 6 is seen as a slight, when in fact a 6 should be a very interesting course that's just a hair below the very best and may in fact be a personal favorite depending on one's predilections.

[Matt MacIver]

Tom - I think you said you want to be inclusive to most possible geographies in order to reach a greater audience.  But in so doing, do you imagine you won't have time or ability to see and rank all the "best" courses in the world?  For instance, take whatever Top 200/300/400 US and/or World ranking - do you intend to have ratings for them all, or will there some left out?  Seems a shame at some level to err towards quantity vs. quality, but maybe the masses care (and will pay) for quantity while only 1500 GCAers would appreciate the granularity within the top tiers. 

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I'm not sure.  Seems to me it's the granularity and particularly the writeups beyond the numbers that one can really learn from.  It's the singularity of Tom's point of view and in relief how one's own biases stack up that are interesting.  What I'm looking to find is that off-the-run quirky Doak 6 that I might love that I've never seen or even heard of rather than how Tom's rating of Augusta and Pebble compares to the other rags, or what number he assigns an otherwise highly rated championship track that I have no interest in playing, regardless of exclusivity or prestige.  (OK, I am interested in what number he assigns Rich Harvest, Butler and Medinah.. )

[Sean_A]

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?

Actually, I think most people do this - I played such and such, it was a (true ) Doak 5, and this course is better, so it must be a 6, or whatever.

Regardless of whether one uses your method or follows Tom's words, it's just a bit odd to me the way people throw around "Doak" ratings. Perhaps it just me, I will admit to a certain preference for being exact in expressing such things, but certainly everyone would admit that there is a gigantic difference between someone who has played a handful of top 25 or whatever courses and someone who has played most (and even designed and built a few!), when one is making the claim that such and such a course is "worth driving 100 miles to play".

George

I am not so certain this is the case.  As it happens, I think the Doak Scale is probably better than any other rankings I have seen (the exception being perhaps the Unofficial GCA.com rankings).  That is as much down to his essentially grouping courses rather than trying to list them 1 to infinity as it is his opinions on the quality of the courses.  Tom is clever in that he makes room for some unusual courses which pull at the heart strings rather than deliver top notch holes one after the other.  In the end, rankings are like anything people get interested in.  One finds guys he trusts for advice and then hits the road.  Vast experience in the field is nothing close to a guarantee of good recommendations.  

Ciao  

[Jim Franklin]

Did he say if he was including his own designs in this new version of the guide?

RCCC has to be a 10.

[Jud_T]

Jim,

Yes.  It would be kind of silly not to, especially since they are among the best built since the last edition.

[Howard Riefs]

Did he say if he was including his own designs in this new version of the guide?

RCCC has to be a 10.

Yes.

As Tom wrote in another recent thread when he revealed the updated version...

Tom,

I only have 3 9s on my list of courses played (that i consider to be 9s)....and they all belong to you.

50 years from now, which one do you think will be the best candidate for a 10? PD, RCCC, or BN?

Or perhaps you feel one of them should already be considered as such?

Kalen

Kalen:

Rating one's own courses is pretty difficult, and one of the reasons I've hesitated to update my book.  My clients will be bummed if I don't give them all 10's.  I won't give away anything for now about how I am going to handle that, but I think I've got a solution that won't be seen as a cop-out.

As for fifty years from now, recent experience has told me that the first order of business is to be sure that the golf course will still BE there in fifty years.  I hope that all three you mentioned will thrive, but if you consider the quality of all three to be nearly equal, you'd have to make Pacific Dunes the favorite in that horse race.

I respectfully submit that Tom work on a device to not leave his own work out of the next "Guide". Might it be via a respected "guest writer" colleague applying the "Scale" and description to Tom's best courses. How could Ballyneal and Old MacDonald (and others I have not played) not be recognized for their quality.
IMHO.
John Crowley

John:

Rest assured that I do not plan to write and self-publish a book about all the great courses I have ever seen, only to leave all of my own work out of the book because someone might think my opinions are "biased".  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52604.0.html

[Tim Leahy]

Tom, I would be interested to know which courses in California you will be reviewing.

Also, I have heard that Belle Terre(Dye) near Baton Rouge is pretty good.

[Carl Nichols]

Hi Tom,

I can echo what most have said about NH, with a couple additions...

Hanover CC holds a special place in my heart, as I went to golf camp there at age 15, my wife went to Tuck, and I now count Dartmouth as a work client, so I have played it many times pre and post renovation.  The history is neat, but the current course is not noteworthy on anything more than a regional level.  The old Barton (possibly) holes across the street now used as practice holes are pretty neat if you know where you are going.  There are about 5-6 greens still there, but navigating the multiple corridors and blind hillsides is a bit tough for a first timer...I wouldn't be surprised if a newbie missed one.

Lake Sunapee and Manchester CC are great old Ross courses, and MCC is the perennial #1 course in the state by GD's metrics.  The Balsams is a great Ross layout too, and is hidden merely by the fact that it is almost in Canada, and located at the top of a mountain.  All are worth a look if time is on your side, probably ranked Balsams, MCC, LS for uniqueness.  Bald Peak also gets great reviews (partly because of its Myopia/Chicago Golf-type exclusivity?) but I have yet to play there.

Lake Winnepesaukee, GC of New England, Montcalm, and Baker Hill are the new courses on the block, but I have only played the first two.  LW is a treat, but thoroughly modern.  Some beautiful wooded landscapes and rock outcroppings throughout, although with blinding white sand...  GC of NE is also a good layout from the Palmer group, and wouldn't be out of place in the Western US.

Portsmouth CC is a neat early-mid career RTJ course with several holes along Great Bay, the inland salt water waterway.  They hosted the New England Amateur a few years back.

Other courses to research are North Conway CC, Keene CC, Nashua CC, and Wentworth (Rye Beach), probably in that order.  None of those will make any "best of" lists outside of NH, but all have some history...NCCC goes back to about 1900, Wentworth is a Ross/Silva, and the other two have Wayne Stiles roots.

Has Attitash mentioned golf again lately?

Brad:
Have you played the restored Bretton Woods course? 

[Jud_T]

Haven't played it although I was planning a poker trip there a couple years back, but if you're looking for a course in Mississippi, I suppose Fallen Oak would be one to check out.  #48 Modern list in Golfweek:

http://www.fallenoak.com/layout9.asp?id=25&page=2552

[Brad Tufts]

Crap....forgot to add that one to the category of The Balsams, Lake Sunapee, and MCC.

I played it once with the old routing, and apart from the really neat old first hole that used to literally start from the hotel veranda, it was pretty boring.

Not so anymore.  Silva's renovation has definately brought the course back into the equation when it comes to the best of NH golf.  It has somewhat of a heathland (without the heath) character now, and looks closer to the original idea 100 years ago.  There is a new par three on the back nine that is really cool, with Mt. Washington and the Presidentials down the left side.

[Paul Jones]

Tom,

From Louisiana, I would pick one of the following (in no specific order):

- The Bluffs - Palmer/Sealy - St. Francisville - best public course
- The Country Club of Louisiana - Nicklaus - Baton Rouge - Private
- Oakbourne - Dick Wilson - Lafayette - Private (mine and Tigers home course)
- Money Hill - Ron Garl - Abita Springs - Private
- Metairie CC - Raynor (not much left, but still good) - Metairie - Private
- Squire Creek - Tom Fazio - Choudrant - Private (best condition)

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, Actually Metairie was redone and now is a pretty average but real Raynor. I agree with Paul's picks but would drop Money Hill and add Bayou Desaird Cc an old Maxwell course in Monroe which was restored 2 years ago. It is hard to come here and not look at the Jacks course in New Orleans where they played the tour stop for years. I personally like CC of La a little better though. The Bluffs when in good condition is one of the better Palmers I have played anywhere. There is a good Art Hills course in Shreveport which escapes me a the moment but it would be at the bottom of this list. I might add Baton Rouge Cc but I have not played but 5 or 6 holes since Rees redid it. It was a good classic course before Rees messed it up with David Toms holding the membership in a spell while he did his Reesjob on it.

Squire Creek 1 an average to better than average top line Fazio, built during the Dallas National period.
Oakbourse cc solid 2 in state
Bayou Desaird Cc 3rd, great match play course and like Oakbourne and Squire Creek a regular on the state am rotation and usga qualifyers
Bluffs 4rd
CC LA 5th
Metairie is lower because it is not a hard course but is interesting. Good fun Raynor that they are still trying to maintain correctly. If they ever get the greens right it will be the most fun course on the gulf coast to play.
Squire and the others are rater friendly. I know the owners or Club Pres in most of the other cases if you have a problem just PM me.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mississippi has a few new courses(3) along the gulf coast which should be seen. And Laurel Cc is a incredible unknown great course. It uses its land feature as well as Seminole works magic on one sand ridge. I have not played the Fazio casino course(Dancing Rabbit) in northern Mississippi to note how good it really is. Old Waverly is good and worthy. There are one or two courses in Jackson to be seen as well. I have such a  distain for all things Mississippi as an LSU man that it pains me to say anything nice or even mention the places in the state by name. But there is a good bit of decent golf which is unknown to people who marry outside the family. Mike Young designed a real good course named Beau Pre in Natchez.

[Adam_Messix]

Tiger--

The course that you're thinking of in Shreveport is Southern Trace.  It's a nice course but I don't think it would crack your top 5.  

It's funny that you think that Metairie isn't very hard.  The last time I played there was in a tournament where it was so cold and windy that the scores were really high.  What are your thoughts on New Orleans CC?  I've enjoyed my rounds there even though the course is on flat ground.  

Baton Rouge CC follows the same routing as before and it's still tight, but the greens are totally different and in the Rees Jones mold.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

The only ones in arkanasas that i know of are  are Chenel CC and whatever that Fazio is A------, texarkana Cc is reportedly ok.  

Adam I agree on Southern Trace. I have not played there since I was state am worthy.
I think you caught Metairie on a rare day. It is my favorite course in NOLA by far. It can be tough when the wind is blowing and the small greens get hard to hit. I have only played New Orleans Cc post renovation a few times. I have mixed feelings and frankly feel Bobby Weed did a good job. It is not really good enough to be in this discussion. Both it and Metairie have the same problem of being squeezed in on small flat poorly drained below sea level tracts. Metairie has a  huge design edge to me.   New Orleans Cc is the proper home course for the New Orleans gentlemen set. Yet as you know golf is not the way to pass time of choice for those men. Well except Tommy Brennan and a few others who take the game seriously. It is good to see you on here. I hope all is well with you.

Tim Belle Terre is an ok play but not worth you or Toms time. There are better options in that part of the state much less the New Orleans metro area.

Tom the more I think of it, there is a good chance we can get you in and out of La and Miss with zero jail time. We may have to rename you Lester and work on the accent a bit for North la and Miss. There is a different name like Andre and a french accent for South La and New Orleans. It would be a shame for you to miss the best food and music in the usa and have a huge hole in your book. I am happy to facilitate in this part of the world to help wherever you find the need. I have lots of time on my hands these days when not in California or Houston.
Mike Young a friend of mine played the Island last week and had nothing but great things to say about it. I just smiled.

[Tom_Doak]

Tiger:

Thanks for all of your recommendations.  I will definitely be in touch when I have an idea of a schedule to come down that way again; we likely have a few months to figure that out.  I did go to New Orleans a few years back with my wife and my in-laws ... a great trip for food and relaxation, even though I never thought of going to look at a golf course. 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom I look forward to it. Good luck on the current and new projects.

[Adam_Messix]

Tiger--

Hope your health is starting to cooperate and you're getting to play. 

I agree that NOCC is on a tight piece of property, but I do think it makes pretty good use of it.  Those first three holes are really tough when there's any wind and there's plenty of fun golf throughout.  NOCC has several really good players, including Tommy Brennan and Gary Brewster but it's more of a society club. 

Metairie is a cool little golf course that keeps getting better with the subtle improvements they keep making to it. 

As far as New Hampshire goes, I really like Bald Peak Colony Club, a cool Ross effort.

In Arkansas, it's Alotian and it's not a close contest.

In Mississippi, there are a coupule of area options.  There are several courses near Jackson:  Annandale and Reunion are very close to each other and are nice tracks and I really enjoyed the Country Club of Jackson which was recently renovated by John Fought.  In the south closer to New Orleans, Fallen Oak is a excellentTom Fazio effort. 

[JC Jones]

The problem I see with this is that unless he is going to visit each and every course again, the book will be incredibly misleading.  All of the old reviews are fine when everyone knows the book is 20 years old.  The old reviews are not fine when they are a part of a new book and people will think they are current.

Each course that hasn't been reviewed since the last edition should be noted as such with notations to the fact that the course could have changed because nature changes or because there has been architectural changes.

So, a new confidential guide would be great but it seems to me that in order to be accurate and not misleading, it is probably going to be pretty short compared to the last one.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Tiger/Paul,

Squire Creek is a nice golf course. It's nothing we haven't seen out of Fazio before. I'd take Oakbourne over it every day of the week.

Cheers,
Wyatt

[Tom_Doak]

The problem I see with this is that unless he is going to visit each and every course again, the book will be incredibly misleading.  All of the old reviews are fine when everyone knows the book is 20 years old.  The old reviews are not fine when they are a part of a new book and people will think they are current.

Each course that hasn't been reviewed since the last edition should be noted as such with notations to the fact that the course could have changed because nature changes or because there has been architectural changes.

So, a new confidential guide would be great but it seems to me that in order to be accurate and not misleading, it is probably going to be pretty short compared to the last one.

JC:

The date of the last time I saw each course was in the old book, and will be in the new one as well.

I guess I just don't agree with your premise that these courses change drastically over the years.  [For example, check out my 20-year-old review of Phoenixville CC in the Guide, vs. Joe Bausch's current GCA thread on the course.]  Sure, there have been a lot of restorations over the past few years, but most of my reviews gave courses the benefit of the doubt on such stuff in the first place.

You are right that it would be hard for anyone to publish something as current as the original edition of The Confidential Guide was.  But, I've got a few tricks up my sleeve so that it will be more current than you expect.