[David Kelly]

Maybe you're right.  Maybe I am following the crowd here, and not fully appreciating the club that over the years became my favorite place to visit.

I think it is all relative.  I'd put Stone Eagle 11th (give or take a few spots) out of 16 Renaissance Design courses that I've played but at the same time I'd rank it first out of maybe 30 or 40 courses I've played in the Coachella Valley.

BTW, if you take a golf cart to the first tee, know the short cuts between greens and tees and play to the 7th green from the 6th fairway Stone Eagle is walkable by someone who wants to do it.

[Jud_T]

But, it's true that a fair % of our new clients come to the game with some sort of rankings goal in mind.  Sad, but true.  That's the point of this thread, I'm trying to understand what to tell them.

How about "we'll build you the best course humanly possible given the property and your constraints.  If that ain't good enough, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Alternatively "I'm #5 on the all-time list of Golf Architects.  If you'd prefer to hire one of the top 4, feel free"

[Matthew Schulte]

Ballyneal
Pacific Dunes
Barnbougle Dunes
Stone Eagle
St. Andrews Beach
Streamsong Blue
CommonGround
Atlantic City

The Sheep Ranch

[David_Elvins]

To David Elvins,

I think the best holes at Stone Eagle are 2, 4, 6, 9, and let's say 17 and 18.

Hi John,

I would agree with most of those but my question was about how good they really are.  ie.  Are they as good as the best holes at St Andrews Beach, Old MacDonald, etc?  Stone Eagle is a really good course (and an amazing feat of architecture) but it has some pretty stiff competition in these rankings and I think the lack of a few really great stand out holes probably puts it behind a lot of other Doak courses.  Is this a fair thing to say?  

[Tom_Doak]

To David Elvins,

I think the best holes at Stone Eagle are 2, 4, 6, 9, and let's say 17 and 18.

Hi John,

I would agree with most of those but my question was about how good they really are.  ie.  Are they as good as the best holes at St Andrews Beach, Old MacDonald, etc?  Stone Eagle is a really good course (and an amazing feat of architecture) but it has some pretty stiff competition in these rankings and I think the lack of a few really great stand out holes probably puts it behind a lot of other Doak courses.  Is this a fair thing to say?  

David:

Sure, that's a fair thing to say.

I think one of the things that really holds back Stone Eagle (and to a lesser extent, Rock Creek) is that the rocky environment makes recovery play after a really bad shot sometimes impossible.  Most of my courses are popular partly because they are very playable, but in the rocky environment, or the desert, that's not as possible as it is on wonderful links ground.

The part that bothers me is when some people just decide the golf course in the other setting can never be as good, no matter what we might do, and fail to appreciate it for what it is.  Going up the mountain to play at Stone Eagle is one of the more special experiences we've created.  You don't get to hit a ball against that stark mountain background on any other type of course, and for me, at least, it's a thrilling place visually.  I do know how hard my crew worked, as they did at Ballyneal, to make the transitions blend away on a site where the transitions could not be more stark, and I'd like for people to recognize that, but I don't think the course should be ranked any differently because of it.  You've got to rank the golf experience as you find it.

I do think there are some great holes at Stone Eagle - #2, #8, #9, and #18 are the best of it for me.  That's not as many as St. Andrews Beach, but I'm not sure I've ever had a better site for golf than St. Andrews Beach.  I have a hard time comparing either to Old Macdonald, because however many great holes you identify at Old Mac, to me they aren't as original as the best of Stone Eagle, and I place a higher priority on originality than most people do.

[John Mayhugh]

Your participation on this site should be maintained to teaching and telling people that want to know why and how the ball bounces the way it does off of mounds, hummocks and rises; how to create greens receptive to shots and how to defend the pin strategically. How you use natural hazards to create the best routings possible for a golf course in your mindset.

You should also be yourself and be critical of bad architecture and how and who is performing it....Instead, it seems we get you becoming more Howard Roark......

Tommy,

If you're going to direct Tom on how he should be participating on Golf Club Atlas, why not at least set an example for him and participate here yourself?  It seems bad form to make a rare appearance on here to criticize him when you no longer make any contributions to the discussion.

How would you rank the Doak courses that you've played?  Mix in Coore/Crenshaw's if you want.

[Matt Bosela]

1a. Ballyneal
1b. Pacific Dunes


3. Dismal River (Red)
4. Sebonack
5. Old Macdonald
6. CommonGround

The first two could be interchanged depending on the day you ask me.  The last four were easy to lock into their positions.

I walked Dismal during the 2012 5th Major but haven't been fortunate enough to play it yet.


EDITED 11/16/16 - added Dismal River (Red) after playing it this summer

[John Mayhugh]

I think common ground is really special, more so for what it is.  Course-to-course, they're probably not in the same league.

My "Mac" was a mistake, I confused my bag for the theme.  

Thanks for clarifying.

How do you think the bags would be different if it were the Macdonald bag company?  

[Bruce Bearer]

Pacific Dunes
Old Macdonald
Rock Creek
Cape Kidnappers
Stone Eagle

[Adam Clayman]

I place a higher priority on originality than most people do.

Tom, It's true, you've done amazing things on terrain no one has even come close. Mountainous.

My sense is you value over coming obstacle like that highly. But you're right, there's something uber spiritual about golfing one's ball, where the backdrop changes as the trajectory of the ball rises and falls.

David Elvins, Inherent in your point above about the number of great holes seems to disregard the whole. We are talking about courses and the finest are greater than the sum of their parts.  

[Tom_Doak]

Apache Stronghold is still my favorite,

Apache
Pac Dunes
Sebonack
Old Mac
Beechtree (NLE)
Streamsong
Atlantic City *
Stone Eagle
Sheep Ranch*
Tumble Creek
Lost Dunes
Charlotte

(forgot Atlantic City and Sheep Ranch)

Mark:

I found it really interesting that you put all of the projects Jim Urbina worked on (except Charlotte) at the top of your list.  Nobody else has had a separation like that in favor of any of my associates in particular.  Interesting, though I don't know what to make of it.

Do you hit a power fade off the tee?

[Jason Topp]

Conditioning aside:

Pacific Dunes
Apache Stronghold
Barnbougle Dunes
Stoneagle

In my view, these are all pretty close in quality.  I could reverse the order and feel comfortable defending the position.

Tom - the the extent you want to know my thinking:

Stoneagle is the lowest because of two drawbacks - the nature of the site and several holes that played similarly - dogleg lefts where there was an opportunity to drive it on or near the green.  Each hole individually was enjoyable but 3 in a round is a drawback.

Barnbougle is second lowest because of the stretch of relatively uninteresting terrain on holes 1, 2 10 and (maybe) 11.  Also the routing of straight out and back on a windy locale makes for a long stretch of holes into the wind and downwind.  

I loved the setting of Apache Stronghold and it was still in decent enough shape when I played it that I could see the potential.  Obviously it would be at the bottom in its current state.

Pacific Dunes has terrific land but where it shines for me is what was done on the flatter land.  I am a big fan of the 12th at least on the downwind days I played it because of the unique slope of the green and the interest it creates on the 2nd shot where stopping the ball on the green is extraordinarily difficult,  I am also a big fan of the knob on the right of one of the other par fives - which is a terrific hazard forcing all kinds of interesting decisions and shots.  

I played all of the courses multiple times except Apache Stronghold with multiple visits to Stoneagle in different weather conditions.

If I were you and you have a client worried about ratings I suggest the client have an incredible piece of land, the economic strength to pay to keep the course in great condition consistent with its design and a business plan to make the place thrive.  There are enough struggling great courses out there that a great course alone will not be enough.

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

A few questions.

1. You mentioned that Stone Eagle gets rated below where you imagine it should be. St Andrews Beach probably does, too. Which of your courses do you think get overrated for the same kind of "sideline" reasons?

2. What do you make of the fact that four of the top nine courses in this poll are courses that Renaissance has designed in co-operation with another firm (Clayton x 2, Nicklaus & Jim Urbina)? Does collaboration with another team of architects get something extra out of the process?

3. You mentioned that Streamsong hasn't been received as well as you had hoped. Why do you think that is? (the GCA pre-opening hype seemed to rival that for Old Mac, but not the resulting reaction)

4. You've mentioned a few times over the years here that you've seen far less of Barnbougle Dunes as a finished product than most other courses you've done. Obviously it's much more remote than most are, so that stands to reason. Now you're working back in NZ and are consulting in Melbourne and Adelaide, do you have plans to revisit Bridport and become more familiar with your course there?

[Steve Lang]

 
1. Black Forest (having seen it being built a bit and talking with a guy on a dozer many years ago, and being my home course for a month or two each summer)

2. Ballyneal (great fun one September day in the wind with the Colton Gang, with pre-instructions from Adam)

3. Old Mac

4. Pac Dunes

5. Rawls

Special Mention... X. NLE HighPointe ( its a crying shame to see them growing corn on the front 9)

[David_Elvins]

David Elvins, Inherent in your point above about the number of great holes seems to disregard the whole. We are talking about courses and the finest are greater than the sum of their parts.  

I agree with you 100% Adam but someone told me a long time ago that "great courses have great golf holes" and I haven't found anything in the years since to make me doubt this.  I don't think that the sum of the parts at Stone Eagle is all that good anyway.  It doesn't have the variety of green complexes or hole types that St Andrews Beach does, to take one example.  

[David_Elvins]

David:

Sure, that's a fair thing to say.

I think one of the things that really holds back Stone Eagle (and to a lesser extent, Rock Creek) is that the rocky environment makes recovery play after a really bad shot sometimes impossible.  Most of my courses are popular partly because they are very playable, but in the rocky environment, or the desert, that's not as possible as it is on wonderful links ground.

The part that bothers me is when some people just decide the golf course in the other setting can never be as good, no matter what we might do, and fail to appreciate it for what it is.  Going up the mountain to play at Stone Eagle is one of the more special experiences we've created.  You don't get to hit a ball against that stark mountain background on any other type of course, and for me, at least, it's a thrilling place visually.  I do know how hard my crew worked, as they did at Ballyneal, to make the transitions blend away on a site where the transitions could not be more stark, and I'd like for people to recognize that, but I don't think the course should be ranked any differently because of it.  You've got to rank the golf experience as you find it.

I do think there are some great holes at Stone Eagle - #2, #8, #9, and #18 are the best of it for me.  That's not as many as St. Andrews Beach, but I'm not sure I've ever had a better site for golf than St. Andrews Beach.  I have a hard time comparing either to Old Macdonald, because however many great holes you identify at Old Mac, to me they aren't as original as the best of Stone Eagle, and I place a higher priority on originality than most people do.

I think Old MacDonald is a difficult course to rank for a whole host of reasons but there are many more shots on that course that I can't wait to get back and try again, and that counts for a lot, IMO.  

And is Stone Eagle that original?  Whilst it's different that a lot of your other work, and there are some great architectural solutions to the steep slopes and limited fairway acreage, are the holes that original in the way they play?   Take a hole like 18, for example,  A really good finishing hole but not one where I thought "I haven't seen anything play like this before".  

[Peter Ferlicca]

OK I am going to reply about Stone Eagle.  I am obsessed with that place, having worked there for over 5 years and put in a ton of golf rounds, I will admit there are not to many places that beat Stone Eagle in ambience.  I have been in both deserts now living in Scottsdale, and nothing, I mean nothing comes close to the views you get at Stone Eagle, it really is a sight to behold.  The golf course is just so different from anything you will ever play.  

I will agree that a majority of the golf course plays uphill or downhill, if you like elevation change though, this is your kind of golf course.

9, 11, and 16 are all dogleg left 300 - 360 yard par 4's.  The more you play there though the more you will realize how different each hole is, and when you can attack, and when you should lay back.  Most of you people commenting on Stone Eagle how probably played it 2-5 times which is understandable, but Stone Eagle is an amazing members course, that gets better with each play. The more you learn the flag locations and how to play them, it just becomes an amazing golf experience.  

The conditions are always top notch, which of course makes the experience that much better.  

Also, like John Kirk said, when you play in the late afternoon and see all the long shadows, it is amazing how cool the place looks, I cannot imagine a place I would rather be than on a late March afternoon around 6pm than at Stone Eagle on hole 16.  

In my opinion, the standout holes are 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18.  Obviously I am a little biased, but these are holes that you will not see anywhere else when you play golf, they are all original and fantastic golf holes.  

For me to have Stone Eagle ranked as Tom Doaks #5 course, that just shows how strong of portfolio he has.  

[Tommy Naccarato]

Your participation on this site should be maintained to teaching and telling people that want to know why and how the ball bounces the way it does off of mounds, hummocks and rises; how to create greens receptive to shots and how to defend the pin strategically. How you use natural hazards to create the best routings possible for a golf course in your mindset.

You should also be yourself and be critical of bad architecture and how and who is performing it....Instead, it seems we get you becoming more Howard Roark......

Tommy,

If you're going to direct Tom on how he should be participating on Golf Club Atlas, why not at least set an example for him and participate here yourself?  It seems bad form to make a rare appearance on here to criticize him when you no longer make any contributions to the discussion.

How would you rank the Doak courses that you've played?  Mix in Coore/Crenshaw's if you want.

John,
I'm confident that my past contributions as well as being an original member of this site are worthy of an opinion once in a while. At least I would hope so!

This thread sucks.

Did you think for a second maybe this is the reason others don't participate, that they can see past the bullshit? Further, why bring Coore & Crenshaw into this when it's a thread started by one of golf's most talented architects whining and sniveling that he only has four of the top ten courses in the Golfweek top 10?!?!?!? What is the point to this?

This thread isn't constructive, it desperate. Eight pages of blah blah blah..... (Blah blah... Blah blah blah blah.... Blah blah)

As one of the Sport's most prolific architects, he should be telling you the what, why and how while doing what he does best with an open book of critique which directed many of us to understand that mediocrity had no place in golf architecture. Instead that important fact has been now relegated to a personal quest to explain to clients why his courses can't all be in the top ten-a topic he openly detested for years!

You think you know Tom Doak?  I don't think so. Tom doesn't need any of your opinions to decide how great of an architect he is. He just needs you talking about it. He's become everything his minimalist manifesto professed against:

The sad part is that American golfers have become so used to pandering designs that they don't understand some minimalist ideas

Chris Squire has got it right. He nailed it. I'm just disappointed as Hell that you can't see that John.

[Jim Nelson]

Seems like the only way this is a valid statistical exercise is to have the posters declare if they belong to the course or have some relationship with it.  A lot of homers in here.

[Ross Harmon]

Ballyneal
Old Mac
Pacific Dunes
CommonGround

I can't believe I've only played 4... need to plan some trips!

[Jim Nugent]

Tommy, my take on Doak is somewhat different.  My sense, FWIW, is that he is a golf junkie.  I think he loves golf.  When he isn't designing courses (which keeps him incredibly busy), or running his design business (another, separate full-time job), or visiting other courses, or playing, he spends time on this golf discussion group.  I doubt GCA.com helps his career now, if it ever did: at least since he finished PD he's been a star who can often write his own ticket.  IMO Tom takes part because he loves this stuff.    

The point of this thread is not to rank Doak's courses against PVCC, CPC or the rest of the world's elite.  It is to rank them against each other.  I took his comment on Stone Eagle to mean it surprises him that people don't like it as much as he does.  Several guys are giving him their frank reasons why.  

I his methodology of tabulating the rankings is a bit misleading -- the unofficial GCA rankings from a few years ago do a better job -- but this thread has been interesting to me, to see how some of us place Tom's courses against each other, and why.  

btw, I don't mind overall ranking discussions.  Even though this is all subjective, like music or art, it's fun for me to try and objectify and quantify it, and see how others do the same.  

[John Kavanaugh]

A lot of people don't realize that Doak has an interesting and vibrant sense of humor.  I like happy interactive Doak and hope he keeps posting like a friend instead of like an instructor.  We have all learned from this thread and had a great time doing so, where is the harm?

I wish that back in the golden years of criticism Rees and Fazio posted on this site.  Hell, they may have even hired some of us to doodle on their scorecards.  From my experience those people who know Rees understand and appreciate his take better than those who don't.

[John Mayhugh]

I'm confident that my past contributions as well as being an original member of this site are worthy of an opinion once in a while. At least I would hope so!

This thread sucks.

Did you think for a second maybe this is the reason others don't participate, that they can see past the bullshit? Further, why bring Coore & Crenshaw into this when it's a thread started by one of golf's most talented architects whining and sniveling that he only has four of the top ten courses in the Golfweek top 10?!?!?!? What is the point to this?

This thread isn't constructive, it desperate. Eight pages of blah blah blah..... (Blah blah... Blah blah blah blah.... Blah blah)

As one of the Sport's most prolific architects, he should be telling you the what, why and how while doing what he does best with an open book of critique which directed many of us to understand that mediocrity had no place in golf architecture. Instead that important fact has been now relegated to a personal quest to explain to clients why his courses can't all be in the top ten-a topic he openly detested for years!

You think you know Tom Doak?  I don't think so. Tom doesn't need any of your opinions to decide how great of an architect he is. He just needs you talking about it. He's become everything his minimalist manifesto professed against:

The sad part is that American golfers have become so used to pandering designs that they don't understand some minimalist ideas

Chris Squire has got it right. He nailed it. I'm just disappointed as Hell that you can't see that John.

So your past participation GCA entitles you to be harshly critical of an individual (not his work, but the person), but Doak's past participation doesn't entitle him to a "Sally Field" moment (if that's even what it is)?  

I'm fine with Doak asking how people view his courses, even if he doesn't like the answers.

[Jim Franklin]

Tommy, my take on Doak is somewhat different.  My sense, FWIW, is that he is a golf junkie.  I think he loves golf.  When he isn't designing courses (which keeps him incredibly busy), or running his design business (another, separate full-time job), or visiting other courses, or playing, he spends time on this golf discussion group.  I doubt GCA.com helps his career now, if it ever did: at least since he finished PD he's been a star who can often write his own ticket.  IMO Tom takes part because he loves this stuff.    

The point of this thread is not to rank Doak's courses against PVCC, CPC or the rest of the world's elite.  It is to rank them against each other.  I took his comment on Stone Eagle to mean it surprises him that people don't like it as much as he does.  Several guys are giving him their frank reasons why.  

I his methodology of tabulating the rankings is a bit misleading -- the unofficial GCA rankings from a few years ago do a better job -- but this thread has been interesting to me, to see how some of us place Tom's courses against each other, and why.  

btw, I don't mind overall ranking discussions.  Even though this is all subjective, like music or art, it's fun for me to try and objectify and quantify it, and see how others do the same.  

I like this thread. I don't like that people don't LOVE Rock Creek like I do, but the thread is interesting. I enjoy TD's participation in this site and thread too. I can't wait to see Streamsong this fall and need to get back to Stone Eagle.

[John Kavanaugh]

The best thing about this thread is the reminder that we no longer have to listen to Shivas croon incessantly about Rock Creek.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()