The Mysterious Doak 0

[Josh Tarble]

How do you decide what equals a Doak 0?

This past weekend I played a relatively highly touted course, one that a couple of my friends were really hyping and held in high regard.  As we were playing I was trying to maintain a positive attitude but the course continually kept putting me off.  But all I could think of was "this is the type of course that makes golf, long, boring and expensive."

The cart rides between each hole were sometimes in excess of 5 minutes, the bunkering was repetitive, poorly placed and penal.  All the fairways were edged by mounding and each had a "bowled-in" feel.  The par 3s were almost identical, I teed off with the same club on 3 of the 4 and should have on the other.  There was no thought into any shot other than hit it high and far and to top things off it had one of the worst holes I've ever played - a 580+ yard par 5 in which you had to lay up with an iron off the tee.  

To sum it up, it was a beautiful day, had a nice group playing and the course was so bad it nearly put me in a bad mood.  It actually turned into a joke between 2 of us because it got so bad.  So what are the reasons a course would get a 0?  I can't imagine anything worse than what I played, so I'd like to know.

[Gary Sato]

I think Toms description is that the land is so bad that a course should not have been built on the site to begin with. 

Is the course you're describing that bad or was it bad architecture?

[John Percival]

C.mon, Josh.
At least a hint of the course's name
Or location
Or a pic

[Chris Pearson]

Heh, that 580-yd three shotter reminds me of the 663-yd second hole at Willow Springs in San Antonio, a double dogleg right that allows for no more than a 3 or 4-iron off the tee. Probably the worst hole I played in 2014.

Like John, I'd love to know the name of this course so I can look it up on Google maps. It's kinda like looking at a car wreck—it's one of those things that's hard to resist

[Josh Tarble]

Gary,
I would say the site was extreme to begin with and the architecture did it no favors.  I don't think a tight walk-able routing would have been possible, but surely something a little better than what is there would have been.  My main issue was just the overall repetitiveness and blandness of the course.  On a wild sit I would have thought there would be a few unique features or at least something better than 4 drop shot par 3s and holes dynamited into the side of the hills. 

I'll let it run a bit longer and then give the course.

[jeffwarne]

Sounds like the problem is less with the course and more with the taste of a "couple friends"

[Josh Tarble]

Jeff,

That could be true...I've been known to rub shoulders with a questionable crowd 

It does bring up an interesting point, as I think it pertains to the courses current ranking. 

After the round I questioned my friends' reasoning for liking the course and if they still held the same opinion.  They actually said they didn't like it nearly as much the second time around and thought perhaps all they remembered were the views (which are great) and the conditioning (which was also very good).

Point being, I think that makes perfect sense in regards to many courses rankings or status.  They have been hit-and-run, one time plays, rated highly because of views, amenities, conditioning, etc. and they would not be regarded nearly as high with multiple plays over multiple days.

[Carl Nichols]

Was it a Norman or Palmer design?

[Garland Bayley]

There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.

Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.

[Joel_Stewart]

There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.

Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.

You must be referring to The Ranch in San Jose.

[Josh Tarble]

Actually not a Norman or Palmer design. 

I would also add another criteria to a Doak 0:

The cart paths (or path because it was a continuous ribbon of concrete) must cost more than the golf course.

[Matthew Petersen]

It sounds like you're describing a zero to me.

Bland is one thing. Expensive is one thing. Bland and expensive, with long rides between holes and no variety to boot? That's a special class.

I am with Gary. If you tend to feel like not building this golf course at all would have been preferable, then it's pretty much a 0. The phrase of Tom's that always sticks in my mind is that such a course can "poison the mind."

[Garland Bayley]

There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.

Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.

You must be referring to The Ranch in San Jose.

Thanks,

That's the one. I was looking too far east to find it in Google Earth.

[Mark Provenzano]

There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.

Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.

You must be referring to The Ranch in San Jose.

That's the one I was thinking of, until he mentioned the Par 3s being so similar--13 is a flat half wedge hole.

[Bill Brightly]

The Doak Zero:

A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn't have been built in the first place.

[Josh Tarble]

Bill,
Thank you for providing the definition.  What makes a 0 for you? Do you think it varies from person to person?

I ask because I mentioned, this course is fairly well regarded and on a couple of "best of" lists.

[Brett Wiesley]

Given it is frigid in most parts of the US right now, and the description of the course I'd guess a Vegas course, owned by a Casino, in...lets say Boulder City?

[Brian Finn]

Given it is frigid in most parts of the US right now, and the description of the course I'd guess a Vegas course, owned by a Casino, in...lets say Boulder City?

Good guess.

My money is on Phoenix / Scottsdale. Josh mentioned it appears on some 'best of' lists. I can't lie...I am dying to know.

[Josh Tarble]

Should have realized this would develop into a "guess the course". Poorly titled thread on my part, should have called it "the elusive Doak 0"

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,
Thank you for providing the definition.  What makes a 0 for you? Do you think it varies from person to person?

I ask because I mentioned, this course is fairly well regarded and on a couple of "best of" lists.

The Doak Scale is very interesting to read. Tom's ratings are probably based a lot more on the construction costs; he can tell far better than us as "consumers" how much dirt was moved, etc. I don't think he would kill a simple design that cost little to build, a course that was never striving to be more than it is.

For me a zero would be a course where I wanted to walk off the course. A course that was so bad that I lost interest in hitting shots. (And it would have to be REALLY bad to get me to walk off a golf course...)

I think I have only played one Doak Zero, a totally contrived design that went way over the top, was universally panned, and subsequently been has "softened" to look more normal.

[Mark Fedeli]

My money is on Phoenix / Scottsdale.

For that area, my guess is Quintero. The 4 drop shot par 3's brought it to mind.

[Josh Tarble]

Mark,

Good guess. That indeed was the course.

Bill's last post was more along the lines of what I was looking for in the thread.  Why I posted at all is that I don't see Quintero sharing many qualities with the Castle course for example. My disdain for Q was based on what are really difficult yet very generic and repetitive holes and a really poor routing on a severe site. I do think the site could have allowed for something unique and interesting and while maybe it still would have been bad it at least would have been different.

[K Rafkin]

I have not played Quintero but it thought id look it up just for kicks.  You know how google maps usually shows golf courses as a single lighter color green blob?  Well Google maps registers Quintero as 10 or so individual green blobs.  When you take a look at google earth you can get a good idea about how far the cart ride really is between the holes.

Quintero really is closer to 18 one hole courses then one 18 hole course.

[Mark Fedeli]

Mark,

Good guess. That indeed was the course.

Bill's last post was more along the lines of what I was looking for in the thread.  Why I posted at all is that I don't see Quintero sharing many qualities with the Castle course for example. My disdain for Q was based on what are really difficult yet very generic and repetitive holes and a really poor routing on a severe site. I do think the site could have allowed for something unique and interesting and while maybe it still would have been bad it at least would have been different.

It's interesting, I never before considered Quintero a Doak 0 but the things I disliked about it would absolutely make it qualify. I really disliked how almost every hole played uphill and then straight back down on each par 3. What I'm curious about is whether that was always the plan or if it was the best they could do on that land. It being intentional wouldn't surprise me as the par 3's are very dramatic and certainly the most memorable feature. I'm sure many players walk away thrilled with them (and with a lot of group pictures).

[Bill Brightly]

You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.

or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."

This is Ballybunion Cashen for me.