Why is Friar's Head not a Doak 10?

[Bart Bradley]

Played Friar's Head today.  Awesome. I think it should be a 10.  Discuss.

Bart

[Jon Cavalier]

Easily one of the best modern courses I've ever played. Behind only Pacific Dunes for me, and barely so.


If I were playing Devil's Advocate, I suppose I'd argue that some of the holes like the first, fourth, eleventh and twelvth aren't quite as great as the others (in reality, I think they're still very solid), or point to the fact that the course has a bit of a split personality (I actually enjoyed the differences between the dune and field holes).


Bottom line - it is unquestionably a fantastic modern golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who says it isn't ?
 
Great course, great practice facility, great par 3 course, great clubhouse.
 
Sounds like a 10 to me.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Looks like a good course: http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/friars-head/


I'd give it at least a 9.5 until such time as I'm invited to play there.

[mike_malone]

Delete

[John Kirk]

Hey Bart,

I consider the question of whether Friar's Head deserves a "10" is one of the great potential debates.

Unlike Jon Cavalier, I think the 4th hole is sublime, and some of my favorite holes are among the least heralded, for instance the 2nd, 8th and 13th holes.  A couple of my less favorite holes include ones often cited as great, including the 5th and 9th holes.  The 10th and 15th holes are among my favorite holes I've played.

Tom Doak defines a 10 course as follows:

10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent—immediately.

I think you can argue that the 18th hole features an awkward tee shot, and that the 12th hole is a bit mundane, but if you skipped them, you would be missing something.  How do these holes compare to the less interesting holes at other "10" courses?

The best argument against giving Friar's Head a 10 is the large section of property without much natural contour.  For me, it's a close call.
 

[Tim_Weiman]

Played Friar's Head today.  Awesome. I think it should be a 10.  Discuss.

Bart

Bart,


Can you tell us why FH is a 10?

[K Rafkin]

Hey Bart,

I consider the question of whether Friar's Head deserves a "10" is one of the great potential debates.

Unlike Jon Cavalier, I think the 4th hole is sublime, and some of my favorite holes are among the least heralded, for instance the 2nd, 8th and 13th holes.  A couple of my less favorite holes include ones often cited as great, including the 5th and 9th holes.  The 10th and 15th holes are among my favorite holes I've played.

Tom Doak defines a 10 course as follows:

10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent—immediately.

I think you can argue that the 18th hole features an awkward tee shot, and that the 12th hole is a bit mundane, but if you skipped them, you would be missing something.  How do these holes compare to the less interesting holes at other "10" courses?

The best argument against giving Friar's Head a 10 is the large section of property without much natural contour.  For me, it's a close call.

While that is the definition of a Doak 10 as described in the confidential guide, i don't think its quite as black and white.  The old course which is a consensus Doak 10 (a score i agree with) in the newest confidential guide, despite the acknowledgment that holes 9&10 really don't fall into the "if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing" category, however the guide goes on to state that the other magnificent holes more than enough go on to make up for 9&10.  If the raters were to strictly follow the description given then the old course would not be able to be a 10.  Similarly Royal County Down gets a 10 from two of the four authors (Mr.Doak gives it a 9), despite its less than world class finishing holes.


So by that logic even with a weak hole or two, friars head could still absolutely be a 10.

[Tom_Doak]

Friar's Head is a great course.  It wasn't built yet the last time The Confidential Guide was published, so I won't formally give it a rating until Volume 3 comes out a year from now.  I have played it three times, but all of those were before the clubhouse was completed and the trees on 16-17 were removed.


That said, I do not give out a lot of 10's, nor do my co-authors.  And campaigning for one is certainly not the way to get one.  You can find fault with any hole if you really try.

[Bill_McBride]

Because it is a knockoff.

Mayday, a knock off of what course?


There are a number of excellent holes at Friar's Head but I thought the highlight was the four par 5 transition holes that take you down from the dunes (2 and 11) and back up again (7 and 14).  The latter pair were very strong holes. 

[Terry Lavin]

Friar's Head is a terrific golf course and a 9 would be more than fair.

[Mike Hendren]

Played Friar's Head today.  Awesome. I think it should be a 10.  Discuss.

Bart

Bart,


Can you tell us why FH is a 10?

+1
 
We (including me) all too often substitute a mathematic conclusion/opinion for "frank discussion."   
 
I think of all the "great" 6's and 7's I've played and could really use some help in justifying why any course is 3 to 4 points "better."
 
This reminds me to resume my thread on Lawsonia Links.
 
Bogey
 
 

[Mark Saltzman]

Played Friar's Head today.  Awesome. I think it should be a 10.  Discuss.

Bart

Bart,


Can you tell us why FH is a 10?

It is far, far easier to identify things you don't like than things you do. Often things you don't like are specific holes or features but it's become clear that individual holes and features don't make a great golf course (the whole sum of its parts argument). As a result, we get legitimate but cop out terms like 'strategic' or 'varied' to identify what makes a course great. The actual analysis of what makes a course great requires an excellent architectural eye, a great memory and the ability to articulate what you've seen.

[Mark Pritchett]

Played Friar's Head today.  Awesome. I think it should be a 10.  Discuss.

Bart

Bart,


Can you tell us why FH is a 10?

It is far, far easier to identify things you don't like than things you do. Often things you don't like are specific holes or features but it's become clear that individual holes and features don't make a great golf course (the whole sum of its parts argument). As a result, we get legitimate but cop out terms like 'strategic' or 'varied' to identify what makes a course great. The actual analysis of what makes a course great requires an excellent architectural eye, a great memory and the ability to articulate what you've seen.

Well said Mark.  A great course has to be more than the absence of bad things.  It is also easy to focus only on individual holes, when in reality the flow of whole course is much more important. 

[John Kirk]

One of the best attributes of Friar's Head is the speed of play.  Greens and tees are close to one another, with the exception of the 14-15 transition, so golf is (should be) played fast there. 

[corey miller]

The tees and Greens may be close to one another relative to many modern courses but I don't find them particularly cozy relative to many of the classic era courses in the Met area that are 6300 yards and never had expansion room.  I would guess those courses may actually play faster also. 

You can give FH a 10 for many reasons, that is not one of them.

[MCirba]

I love Friar's Head but if Sand Hills is a "10", which I truly believe it is, then I have a tough time saying Friar's Head is as good as Sand Hills.   

[Peter Pallotta]

What's wrong with it being a "Bradley 10"? I would take that scale quite seriously, although that shouldn't make a difference one way or the other. 

I think Tom is/was more mathematically inclined and logical than I am, so he used a kind of numeric formula for his scale, with supporting parameters (e.g. no holes to be missed) that gave the impression of approaching the "objective". But what I think Tom was trying to quantify/describe was actually a feeling, a subjective experience -- i.e. that of transcendence.

If Friar's Head provides Bart with what is, for him, the golfing equivalent of a transcendent experience, then it is indeed a 10 on the Bradley Scale -- and as valid for him (and who else should it matter to?) as Tom's scale is to him.

To paraphrase the Andy Warhol saying: "In the future, everyone will have his own Doak Scale, for 15 minutes".

Or to imagine a grumpy Tom: "Oh for goodness sakes, get your own damn scale and then you can give whatever the hell you want a "10" and finally stop bothering me about it every time C&C builds another course!. Man, my mom was right: she used to say 'Tommy, I'm not sure this "scale" thing is a good idea', but I didn't listen!"

[Tim_Weiman]

Played Friar's Head today.  Awesome. I think it should be a 10.  Discuss.

Bart

Bart,


Can you tell us why FH is a 10?

+1
 
We (including me) all too often substitute a mathematic conclusion/opinion for "frank discussion."   
 
I think of all the "great" 6's and 7's I've played and could really use some help in justifying why any course is 3 to 4 points "better."
 
This reminds me to resume my thread on Lawsonia Links.
 
Bogey

Bogey,


No offense to Bart, but you and I are on the same page. It does me or other readers little good to know that someone considers a course a "10". Much more important is articulating exactly what makes it so. A "10", after all, is in the rare air and it would be far better to know why someone rates it this high than the mere score itself.


By the way, I saw Friars Head for a few hours during construction and had the pleasure of meeting Bill Coore. Definitely a unique property and interesting challenge to tie the different parts of the property together.


Would enjoy seeing the finished property.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 You can find fault with any hole if you really try.


Tom,

I think that's a great point that's often forgotten

[Jerry Kluger]

I have played FH a couple of times and have to agree that it definitely approaches a 10 and partly because of the brilliance of the holes that are on the flatter part of the property - those that use the dunes are certainly great but I view the flat part to be more challenging to design outstanding holes.  (I was somewhat reminded of them at Colorado Golf but not quite as good.)


I remember Tom saying that when they were doing Old MacDonald, Mike Keiser felt very strongly that they had to have a hole that would get the golf out to the water and a view of the ocean which they did very well and certainly adds to the experience.  Would it have been possible to do that at FH?   

[Jim Nugent]

In the unofficial GCA world rankings, tabulated in 2009, Friar's Head had an average score of 8.4.  That placed it tied for 27th in the world.  Highest score it got was 10; low was 6.  Standard Deviation was 0.9. 

So back then our group considered it about mid-way between an 8 and a 9.  At least one person gave it a 10; at least one person gave it a 6. 

Those scores that seem real low always interest me.  Pinehurst #2 and Chicago GC both got at least one score of 4, e.g.  So did Camargo.  Assuming these are legit scores, what turned off those raters so much? 

[archie_struthers]

 




A ten is a ten is a ten . 


Not many or any exist , so it has to be a once in a lifetime experience.

[Mac Plumart]

In the unofficial GCA world rankings, tabulated in 2009, Friar's Head had an average score of 8.4.  That placed it tied for 27th in the world.  Highest score it got was 10; low was 6.  Standard Deviation was 0.9. 

So back then our group considered it about mid-way between an 8 and a 9.  At least one person gave it a 10; at least one person gave it a 6. 

Those scores that seem real low always interest me.  Pinehurst #2 and Chicago GC both got at least one score of 4, e.g.  So did Camargo.  Assuming these are legit scores, what turned off those raters so much?

Did that score put it ahead or behind Holston Hills in that poll?

[Jim Nugent]

Mac, Holston Hills averaged 7.8, which put it in a tie for 54th.  Its high was 9, its low was 6.  Fewer raters at HH: 17 vs 29 at FH. 

Here's the link:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42368.0.html