News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« on: September 02, 2016, 09:42:41 AM »
I'm going to try to post something interesting ;D ;D

We have tried our best to over complicate this business...and now we are out of things to discuss ;D ;D

1.  I'm not real sure what a "Doak 3" consist of but it seems most contributors here think of it as a bad thing.  I don't see that.  I see other countries that need these types of courses so that people can learn to play; so that small towns can afford a golf course.  They can't learn in china on a course meant to impress the world and they quit within 6 months of starting. 

2.  Can TD build a "Doak 3" and if he did would the Butt boys generate it into a "Doak 6" or would they accept that it was what he needed to build for that particular project.  Question would be if he wanted to build a "Doak 3".   

3.  And lastly, do we even need an architect to build a "Doak 3"?  The majority of the homes we live in did not have an onsite architect but were just built with a purchased set of plans used to build the same house a thousand times.  Sounds sort of like template greens doesn't it? 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2016, 10:47:46 AM »
A Doak 3 is an average golf course and is fine for the average player especially because of the implied costs of an average course.
With you running the place well and greens highly maintained, it would be better than a 3 to the average player.
This is not a bad thing for the player.
And if starting from scratch I would not be satisfied with a 3.
Good design can make a course so much better for types (hard, pretty, fun) of players.
If working in a country with little golf it would be pointless to design a hard or pretty golf course if the goal was to get the average person interested - I would strive for fun.
 
A knowledgeable owner with a competent construction crew and irrigation designer could create a 3 or sometimes more (Pikewood).
 
Pine Valley turned out as good as it did because of all the design ideas that worked with the overall theme.


Mike - Do you consider yourself a "designer"?
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

MikeMcCartin

Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2016, 10:48:11 AM »
Mike -


Without getting into the definition of a "Doak 3", at a certain level it has always seemed ridiculous to me that there should ever be truly low expectations for the architecture of any course. Obviously there are budgetary constraints that affect construction costs and maintenance, but even the most "basic" course still consists of tees and greens. That means someone is making a decision about a) how the course uses the land its on - routing - and b) the details of the greens. For both of those categories, there is absolutely no difference in cost between something architecturally interesting and thoughtful vs. something basic/boring. I can see how many people would look down on a shaggy course with no bunkers or other overt hazards, but I think a good routing and cool greens would elevate any course above what people have in mind when they think of something average or worse (which is why it would be hard to imagine Tom building something that fits the "Doak 3" category).


Mike

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2016, 11:19:17 AM »
I wonder that myself. Not every course needs to be a world beater. I belong to two course that are Doak 6's. I live on an Ed Ault course in the VA mountains that is probably a 3 or 4. When I play it I think, "I wish he would have done this or that" but when i bring friends they love it. It is in good condition, is pretty, and relatively interesting. The course could be longer, the greens could have more undulation and slope, and the bunker placement could be better, Fairway lines could be cut so they are more interesting, and some of the areas around the greens could be cut shorter to give more options for recovery, but it is fine. I enjoy it and it is nice to shoot a good score. Yet, if it were to be designed today most would pan the course because it doesn't have the pizazz that most newer courses seem to have.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2016, 11:31:31 AM »
Mike:


From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with a course that's a 3 on the Doak scale, as far as providing affordable golf for people to enjoy the game.  [Provided it's affordable, of course.]  Golf is not all about traveling to see courses, though The Confidential Guide is about just that.


Would I want to build a 3?  No.  I think if you've got anything better than an awful property, you ought to aim higher than that.  It really doesn't cost anything more to build [or to maintain] a course with an interesting set of greens, instead of dull ones.  And that should make the course at least a 4 or a 5, depending on the property. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2016, 11:35:32 AM »
I agree completely with Tom on this one.


In a world chock full of mediocrity and half-assed effort, why add to the pile of crap?

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2016, 11:36:38 AM »
Golf needs more Doak 3's that are run well, welcoming, and friendly.  IMHO.

Two days ago I played one that nicely fits the bill, Wedgewood Golf Club in Coopersburg, PA.  I bet this course has rarely if ever been mentioned on this site.  And that's expected because architecturally it is bland.

It is relatively cheap (31 bucks to ride on a weekday), they allow walking at a cheaper rate anytime, it has a good driving range, and the people working there treat you like family (even me as a first time visitor).

BTW:  the first 18 was by the Gordons, then the other nine by Jim Blaukovitch.

Photos:

http://www.myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/Wedgewood/index.html



@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2016, 11:40:50 AM »
Joe,


Utah is drowning in Doak 3s that are dirt cheap and super easy to get a tee time on Sundays.  I don't play many of them because there are a handful of affordable 4s and 5s, which are just as closeby.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2016, 12:28:33 PM »
I think we may be talking past each other.  There is nothing wrong with a Doak 3 that serves a market.  Moreover, there is nothing wrong with building on a budget and pricing play accordingly.  Such an effort is to be applauded.  But there appears to be a tacit assumption that absent a large budget, fancy amenities and high maintenance costs, the best one can do is a 3.  I suggest that is a false assumption.  Assuming a reasonable cost for land acquisition, there is no reason that one cannot achieve all these objectives and build something that is fun, playable and architecturally above a 3.  Moreover, if the cost of land is high, building a 3 won't reduce the costs enough to bring the greens' fees down.  Saving on amenities and excessive maintenance will.  Eschewing a lot of dirt moving will help.  Perhaps you won't get the very "best".  But there isn't any real excuse to dumb down the architecture.  So while building 3's is fine, there is no reason to avoid trying for better.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 06:25:04 AM by SL_Solow »

Mark Pritchett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2016, 01:26:09 PM »
The good news for anyone wanting to build a 3 is that in the future you can always go to Ben Cowan and have him turn it into a 5!

BCowan

Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2016, 01:27:09 PM »
Mark,

   You are at it again? 

1.  I'm not real sure what a "Doak 3" consist of but it seems most contributors here think of it as a bad thing.  I don't see that.  I see other countries that need these types of courses so that people can learn to play; so that small towns can afford a golf course.  They can't learn in china on a course meant to impress the world and they quit within 6 months of starting.

  I know you are getting your jollies on this thread.  I think most on here would applaud lets say a farmer that golfs or a retired Golf pro that builds a course that can be enjoyed by all and a very low price.  Those should always be encouraged.  However courses that were built on good/great land by all the means necessary at the time (which should be applauded by originator) should be considered for improvement.  There is a good sector of golfers who can't afford CC lifestyle and or don't want it.  We need more committed golfers that love the ethos of the game that make this game so unique and great in my book.  So the golfers have to choose from 15 (3's) or overpriced CC's?  All one has to do is go to Michigan and see how many great pieces of land where golf courses sit, many overbuilt golf courses by the same 2 firms.  Stevie Wonder probably could have done better. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 01:37:48 PM by Ben Cowan (Michigan) »

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2016, 02:04:02 PM »
I went back to the first course I ever played, a solid Doak 2, for a scramble last weekend with my 25 handicap uncle and my 33 handicap mother. They're both members, and their $200 dues paid in February are good all the way through the end of 2017. The place has some drawbacks - the fairways are first cut length, the shrunken greens are pancake flat and overwatered and run around 8 on a good day, and the locals frequently drive their 6-seater carts that cost more than 30 years of membership dues onto the course with music blaring and start on whatever hole they can wedge their way onto between groups. But in small-town Central Kentucky it's the only course in the county, and it's cheap, walkable, and welcomes walk-ins with open arms. And damn if there aren't three or four sneaky-good holes in the mix as well.


After playing a hundred rounds or so out there as a child and a few more in recent years, and after nearly a decade of reading and/or participating on this site and mulling over what a renovation could possibly mean for the course, I've finally come to the conclusion that they shouldn't change a thing. Sure, it's noble to talk about how even people paying $25 a round on a daily fee course in God's Country deserve architectural interest. But despite the best intentions of architecture-loving dorks, the reality is that the locals who play the joint don't want a renovation that raises their greens fees and closes the place down for a few months. They love the course the way it is, and just want to play golf. And I agree with them on both counts.


My mother, who is not a very good golfer (as some of you know firsthand) and who is only 18 months removed from a diagnosis of Grade IV glioblastoma multiforme, has been walking the course every week this year after 20 previous years of cartball. In the scramble last weekend, she drained birdie putts on the 16th and 17th holes as our team of three with a combined handicap of 67 finished in second place at -10, beaten only by a team that got to -13 by riding the backs of two college golfers. I'm as big an architecture snob as anybody, and I generally hate scrambles. But watching my Mommy get more and more excited as we did our best impersonation of a golf course F&B operation by taking things deeper and deeper into the red, I honestly couldn't have given two shits about the internal contours of the greens or the lack of strategic width. There's nothing wrong with Doak 1's, 2's, or 3's. There might, however, be something wrong with the people who see them only as a missed opportunity architecturally. They miss out on the opportunity for a lot of fun.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2016, 02:08:17 PM »
There seem to be many courses in the west that were “community builds” and designs.  Folks got together, formed a club, and built their course with donated labor, expertise, equipment, and help by local contractors.  The original contractor for our course (9 holes), Canyon Springs, was a road contractor, for example.  We had a young, first time architect who also supervised the construction.  Some of the older courses were built by farmers using their tractors and equipment.  The results can be quite puzzling, quirky, and the land borderline extreme.

The local muni was build on top the Oregon Trail.  You can still see fairway features where the ruts were filled in.  They may be Doak 3’s, but they got folks golfing at a reasonable price.  Matter of fact, the first superintendant/pro here lived on the course and raised 3 sons who won 8 straight state amateur titles.  One went on to beat Palmer and Nicklaus in a tour event and play in a couple of Masters.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2016, 05:57:34 PM »

After playing a hundred rounds or so out there as a child and a few more in recent years, and after nearly a decade of reading and/or participating on this site and mulling over what a renovation could possibly mean for the course, I've finally come to the conclusion that they shouldn't change a thing. Sure, it's noble to talk about how even people paying $25 a round on a daily fee course in God's Country deserve architectural interest. But despite the best intentions of architecture-loving dorks, the reality is that the locals who play the joint don't want a renovation that raises their greens fees and closes the place down for a few months. They love the course the way it is, and just want to play golf. And I agree with them on both counts.

There's nothing wrong with Doak 1's, 2's, or 3's. There might, however, be something wrong with the people who see them only as a missed opportunity architecturally. They miss out on the opportunity for a lot of fun.


Jason:


I appreciate your post.  But I agree with Mr. Solow that we appear to be talking past each other.


I've got nothing against people going out and having fun on any course whether it's a 10 or a 3 or even a zero on the Doak scale.  And I agree with your observation that your family and neighbors are getting what they want out of that course, and it would be stupid to spend money to try and "add architectural interest" they don't care to pay for.


But the question was phrased, is it wrong to BUILD a "Doak 3," and I still say it is.  Nobody is going to spend the cash to BUILD the course you describe and charge $25 for it, in today's golf market, because they'd go broke doing so.  What Dave McCollum describes above was terrific, and sounds reminiscent of Scotland, but there aren't many current examples of anything similar.


Which raises the question, what IS the lowest-priced new course in the last 10-15 years?  Common Ground is $40 or $50, and we did rebuild the whole course, but they had the land in place for free and the maintenance equipment already in the barn.  I'm sure there are lower-cost examples ... but let's stick to one that still belongs to the original owner.

BCowan

Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2016, 05:59:46 PM »
The annoyance of GCA.com is when people argue to the extreme, and opine that Every course should be renovated and improved, which nobody implied in prior thread.  Using courses in the middle of nowhere Kentucky and Montana to make a point as a barometer is wasteful use of bandwidth.  Of course it's the same folks that act like politicians talking out of both sides of their mouth and have national memberships and say how much they love playing $25 tracks from time to time.  Like many of us don't play on lower end tracks in a scramble from time to time and enjoy it.  Or the fact that many UK clubs/courses outsource their F&B I have been told.  If this is true, we wouldn't want to learn anything over here, running in the red is hip. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 06:31:56 PM by Ben Cowan (Michigan) »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2016, 07:53:13 PM »
So far I have gotten the variety of answers I expected.  And here's my answer to my question.  I don't think anyone can build a "Doak 3" today.  I wish we could.  I may not have the exact definition but IMHO "Doak 3" are found already existing and construction cost prohibit them being built today.  As Mike McCartin states in his post "For both of those categories, there is absolutely no difference in cost between something architecturally interesting and thoughtful vs. something basic/boring."    I would wager that over 60% of the courses that exist in the US are "Doak 3's".  All we can do is embrace these and figure how they can survive.  As they go so goes the game.  As designers/ architects or whatever the word is we need ot find how to make these places work and IMHO it is going to be mostly in very subtle methods with much of it being mowing lines etc.  The US played 480,000,000 rounds last year.  I'm betting most golfers could not tell the difference between "architecturally interesting and thoughtful vs. something basic/boring" .   Now if the definition of a "Doak 3" means a course can't be "architecturally interesting and thoughtful" and has to be considered "basic/boring", then my percentages may be off. 

Mike Nuzzo,

You ask me above:  "


"Mike - Do you consider yourself a "designer"?"   Over the last 28 years we have designed and built around 47 new golf courses.  In communicating what we do I probably have to use the word architect or designer to the client but I like to consider it a craft more than a profession and would rather be a builder of my courses....if that makes sense.  I actually have come to think that most guys who are in this business for more than a few years become holistic golf companies and can do it all and are more businessman than anything. 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2016, 08:13:50 PM »
Proximity to a Doak 3 (or 2) for the youngster learning the game is what I think about first.  How hard it is for those not able to drive to get a course (like my self at age 12 or 13)?  It is not about the course.......
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

BCowan

Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2016, 08:16:58 PM »
Mike,

    It's kinda of like all the McDonald's and burger kings and others ruled forever.  Then came Chipotle, they actually cook real food  ;)

Jeff Bergeron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2016, 08:33:48 PM »
I'm going to try to post something interesting ;D ;D

 
and you succeeded! Well done.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2016, 07:38:21 AM »
Hopefully you will consider this contribution, so late in the thread game.


I look at Audubon golf course in Amherst, NY, a Doak 3. It is a municipal course, so there was no motivation beyond "make us a golf course for the town's people to play." And they did. The architect/designer was someone who knew good golf, who had built a course for Travis (Cherry Hill Club in Ontario), a Doak 5 private club up the road (Brookfield in Clarence, NY) and a Doak 5 public course down the road (Sheridan Park) that has since been truncated down to a 4 (land was sold to a chemical company and course rerouted over boring flat land.)


How good was the architect? Clearly, good enough to build better than he did, but he wasn't asked to do so. What about architects/designers who don't/didn't know enough to build better than a 3? Undoubtedly, they did get hired back then, and they sometimes still build these courses today.


What element of a course is most likely to make a course a 3? I know that there exists an explicit definition, but I'm interested in a shortcut. Is it bland greens? Is it nonexistent or inexplicable strategic points? Or, is it a poor routing?
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2016, 07:45:11 AM »
I would say a poor routing would be #1 in making a course a "Doak 3" as I understand it.  Now this could include many factors such as short turn points on doglegs, poor green locations including greens that don't fit the approach shot and poor tee locations and travel from green to tee.  If you have a good routing one can always be working on improving the other elements..IMHO.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2016, 09:11:46 AM »
I would say a poor routing would be #1 in making a course a "Doak 3" as I understand it.  Now this could include many factors such as short turn points on doglegs, poor green locations including greens that don't fit the approach shot and poor tee locations and travel from green to tee.  If you have a good routing one can always be working on improving the other elements..IMHO.


I would generally agree.  A good routing is usually going to produce at least a 4, unless you ruin it by building a bunch of bunkers and greens that aren't part of the terrain, or the ground wasn't very conducive to golf to start with.  A good set of greens is also probably going to get you at least a 4, unless the routing is bad to the point of distraction [long green to tee transitions, etc.]. 


To be honest, I've given 5's to some courses with the drawbacks listed above, because they're well maintained and built by a big-name designer.  And people happily pay to play them, so I figure I must be missing something.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2016, 09:34:14 AM »


To be honest, I've given 5's to some courses with the drawbacks listed above, because they're well maintained and built by a big-name designer.  And people happily pay to play them, so I figure I must be missing something.

Yep...same can be said for restaurants and movies ;D ;D   
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2016, 09:44:32 AM »

There are plenty of homemade Doak 3's being built in small towns. You never hear of them or see them unless you happen to live there. I play them with my kids when we travel and golf pops up as an idea. We PREFER to play those over something better and bigger because it allows us to be ourselves and have fun.

I began playing my golf on one and have never felt I'm missing out on something when I play one now. I'm fortunate enough to be able to play some wonderful well discussed places, but every once in a while I love to return to the courses I played as a kid and pay my green fee. This is despite having a membership and other opportunities.

I feel a deeper connection to the game there than I do at many private places I have been to.

With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

BCowan

Re: Is it wrong to build a "Doak 3"?
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2016, 09:58:51 AM »
Ian,

   I agree with you completely. 

I feel a deeper connection to the game there than I do at many private places I have been to

I drove up to northern Michigan one day this summer (8hr round trip) to play a golf course designed by a retired music teacher.  Champion Hills was so good and so much fun.  One of my reasons was to play a course that wasn't over watered during a drought like in SE Michigan.  The course truly renewed my soul for the game of golf.  Now the course was a 5, but the simplistic beauty of it is it let the land do the work. 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back