[Tom_Doak]

IMO, Tom is one of the best writers on golf architecture because of his ability to succinctly express what is noteworthy about a golf course. I view that as the real strength of Tom’s Confidential Guide, not the number rating itself.

Tim:  Yes, my wife says that it's a pretty good book, apart from the numbers.  And it certainly would have been somewhat less controversial.

[Matt Schoolfield]

IMO, Tom is one of the best writers on golf architecture because of his ability to succinctly express what is noteworthy about a golf course. I view that as the real strength of Tom’s Confidential Guide, not the number rating itself.

I certainly agree, my edition of Anatomy of a Golf Course is well worn for the same reason, and plan on getting copies of the guides myself eventually. I was only trying to communicate the legal arguments and how I thought they paralleled that exchange, which I found interesting.

[John Kirk]

Tale of the tape below.


My own personal ratings of 1,693 courses seen:


10 = 14
  9 = 25
  8 = 62
  7 = 178 = 279 / 1693
  6 = 325 = 604 / 1693
  5 = 472
  4 = 358
  3 = 151
  2 = 70
  1 = 15
  0 = 23

The numbers are valuable because they summarize the overall opinion succinctly.

It should be noted that Tom has 101 courses rated 8 or above.  Therefore, a rating of 8 is currently his threshold for a World Top 100 course.  I think there are at least a couple of 8s among the new offerings out there, so within a few years some 8s will fall to the second 100.

[Ronald Montesano]

I encourage fellow NY state residents to visit Bethpage state park. You can play five courses for a reasonable amount of money, beginning with the Black (an 8 ) followed by the Red (probably a 6 or 7) and the Green, Blue, and Yellow (probably 5/6, 5, 4) on one piece of land.

[mike_malone]

Just in the counties contiguous to Philadelphia I count I think there are least 8 that qualify. So I think worldwide I think there  a couple thousand or more that qualify as very good courses.


 Again I’m using Doak 6 as a standard not just ones he lists.

[Tony_Muldoon]

What value does a discussion group about golf architecture have?


I view golf courses as an art form. Hopefully, the discussion will help people understand what makes a golf course worth spending one’s time and money to experience.

Tim you are not alone in that thought. However today everyone who has realeased one song or designed one attractive product is often hailed as an artist.
It's often that not just the word is debased by overuse, its the wrong word.


Today we undervalue Craft.


A quick search on the difference between Art and Craft offers:


"The main difference between the two is the end goal in creation, all other differences stem from this one. Art is more focused on using tools and materials to express an emotion or idea, while craft is more focused on using tools and materials to create a specific tangible object or product."

Perhaps this is for another thread, but do Golf Course Architects focus on the emotions that playing will bring or on producing a Golf Course? Where possible a skilled Craftsman with the right tools and materials will procduce the best course that the raw materials allow? 

As I say Craftsmen have never been so underappreciated, and I do not consider it any any way a slight to describe someone as such. (Craftsperson?)
If we accept its a craft, then the discussion is about the creativity displayed and the skill in execution. We can form an 'academic' consensus or at least enjoy a discussion about these things.

Its the emotions aroused playing the course, which are purely subjective.

[Jerry Kluger]

Mayday: I am trying to understand the point of your subject other than what Tommy said namely, there are very few of the best that are accessible to anyone and are reasonably priced.  The best one I have seen which is still under $200 is Lawsonia.

[mike_malone]

Mayday: I am trying to understand the point of your subject other than what Tommy said namely, there are very few of the best that are accessible to anyone and are reasonably priced.  The best one I have seen which is still under $200 is Lawsonia.

Top 100 lists are silly.

[jeffwarne]

I like to see AI give us a summary of all the top commentary from The Confidential Guide
(I'd guess the 31 Flavors would be pretty much that [size=78%])[/size]
IMHO the numbers have too much to do with brand names and personal taste or Tom's reluctance to oversell somewhere cool to a less adventurous/tolerant of conditions traveler-hence the beauty of the commentary.


The BEST part about the CG IS the commentary. A tremendous resource.
I have played and thoroughly enjoyed many, many 3s and 4s(even a couple 2's) from the book based on commentary.
There are many 6's(played before I read the CG or when I wasn't doing the choosing-an event etc.), especially moderns, that I have played that I have derived minimal enjoyment from.(usually more of a cultural thing)Almost always the comments accurately predicted the experience. Great conditioning, good site,6 sets of proportional tees, average to vapid architecture and a Panera Bread experience.
The commentary has saved me from countless more of those experiences, when I get to do the choosing.


Perhaps I am biased to to a certain type of place, or as Clyde Johnson says in his NZ book "at least they weren't trying"

[Tim_Weiman]

I like to see AI give us a summary of all the top commentary from The Confidential Guide
(I'd guess the 31 Flavors would be pretty much that [size=78%])[/size]
IMHO the numbers have too much to do with brand names and personal taste or Tom's reluctance to oversell somewhere cool to a less adventurous/tolerant of conditions traveler-hence the beauty of the commentary.


The BEST part about the CG IS the commentary. A tremendous resource.
I have played and thoroughly enjoyed many, many 3s and 4s(even a couple 2's) from the book based on commentary.
There are many 6's(played before I read the CG or when I wasn't doing the choosing-an event etc.), especially moderns, that I have played that I have derived minimal enjoyment from.(usually more of a cultural thing)Almost always the comments accurately predicted the experience. Great conditioning, good site,6 sets of proportional tees, average to vapid architecture and a Panera Bread experience.
The commentary has saved me from countless more of those experiences, when I get to do the choosing.


Perhaps I am biased to to a certain type of place, or as Clyde Johnson says in his NZ book "at least they weren't trying"

Jeff,


As I am sure you remember, the original version of The Confidential Guide was just something that Tom distributed to friends.


Bobby Raynum told me about it thirty years ago, but I have never seen that version. Perhaps Tom could share with us whether the Doak Scale and number ratings were part of that first version or whether it was really came from the decision to publish the book.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I have the 1996 Sleeping Bear Press version of the original CG and it does have ratings
Here is an image from an Amazon listing:

[Edward Glidewell]

How many 6+ courses are in Myrtle Beach? There are at at least two -- Caledonia and the Dunes Club -- probably three (True Blue), and possibly a couple more.


Considering how popular MB is as a golf destination for public golfers, there may be more who have played a 6 than you'd think. Pinehurst also comes in here with even more 6+ courses, although Myrtle Beach attracts more of the average public golfer than Pinehurst does.

[Tim_Weiman]

I have the 1996 Sleeping Bear Press version of the original CG and it does have ratings
Here is an image from an Amazon listing:
[/quote
Wayne,


I am asking about the original version that was never published. If I recall the story correctly, it just went to about 40 people Tom knew.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I understand Tim, and I guess Tom can tell us whether the "underground" edition, as he calls it had the ratings and was similar to this 1996 version, or whether he added a lot when publishing the 1996 original book.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Yeah, that's not the original version.  It's actually the third.  The first [40 copies] was printed on a dot-matrix printer; the second [1000 copies] was typeset, but with no photos.


Tim:

Yes, the Doak Scale and its number ratings were printed in the first version of the book.  Remember, though, that was for my friends, and the number was intended to be a kind of shorthand if you were making a trip to Scotland [or wherever] and trying to decide which courses to see in a given area.  They were never intended to try and rank the best courses in the world.

But, as Jeff says correctly, once I got a bigger audience, I got more careful about how strongly I recommended a non-mainstream course, because mainstream readers probably wouldn't be as excited about flying across the ocean to see Pennard as I was.  So I tended to keep those numbers lower than I felt about the course, while singing its praises in the prose.

The reviews are the most important part of the book.  The numbers are a short-cut, not the point of it. 


It actually pains me to see that I've got just over 100 courses rated as 8's or higher . . . I have never been aiming for any quota of courses, but after participating in so many rankings I fear that my perceptions have started to be poisoned by them.  I do know that whenever I fill out a ranking ballot, I vote for well less than 100 courses on my first time through, and then have to go back and reconsider moving courses up a notch, since I have seen most of the candidates and if I've seen 97 of the top 100 in the world, I ought to be voting for about that same number.  [IMO, nobody should vote for 100 - even Paul Rudovsky - as you should have some respect for the places you haven't seen.]

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't look at the Doak rating system as a ranking. It asks, "Would I recommend this course to a friend?" Then the numbers tell how much. Doak et al. have sixes I would not recommend and some fours that I would. It also depends on the friend. I have some friends who are very discerning and have seen some exceptional courses. Some friends have never played a top 100 course. He would enjoy many fours.

[Sean_A]

Wayne:

Yeah, that's not the original version.  It's actually the third.  The first [40 copies] was printed on a dot-matrix printer; the second [1000 copies] was typeset, but with no photos.


Tim:

Yes, the Doak Scale and its number ratings were printed in the first version of the book.  Remember, though, that was for my friends, and the number was intended to be a kind of shorthand if you were making a trip to Scotland [or wherever] and trying to decide which courses to see in a given area.  They were never intended to try and rank the best courses in the world.

But, as Jeff says correctly, once I got a bigger audience, I got more careful about how strongly I recommended a non-mainstream course, because mainstream readers probably wouldn't be as excited about flying across the ocean to see Pennard as I was.  So I tended to keep those numbers lower than I felt about the course, while singing its praises in the prose.

The reviews are the most important part of the book.  The numbers are a short-cut, not the point of it. 


It actually pains me to see that I've got just over 100 courses rated as 8's or higher . . . I have never been aiming for any quota of courses, but after participating in so many rankings I fear that my perceptions have started to be poisoned by them.  I do know that whenever I fill out a ranking ballot, I vote for well less than 100 courses on my first time through, and then have to go back and reconsider moving courses up a notch, since I have seen most of the candidates and if I've seen 97 of the top 100 in the world, I ought to be voting for about that same number.  [IMO, nobody should vote for 100 - even Paul Rudovsky - as you should have some respect for the places you haven't seen.]

You started to treat the CG numbers as rankings…I guess because it was easy. It has sort of confused the issue between best and recommendations. Now, almost everybody treats your numbers as rankings.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

When a new course of great merit is built or an old classic is brought back to life it is likely to appear in various rankings but at the expense of another course which will then find itself in a lower ranking position. When the same course situation arises a new or possibly revised DS number is likely to be assigned at some stage but the ranking of other courses will not be affected.
Atb

[mike_malone]

So use the qualitative “ very good” course instead and I believe there are a substantial number worldwide such that ranking them makes no sense. This leaves a level of “ great” for the few.

[Tom_Doak]

So use the qualitative “ very good” course instead and I believe there are a substantial number worldwide such that ranking them makes no sense. This leaves a level of “ great” for the few.

Well, when you say a course is a 7 that makes it equal to about 250 other courses . . . I concur that trying to rank those courses from 1-250 [or 125-375] is pointless.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()