What Is Your Biggest Doak Score Deviation From The Confidential Guide?

[Ed Brzezowski]

I see a Philly Steel Cage match in the making.

[Enno Gerdes]

Back to non-Philly courses...

I've not played all that many courses that were in the CG, but for me there were two courses with such a deviation: I enjoyed Elie much, much more than the (average) 5,5 score in the CG would indicate. And on the other hand, I just don't understand how Woodhall Spa can have an average score of 8,75. Says more about my own preferences of course, I don't want to imply that the CG score is "wrong".

[Tim Martin]

Back to non-Philly courses...

I've not played all that many courses that were in the CG, but for me there were two courses with such a deviation: I enjoyed Elie much, much more than the (average) 5,5 score in the CG would indicate. And on the other hand, I just don't understand how Woodhall Spa can have an average score of 8,75. Says more about my own preferences of course, I don't want to imply that the CG score is "wrong".

Enno-I don’t think there are any wrong critiques due to the subjective nature of the exercise.

[mike_malone]

Back to non-Philly courses...

I've not played all that many courses that were in the CG, but for me there were two courses with such a deviation: I enjoyed Elie much, much more than the (average) 5,5 score in the CG would indicate. And on the other hand, I just don't understand how Woodhall Spa can have an average score of 8,75. Says more about my own preferences of course, I don't want to imply that the CG score is "wrong".

Enno,


Let’s talk everything Philly. Agree on Woodhall Spa. I thought the bunkering was too much of an effort to impress versus enhancing play.

[Kevin Pallier]

There's one in Australia that I struggle to see - Tom has National (Old) at a 5 - I have it at a 7.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Rarely only a point either way. Painswick is a head scratcher. I love it but it has some terrible holes. Most people think it is terrible, in fact most of our members have not even played it and we are 40 minutes away. I think if I was unbiased I would have to say it was a 2 or 3 although I do recomend it. I think it got a 6 or 7 in CG. The score deviation is understandable though.

[Adam Lawrence]

Back to non-Philly courses...

I've not played all that many courses that were in the CG, but for me there were two courses with such a deviation: I enjoyed Elie much, much more than the (average) 5,5 score in the CG would indicate. And on the other hand, I just don't understand how Woodhall Spa can have an average score of 8,75. Says more about my own preferences of course, I don't want to imply that the CG score is "wrong".

Enno,

Let’s talk everything Philly. Agree on Woodhall Spa. I thought the bunkering was too much of an effort to impress versus enhancing play.

My issue with Woodhall is not the bunkering but the terrain. It is just so flat. It's beautiful heath, but there really isn't much topography. It's a poster child for a discussion about how good a flat course can be. And I don't have an answer to the question.

[Niall C]

Adam,


I always point to Duff House Royal as to what can be done with a relatively flat site. It's not world class, it's probably too tight a site for that, but what MacKenzie achieved in terms of the bunkering and green complexes was really excellent. As an aside, it's not in the guide however the nearby Royal Tarlair is even though it's not close to DHR in terms of quality, but then Royal Tarlair does have sea views.


Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Goswick! If only all 4s were like Goswick the world would be a better place. I'm pretty sure that score was the inspiration for John Lennon's 'Imagine'. As it happens, it's probably a 6/7 and there is weeping in the streets.

Blimey!  Goswick was a 4?  That's a mile off.  I'd have it as an easy 7

[Mark Pearce]

Back to non-Philly courses...

I've not played all that many courses that were in the CG, but for me there were two courses with such a deviation: I enjoyed Elie much, much more than the (average) 5,5 score in the CG would indicate. And on the other hand, I just don't understand how Woodhall Spa can have an average score of 8,75. Says more about my own preferences of course, I don't want to imply that the CG score is "wrong".

I absolutely agree on both.  For me (and I acknowledge bias), Elie is every bit as good as Woodhall Spa, which I like but think is significantly over-rated almost everywhere.

[Mark Pearce]

I'm expecting to get roasted for this, but for me it is Crail Balcomie.  Rated a 5 in the CG, but in my opinion it is a magical place with a quality much greater than the sum of its individual holes' quality. I enjoyed it as much or more than several other lauded links courses, including Royal County Down, Portmarnock, Silloth, and yes the Old Course.


Now....I've played all of those courses once, and I have no doubt my opinion could shift if I had the privilege of playing them all 10 times each.


My love for Balcomie is illustrative of a few design preferences I have that I don't feel are necessarily shared by many current taste-makers:


(1) Valuing the quality of tee-to-green architecture, often more than the greens or green surrounds. I don't mind pedestrian greens if the journey to get there was full of strategy and excitement.


(2) Placing high value on natural beauty, setting, and "sense of place."


For similar reasons, I also rate Pebble Beach, Sand Hollow, St. Enodoc, and The Dunes (Australia) higher than most.

Very interesting. I enjoyed the first 14 holes of Crail but that finish from 15-18 felt like such a let down in comparison to the first 14 holes.

I'm a Crail member and I love Balcomie but can't see how it can be argued to be any more than a 5 (and if Goswick's a 4, even that seems way too high!)  There are a bunch of very ordinary holes (you rightly identify the last 4 (though 16 and 18 are decent par 3s) but I don't love 4, 5 and 6 either.  But I take real issue with the suggestion that Balcomie has "pedestrian" greens.  If anything, what saves it are some really good greens (2, 3, 7, 8/11, 9, 10, 12(!) and 13(!) are all really good greens, in their own way.  The best thing about the 4th (which in a tee to green sense is really mundane, albeit that it requires you to carry OoB) is its green.

[Steven Wade]

If I recall correctly, he rated courses like Yeamans Hall and The CC of Charleston 5s??  Really? And I know Tom likes to look at potential so I trust he looked past some of the maintenance issues etc that the courses might have experienced over the years when he assigned those ratings.   

This thread has caused me to go back and  look at places I've played this year. The most recent version of the guide has YHC as an 8-7-7-8, which is what I'd have expected. I don't own the original version of the book, but if it made the 5 to 8 jump that's pretty impressive.

[Jordan Beasley]

I'm expecting to get roasted for this, but for me it is Crail Balcomie.  Rated a 5 in the CG, but in my opinion it is a magical place with a quality much greater than the sum of its individual holes' quality. I enjoyed it as much or more than several other lauded links courses, including Royal County Down, Portmarnock, Silloth, and yes the Old Course.


Now....I've played all of those courses once, and I have no doubt my opinion could shift if I had the privilege of playing them all 10 times each.


My love for Balcomie is illustrative of a few design preferences I have that I don't feel are necessarily shared by many current taste-makers:


(1) Valuing the quality of tee-to-green architecture, often more than the greens or green surrounds. I don't mind pedestrian greens if the journey to get there was full of strategy and excitement.


(2) Placing high value on natural beauty, setting, and "sense of place."


For similar reasons, I also rate Pebble Beach, Sand Hollow, St. Enodoc, and The Dunes (Australia) higher than most.

Very interesting. I enjoyed the first 14 holes of Crail but that finish from 15-18 felt like such a let down in comparison to the first 14 holes.

I'm a Crail member and I love Balcomie but can't see how it can be argued to be any more than a 5 (and if Goswick's a 4, even that seems way too high!)  There are a bunch of very ordinary holes (you rightly identify the last 4 (though 16 and 18 are decent par 3s) but I don't love 4, 5 and 6 either.  But I take real issue with the suggestion that Balcomie has "pedestrian" greens.  If anything, what saves it are some really good greens (2, 3, 7, 8/11, 9, 10, 12(!) and 13(!) are all really good greens, in their own way.  The best thing about the 4th (which in a tee to green sense is really mundane, albeit that it requires you to carry OoB) is its green.

Thanks Mark.  All the more reason for me to get back to Crail, as it appears I may have overlooked the greens' quality during my first time through.


I'd love to hear more about why you think the course is only a 5, particularly since you cite the greens as its saving grace.  It's interesting to me what you say about 4 and 5, as those were two of my favorite holes on the course.  I thought the tee shots over the water were both strategic and heroic.  I had a very cool moment on one of those tee boxes, watching some student hikers pass on the right while debating how much to try to bite off with my driver.

[Jordan Beasley]

There's one in Australia that I struggle to see - Tom has National (Old) at a 5 - I have it at a 7.

On a related note - I'd love to hear Tom give his DS rating for his renovated Gunnamatta course at the National, as I don't believe it was included in the CG. I played it last year and have it as an 8.  Perhaps the best set of par-3's I've ever seen (and there are only three of them!).

[Mark Pearce]

I'm expecting to get roasted for this, but for me it is Crail Balcomie.  Rated a 5 in the CG, but in my opinion it is a magical place with a quality much greater than the sum of its individual holes' quality. I enjoyed it as much or more than several other lauded links courses, including Royal County Down, Portmarnock, Silloth, and yes the Old Course.


Now....I've played all of those courses once, and I have no doubt my opinion could shift if I had the privilege of playing them all 10 times each.


My love for Balcomie is illustrative of a few design preferences I have that I don't feel are necessarily shared by many current taste-makers:


(1) Valuing the quality of tee-to-green architecture, often more than the greens or green surrounds. I don't mind pedestrian greens if the journey to get there was full of strategy and excitement.


(2) Placing high value on natural beauty, setting, and "sense of place."


For similar reasons, I also rate Pebble Beach, Sand Hollow, St. Enodoc, and The Dunes (Australia) higher than most.

Very interesting. I enjoyed the first 14 holes of Crail but that finish from 15-18 felt like such a let down in comparison to the first 14 holes.

I'm a Crail member and I love Balcomie but can't see how it can be argued to be any more than a 5 (and if Goswick's a 4, even that seems way too high!)  There are a bunch of very ordinary holes (you rightly identify the last 4 (though 16 and 18 are decent par 3s) but I don't love 4, 5 and 6 either.  But I take real issue with the suggestion that Balcomie has "pedestrian" greens.  If anything, what saves it are some really good greens (2, 3, 7, 8/11, 9, 10, 12(!) and 13(!) are all really good greens, in their own way.  The best thing about the 4th (which in a tee to green sense is really mundane, albeit that it requires you to carry OoB) is its green.

Thanks Mark.  All the more reason for me to get back to Crail, as it appears I may have overlooked the greens' quality during my first time through.


I'd love to hear more about why you think the course is only a 5, particularly since you cite the greens as its saving grace.  It's interesting to me what you say about 4 and 5, as those were two of my favorite holes on the course.  I thought the tee shots over the water were both strategic and heroic.  I had a very cool moment on one of those tee boxes, watching some student hikers pass on the right while debating how much to try to bite off with my driver.

If you do, let me know, and we can have the conversation over a round!  I guess for me on 4, I know where to hit it to leave a short iron in and not play with the green at all.  I have a son who can drive it in the right conditions and it's ma more interesting hole for him, I think.


Again, on 5, I know that any safe line will leave me a very long way and that, in a medal, 5 will gain on the field, so have a line I know is safe and look to give myself a par putt, with bogey a good result.  Longer hitters may have more of a decision to take but I'm not sure that "what's the line I can safely carry the beach in this wind" is a great strategic test.

[Thomas Dai]

There's one in Australia that I struggle to see - Tom has National (Old) at a 5 - I have it at a 7.

On a related note - I'd love to hear Tom give his DS rating for his renovated Gunnamatta course at the National, as I don't believe it was included in the CG. I played it last year and have it as an 8.  Perhaps the best set of par-3's I've ever seen (and there are only three of them!).

The Gunnamatta is a bloody good course.
Lots of width and contour with challenge and interest galore and plenty of cunning visual sneakiness when it comes to playing lines and angles into and around the greens.
Atb

[mike_malone]

   I’m a member of Rolling Green and I think Cricket is better. For me, it’s the bunkering. Cricket’s add beauty and challenge. I don’t think rating Cricket over Rolling Green is all that controversial. Every national and state ranking I’ve seen has it that way. And yes, they are both great.

Could you imagine someone having the opposite view?

[Tim Gallant]

Rarely only a point either way. Painswick is a head scratcher. I love it but it has some terrible holes. Most people think it is terrible, in fact most of our members have not even played it and we are 40 minutes away. I think if I was unbiased I would have to say it was a 2 or 3 although I do recomend it. I think it got a 6 or 7 in CG. The score deviation is understandable though.

Adrian,


I've only played it once, but I could see how it would be a 6. The unique landforms and how the holes interact with those landforms lead to some pretty interesting and unique holes. I could probably take or leave 4 or 5 holes, but there are some absolute peaches in there. 6 might genuinely be in the conversation for best par 3 in England (IMHO). I'm not sure I'd go higher than a 6, but a 2 or a 3 might be a bit harsh.


The only time I played it, I was with Sean A. When he said 'this is the first', I thought he was pulling my leg

[Adrian_Stiff]

Rarely only a point either way. Painswick is a head scratcher. I love it but it has some terrible holes. Most people think it is terrible, in fact most of our members have not even played it and we are 40 minutes away. I think if I was unbiased I would have to say it was a 2 or 3 although I do recomend it. I think it got a 6 or 7 in CG. The score deviation is understandable though.

Adrian,


I've only played it once, but I could see how it would be a 6. The unique landforms and how the holes interact with those landforms lead to some pretty interesting and unique holes. I could probably take or leave 4 or 5 holes, but there are some absolute peaches in there. 6 might genuinely be in the conversation for best par 3 in England (IMHO). I'm not sure I'd go higher than a 6, but a 2 or a 3 might be a bit harsh.


The only time I played it, I was with Sean A. When he said 'this is the first', I thought he was pulling my leg

Tim as I said I like it and I probably agree on those same 4 or 5 holes. I have loved it since 1973 I tell people "I have friends that fly in from America to play it" and the point I am making is; I have had a corporate membership there for 4 or 5 years more as a donation to the club. The membership allows me to send a 4 ball free any day of the year, its open to all our 850 members, my guests, hotel guests. I can't give it away basically. I have used it 6 times in 2024 and it was not much better in 2023, 2022, 2021 etc. So how can a course be a 6 that 90% do not want to play for free. Painswick probably needs an asterisk and I think somebody once said that. Cleeve Hill and Minch common are in a similar bracket. All three would be in the bottom section of cheapest clubs to be a member of.

[Niall C]

Adrian


You've identified the problem. It's in the bottom section of the cheapest clubs to be a member of. What it needs to do therefore is start charging £150 a round and the crowds will flock to it ! 


Niall

[Sean_A]

Rarely only a point either way. Painswick is a head scratcher. I love it but it has some terrible holes. Most people think it is terrible, in fact most of our members have not even played it and we are 40 minutes away. I think if I was unbiased I would have to say it was a 2 or 3 although I do recomend it. I think it got a 6 or 7 in CG. The score deviation is understandable though.

Adrian,


I've only played it once, but I could see how it would be a 6. The unique landforms and how the holes interact with those landforms lead to some pretty interesting and unique holes. I could probably take or leave 4 or 5 holes, but there are some absolute peaches in there. 6 might genuinely be in the conversation for best par 3 in England (IMHO). I'm not sure I'd go higher than a 6, but a 2 or a 3 might be a bit harsh.


The only time I played it, I was with Sean A. When he said 'this is the first', I thought he was pulling my leg

Tim as I said I like it and I probably agree on those same 4 or 5 holes. I have loved it since 1973 I tell people "I have friends that fly in from America to play it" and the point I am making is; I have had a corporate membership there for 4 or 5 years more as a donation to the club. The membership allows me to send a 4 ball free any day of the year, its open to all our 850 members, my guests, hotel guests. I can't give it away basically. I have used it 6 times in 2024 and it was not much better in 2023, 2022, 2021 etc. So how can a course be a 6 that 90% do not want to play for free. Painswick probably needs an asterisk and I think somebody once said that. Cleeve Hill and Minch common are in a similar bracket. All three would be in the bottom section of cheapest clubs to be a member of.

I wouldn’t place Cleeve in the same category as Painswick other than being common land courses. The conditioning is far better and it’s a proper course. Painswick is more of an architectural marvel. Something that all should play a few times. Still, despite all the oddball stuff, I can’t definitively point to another course with a better set of 3s.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

For me, its almost the PAR 3 holes that ruin in.
5 is blind, so you have no idea where the pin is
6 is awesome
7 is very hard to hold the green you almost always collect at the back
10 is blind ditto 5
12 must be the only par 3 in the world no ones ever pitched the green and held! You have to trundle a wood or rescue and allow the lucky or unlucky bounces
15 is mainly blind but pretty when you get nearer
18 is very average


I don't dislike the BLIND holes myself but most people are negative of those, the crossing holes and the 1st hole.


I agree Cleeve Hill is much better as a proper golf course and agree Painswick is a must play, just find it hard to give it a Doak 6

[Thomas Dai]

Painswick etc.
I’m a Painswick fan but could I play it a couple of times a week throughout the year? Afraid not, not these days at least.
Whilst there are some courses I could do this at Painswick isn’t one. I feel somewhat the same although less so about wider Cleeve, less so again about flatter and wider Minch’ Old.
At Painswick in particular given the small and narrow size and at places blind views within the property there is too much else going on. Walkers, mountain bikers, horse riders, roads etc. In some ways the lack of play probably helps Painswick to still exist. If there was a much more significant amount of play the health and safety brigade may well have got involved in a big way. And some tweaks to compensate for H&S have already been made over the years.
Less so with Cleeve as the playing area is significantly larger, essentially large enough to permit plenty of other users to enjoy the landscape. As to Minch’ Old, even though the overall area is massive several greens have had to be relocated over the years and previous tee-shots over roads eliminated plus no play is permitted to commence on Sunday afternoons.
There are lots more people around these days and many have more leisure time to walk and bike etc than previous generations. When golf was first played on the above mentioned sites back in the 1890’s the population of England was circa 37 million. It’s now approx 57 million!
Atb

[Tim Gallant]

Rarely only a point either way. Painswick is a head scratcher. I love it but it has some terrible holes. Most people think it is terrible, in fact most of our members have not even played it and we are 40 minutes away. I think if I was unbiased I would have to say it was a 2 or 3 although I do recomend it. I think it got a 6 or 7 in CG. The score deviation is understandable though.

Adrian,


I've only played it once, but I could see how it would be a 6. The unique landforms and how the holes interact with those landforms lead to some pretty interesting and unique holes. I could probably take or leave 4 or 5 holes, but there are some absolute peaches in there. 6 might genuinely be in the conversation for best par 3 in England (IMHO). I'm not sure I'd go higher than a 6, but a 2 or a 3 might be a bit harsh.


The only time I played it, I was with Sean A. When he said 'this is the first', I thought he was pulling my leg

Tim as I said I like it and I probably agree on those same 4 or 5 holes. I have loved it since 1973 I tell people "I have friends that fly in from America to play it" and the point I am making is; I have had a corporate membership there for 4 or 5 years more as a donation to the club. The membership allows me to send a 4 ball free any day of the year, its open to all our 850 members, my guests, hotel guests. I can't give it away basically. I have used it 6 times in 2024 and it was not much better in 2023, 2022, 2021 etc. So how can a course be a 6 that 90% do not want to play for free. Painswick probably needs an asterisk and I think somebody once said that. Cleeve Hill and Minch common are in a similar bracket. All three would be in the bottom section of cheapest clubs to be a member of.

I see your logic, and that's fair. I can imagine it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Tim Gallant]

This is a fascinating quote about TCG. I've not really thought about the scale relative to the same architect's other work. To me, the liberating thing about the scale is you don't need to compare (like in a ranking). Any guesses on who the quote is from?


So then what's a 7?  A 7 is a course that sets itself beyond the typical Tom Fazio or Jeff Brauer or Tom Doak course.  If it's just an average example of our work, then it isn't worth traveling to play, any more than any other of our courses.  A 7 has to have something about it that's really special -- a unique setting, a better set of greens, a couple of truly great holes, etc.  Almost by definition, that would make it a legitimate contender for Best New Course of the Year (as opposed to all the 5's and 6's which advertise that they were "nominated" for the award).