What Would Your Home Course Rate on the Doak Scale?

[HJJ003]

I have just read the first three volumes of the confidential guide by Doak and Co. and have been thinking the last few months on why I consider a golf course good, bad etc.. I have found that many of my friends and strangers I play with just want a well conditioned  very green course (Overrated IMO), and the harder the better even if they can’t fake their way to breaking 100. 
 

Anyway- it got me thinking about the courses I play and how I would rate them on the Doak scale. I’m curious to what you guys would say as well.

sooo...

what do you think your home course would score on the Doak Scale...and why?

Here is a link to the Doak Scale as reference:

Rankings | GolfCourseGurus

 

[iacas]

Whispering Woods would be about a 4.5, Kahkwa probably a 5, Lake View probably a 4.5 again… and… the rest would be in the 3-4 range.

[saevel25]

The Summit, Stark and Portage County Area in Ohio. 

Brookside CC (Canton Ohio) - 5.75
Firestone South (Akron, Ohio) - 5.5
Firestone North (Akron, Ohio) - 5.5
Firestone West (Akron, Ohio) - 5.5
Bouldercreek (Streetsboro, Ohio) - 4.5

The rest are probably 3-4. There are a few in the 2 or less range. 

[dennyjones]

This year I've played everything from a 2 to a 6.     The local courses around me probably would rate a 3.

[mchepp]

I find this to be such a subjective assessment. For example, the golf guru site that this sits on ranks Bandon Dunes as #11, but I have played it and Pasatiempo (#151) multiple times, and I find Pasatiempo to be a much more enjoyable course. More history, more memorable holes, etc. Heck I even like Trails more than Dunes.

I have played a 0. The Ranch Golf Club in San Jose. Ugh, I get nightmares thinking about it.

 

[HJJ003]

37 minutes ago, mchepp said:

I find this to be such a subjective assessment

It absolutely is. The scale just helps quantify the subjection. 
 

my home course is a 2. It would likely be a three but poor conditioning and a few too many long tee to green transitions bring it down a notch. Memorial Park is a 6 (after the renovation) and that is my special Houston area course I play every so often. 

[Darkfrog]

I'd say my home course is a 2, but could be a 3 with better conditioning, and some of the other local courses I visit in the range of 4-6, maybe one or two of them could be a 7.

[dagolfer18]

My home course is a fairly nice semi-private facility. I’d probably rate it a 6.

Edited December 3, 2019 by dagolfer18

[David in FL]

5ish.  A good, well maintained private club.  Nothing I would travel for though...

[DwightC]

That Doak scale is kinda fun.  #s 6, 7 and 8 are the old Michelin star system for restaurants (don't miss if you're in the vicinity--one star, worth a detour--two stars, worth a special trip--three stars), and #s 9 and 10 deliver on his promise of hair splitting among the three star experiences.  #s 1-5 are, sadly, an acknowledgement of the world we live in.

 

Oh, and personally, a 5-ish, maybe a 6.  For anyone who can read the techno-gibberish of so much marketing hype for new golf balls and the latest greatest iteration of some weirdly named driver without laughing, how about 5.625?

[David in FL]

19 hours ago, HJJ003 said:

It absolutely is. The scale just helps quantify the subjection. 
 

my home course is a 2. It would likely be a three but poor conditioning and a few too many long tee to green transitions bring it down a notch. Memorial Park is a 6 (after the renovation) and that is my special Houston area course I play every so often. 

The subjectivity is also dependent on the experiences of the person rating the course.  
 

If someone has never played truly top tier courses (or absolute dog tracks for that matter), they’re likely to consider the relative extremes with which they are familiar as closer to either side of the scale than they actually are.

[iacas]

I probably slightly under-rated my home courses. Bump them all up 0.5 points.

[DaveP043]

My home course is quirky, with some awkward holes, and a couple of pretty unfair ones, but some other holes that (to me at least) are interesting and challenging.  Its location provides some great views.  Based on the scale as outlined, that might make it a 4.  The few excessively severe greens would push it lower, the scenery and good holes higher, I think 4 is reasonable.

[p1n9183]

My home course is a 2. Thankfully on the mid Am´s I play on courses on the range 4-6. 

I guess i played a 7..8 once in my life in my trip to USA.

[phillyk]

I'd call mine a 6.5.  Usually good shape, the views are great, and the course is unique.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, phillyk said:

I'd call mine a 6.5.  Usually good shape, the views are great, and the course is unique.

What's your home course? Eaglemont, right?

[phillyk]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

What's your home course? Eaglemont, right?

Yeah. I'm obviously biased and would rate it higher than others would.  But it might also be because there aren't a lot of good tracks within 35 miles. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Yeah. I'm obviously biased and would rate it higher than others would.  But it might also be because there aren't a lot of good tracks within 35 miles. 

Well you're awfully close to the "course you should definitely see if you're within 100 miles." From a quick look at GCA, your opinion seems to be your own only. 🙂