Jump to content
HJJ003

What Would Your Home Course Rate on the Doak Scale?

61 posts / 4587 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

I'm rating my home course, Shuksan, a 7.1.  Well-maintained and manicured.  Lots of interesting topography.  Greens roll true.  Friendly pro shop.  Several beautiful views of snow-capped Mount Baker.  Ponds and creeks meandering through the holes.  No houses interfering with the natural views.  And the cart girls are all 10's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for free today and you won't see this ad spot again!

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

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. 🙂

The 100 mile qualification is one we don't fit into for sure.  But we are also very unique, good conditions, and tough.  Some people call us a "hidden gem" near Seattle, while others don't like it.

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I'm rating my home course, Shuksan, a 7.1.  Well-maintained and manicured.  Lots of interesting topography.  Greens roll true.  Friendly pro shop.  Several beautiful views of snow-capped Mount Baker.  Ponds and creeks meandering through the holes.  No houses interfering with the natural views.  And the cart girls are all 10's.

I'd put Shuksan at a 6-6.5 with Eaglemont.  Loomis, I'd say is the 7 in our area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, phillyk said:

The 100 mile qualification is one we don't fit into for sure.  But we are also very unique, good conditions, and tough.  Some people call us a "hidden gem" near Seattle, while others don't like it.

I'd put Shuksan at a 6-6.5 with Eaglemont.  Loomis, I'd say is the 7 in our area.

And Semiahmoo, designed by Arnold Palmer, is now a 1.5.  Too damn many houses lining the fairways... I feel like I'm playing golf in someone's backyard.  But Loomis Trail is cool.

Edited by Double Mocha Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Friendly pro shop staff is completely irrelevant. It’s all about the architecture.

I don't think Doak rates the cart girls either.  I just threw in a few extras.  And their wine is well-priced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David in FL said:

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.

Agreed. Doak actually acknowledges this in his book series. He states something along the lines of if his “4” is our “6” then we just need to take that into consideration when reading the books. 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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

I looked yours up after you had posted the first time and thought I would rate them a little higher than you originally did. Impossible for me to know though without playing them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The muni courses that I play would range anywhere from 1-3. 

A couple of them have some interesting holes, but the course maintenance is never going to good enough for more than a three.

I'd rank my "home" courses at Kittyhawk a straight 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Kind of depressing IMO.  I was happy with the two muni's I frequent but looking at this rating scale they are "3" at best so maybe I shouldn't be so satisfied.  The other two courses in my "rota" are likely a "4-5" and a "6" so that's not too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Doak's scale.  Thinking it over, it's really two scales--6-10 are a way to rate the world's top courses.  1-5 is a way to rate the rest of the world.  3 is average, 1 is awful, 5 is really good, 4's would be 5's except for some drawback, and 2's are either 3's in lousy shape or 1's with some TLC.  It seems to me that most of this crowd ought to be able to find an accessible 4 or 5.  Depending on where you live.

Two further observations--yes, the scale is subjective, but any course that the USGA uses for qualifying or regional events probably rates as a 5 (unless it's in the top half of the scale).  And, the scale doesn't address what to do with a course that has the bones to be a 6-10, but is the victim of hard times or poor maintenance.  The Fallen Angel problem is a conundrum, and, unless Doak has blotted out the memory of Apache Stronghold, he's aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DwightC said:

More on Doak's scale.  Thinking it over, it's really two scales--6-10 are a way to rate the world's top courses.  1-5 is a way to rate the rest of the world.  3 is average, 1 is awful, 5 is really good, 4's would be 5's except for some drawback, and 2's are either 3's in lousy shape or 1's with some TLC.  It seems to me that most of this crowd ought to be able to find an accessible 4 or 5.  Depending on where you live.

Two further observations--yes, the scale is subjective, but any course that the USGA uses for qualifying or regional events probably rates as a 5 (unless it's in the top half of the scale).  And, the scale doesn't address what to do with a course that has the bones to be a 6-10, but is the victim of hard times or poor maintenance.  The Fallen Angel problem is a conundrum, and, unless Doak has blotted out the memory of Apache Stronghold, he's aware of it.

The scale is obviously skewed to split hairs between really good golf courses, and really he focuses on what makes golf courses different. So a 3 just isn't really different than any other course out there in the world. The closer to 10 a course gets the more special or unique in a good way a course becomes. 

Yeah, I agree that the bottom of the scale is much more common to find, and the vast majority of golfers have access to some 4's and 5's. (unless your in Alaska as Doak Jokes).

Doak states that conditioning never adds to a Doak score on his scale, but can remove a point (maybe more?) if the course falls on bad times. I heard Apache Stronghold got really bad there for a while on conditioning...and knowing Doak gave it a 6 still he may not follow his own advice all the time haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I guess my home course Elizabeth Manor  would fall in the range of 4-4.5. It is a straight forward old city parkland style course that devoid of trickery but has well guarded greens with very healthy bunkering. Variety of holes is good and a fun set of finishing holes. The best thing is it offers options for all level of players to score. The greens are usually in great shape rolling true between 7-9 so does not break hearts of high handicappers. The Eastern Virginia Amateur gets played here every year so it has some pedigree and flex muscle when it wants to.

On the flip side it is not visually appealing and meanders through a city neighborhood. 

I feel like cost of play should figure in the assessment as an addendum to the criteria, even if it muddies up the scale a bit. From that perspective, cost to quality of play ratio would probably have me rating my course as a 5.5.

Edited by GolfLug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

25 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I feel like cost of play should figure in the assessment as an addendum to the criteria, even if it muddies up the scale a bit. From that perspective, cost to quality of play ratio would probably have me rating my course as a 5.5.

That's the big key here. Don't think Doak cares much about what something costs.

My old Kittyhawk would skyrocket from a 2 to a solid 3.5 if cost was considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

That's the big key here. Don't think Doak cares much about what something costs.

My old Kittyhawk would skyrocket from a 2 to a solid 3.5 if cost was considered.

Well, I figured you gotta let the girl next door play to her strength if you are gonna put her on a scale featuring supermodels..😊

Edited by GolfLug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Whitemarsh Valley CC outside of Philly. George Thomas design, 1908. PGA Tour event from 1963-80. Every great player from Harry Vardon to Jack Nicklaus has played in competition there. Twenty years ago I would have given it no more than a 3. It was neglected, had shrinking greens, bad bunkering and way too many trees that were planted 50-60 years ago. But an ongoing reclamation project over the last ten years has lifted it to a 7, some would argue 7.5. The Philly area has a lot of great golf courses and Whitemarsh is back to being one of them. Right around the corner is Philadelphia Cricket Club, whose Wissahickon course is a solid 8, but Whitemarsh is very close on the scale, IMO, and much more accessible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the scale and think one of the clubs i’m a new member of would be 8 - maybe 9.  The other my home course a 6.  The higher one has recently been restored somewhat by Tom Doak so I assume he’d like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HarrogateHacker said:

Just read the scale and think one of the clubs i’m a new member of would be 8 - maybe 9.  The other my home course a 6.  The higher one has recently been restored somewhat by Tom Doak so I assume he’d like it. 

What course? 8s and 9s are pretty rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, iacas said:

What course? 8s and 9s are pretty rare.

Hi, it’s the Hotchkin at Woodhall spa, world golf have recently ranked it at 54 in the world.  I love it, so am a bit biased, but given I’ve joined as a member and it’s +100miles from where I live, it’s defo worth an 8 (in my ratings anyway) it’s v subjective though.  Doak has been making changes to the course over the last few years  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2020 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • I play better and quicker when I walk, but I mostly ride now due to knee/ankle issues. If someone is riding with me, I will try to walk a few flat holes to get more exercise.
    • Pain is like that.  Depending upon how one swings the club, a tightened back can affect the shot. Pinehurst 2 was 7 hours.  But you are correct, 6 hour rounds are rare.  I exaggerated.   5+ are common.
    • I actually like my clubs to look beat up, but clean. I don't even cover my woods sometimes. The putter, on the other hand, is always covered. 
    • I don’t see this situation as playing through. I see it as first come first serve on the turn. You go to order food and have to wait a bit with an open tee, I’m going. I don’t see that as rude. Maybe they could have asked earlier in the front 9. 
    • New golf courses are EXPENSIVE to design, build, etc and will only continue to increase in price, and many of the existing ones are simply running out of room to move tee boxes back. FFS Augusta had to buy an entire road so they could move a tee box back recently. Which would absolutely suck because there are soooo many really really good golf courses that exist now that would be able to challenge all aspects of a PGA tour player's game if they didn't hit it so far.  They don't need to be treated as separate events, the pros just need a slight distance limiter (ball, club technology, etc) that allows them to continue to play these iconic and awesome golf courses. Amateurs can buy those balls if they want, or keep playing the regular balls like now. What about upcoming high level amateurs and how would they adjust? Well the same thing exists in Baseball. Across all levels of college baseball metal bats are used. The moment a player gets drafted and signs with a professional team, instantly wood bats. The top hitters still have the ability to hit, just like the top collegiate (or h.s.) golfers would have the ability to score with a shorter ball/equipment when they move up to the next level. That is so BORING to watch though, and it would still be bombs away 90% of the time for the top players, and that can make the distance gap between short and long hitters even more, look at Bethpage last year. Brooks didn't care if his drive went into the rough on most holes because he had the speed to get an 8 iron through the rough and still get his approach shot to the green. A shorter hitter who carried it into the same rough as Brooks but 30 yards further back probably doesn't have enough speed to get their 5 iron through the rough so they have to lay up while Brooks was able to reach the green.  Another example is comparing watching the Ryder Cup to the President's Cup at Royal Melbourne. The rough at Royal Melbourne wasn't super grown in and those fairways weren't super narrow at all but players still got punished when they were out of position because angles into greens actually mattered there.   I know you didn't specifically mention it, but super long rough around the greens is really boring too and easy for the pros to handle. It stops errant shots so much quicker when they miss the green, easier for pros to open the face and slide the club underneath the ball, etc. Pros struggle so much more chipping off of very tight lies and on holes where missing the green in the wrong spot can funnel your ball further away from the hole/green, not keep it close because of the rough. I don't think that narrower fairways and increased rough is the proper solution at all. Yup, this is part of the solution IMO. Make angles into greens matter again.  The other part IMO is equipment related. The driver is the most forgiving club in the bag, I think guys should be penalized more for off-center strikes, knowing if they hit it off the toe or heel there is a chance that ball could be off the planet O.B. Whether that's with a smaller CC driver head, lowering the max MOI, higher spin golf balls, etc I'm not sure, but I think that hitting driver really straight and really far for pros should require more skill than it does now.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Jay G
      Jay G
      (44 years old)
    2. JRan
      JRan
      (40 years old)
    3. Rkrider99
      Rkrider99
      (70 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...