News:

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


Ryan Farrow

Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #100 on: November 15, 2007, 12:53:45 AM »
ASU Karsten a Zero? was it the power lines that crossed the fairway? Power plant? The thing that I don't understand is how awkward some of the holes were considering the site was dead flat (as I understand) to begin with. With all the water and trees on the course I don't think that quirk can be explained with the "links style" they were going for. OK, maybe I am seeing why it is a 0 but its hard not to recommend or play when you can walk 10 minutes to the course and play it for under 20 bucks.

I haven't been there since freshman year, I'd much rather give my business to Papago.

TEPaul

Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #101 on: November 15, 2007, 06:42:30 AM »
TomD:

I'll just never understand why some people so completely pan Old Head.

I admit I can only remember well about 6-8 holes there and certainly the ones along the cliffs but I recognize that site just has to have some serious limitations in routing etc.

Perhaps Old Head is sort of the flip side of the initial reaction to Cypress Point. Remember when Mackenzie asked Hunter what the initial reaction to the course was and Hunter told him that everyone loved it and Mackenzie seemed disappointed assuming the beauty of the place completely overwhelmed some of his planned "controversy"?

Well, maybe Old Head is somewhat the same thing except on the flip side---eg people don't really notice some bad routing or holes because the place is just so dramatic and beautiful.

All I can say about my two rounds at Old Head is I had a great time there---a memorable time there.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 06:44:26 AM by TEPaul »

Doug Ralston

Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #102 on: November 15, 2007, 08:25:29 AM »
Wee Tee!

Clown's eye = -5!

But wait! They did NOT spend tons of money to waste, so no! In fact, rather a humorous 'course'.

By God, think we have us a 3!  :D

Doug

Dan Boerger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #103 on: November 15, 2007, 11:32:58 AM »
Good points Tom (on OH). For those of you who haven't been there or played it, think Pebble Beach on steriods. It's such a unique piece of land, I'm not quite sure how or (more importantly) why you would route it much differently.

And another point ... This is why I would never really be a good golf course critic. I've had such great times there (been there 3 times) that I have trouble separating that from the course itself. It's why I wouldn't be a terrific food critic either ... hot dogs DO taste better at the ball park.
"Man should practice moderation in all things, including moderation."  Mark Twain

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #104 on: November 15, 2007, 11:41:20 AM »
Much of this thread has centered around the debate of whether certain courses deserve a "0" rating.  Somebody nominates a course, and people come to its defense.

It seems there were a few reasons courses got a "0":

Way too hard
Way too hilly
Way too dangerous
Way too unnatural
Way too expensive

Seems there are lots of courses out there, built on poor golfing property, that offer fast, interesting greens and fun shots to hit, as long as you take a cart.  At some level I believe every unwalkable course deserves a "0" - it simply does not qualify.  Therefore, I believe the "0-5", or "0-x" is a more valuable ranking tool.

Let's take two examples.  First, I'll pick on my own Stone Eagle in Palm Desert.  Not impossible, but a very tough walk.  A very expensive project, built in an area that does not naturally support lush green grass.  Tom's guys walked the course while they built it, and I intend on walking the course a couple times this winter to see how it feels.  I like the course a lot, partly because I belong there, but also because it has excellent golf holes and is beautiful.  But other people here think it's awful.  It's either a 0 or a 6-7, depending on your perspective.

7 - An excellent course, worth checking out...You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning, and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

I think Stone Eagle offers uniqueness as well.

The project that offends me most in the last couple years is Dismal River.  They had a great piece of property and a big budget, and built a course 1.5 miles from the clubhouse which is difficult to walk and very difficult to play.  It's even difficult to know where you're going on several holes.  It should have been great, and by most accounts here it is not.  Where do you rate that?  Is it a 5 or a 6?

6 - A very good course, definitely worth a game if you're in town...It shouldn't disappoint you.


Tim Leahy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2007, 01:57:29 PM »
I think the "don't play" recommendation was a bit of tongue in cheek hyperbole, that went something like "don't play under any circumstance, lest your architectural mind be poisoned for life!"

I don't think he meant it as a "go bowling instead", but as a blast against excessive, bloated, wasteful architecture.
Hey Mike!
That's exactly why I gave atunyote the zero...excessive bloated wasteful...good pick up with shore gate by the way...although I did get an eagle there!  One of only two...on par fours.  (No, no hole-in-one yet...)
I dont think Pine Hill is a zero...that's the one I htink wuld be a doak 4ish...doesn't he call a 3 "average"?  I think that's correct.

Mike and Jay, the course I mentioned in the "bowling" thread, Bartley Cavanagh in Sacto, is definitely a "0", and in fact was built by the same guys and is very similar in bad design to the Doak 0 course Cypress in Los Alamitos that has since been plowed under.
I love golf, the fightin irish, and beautiful women depending on the season and availability.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2007, 07:17:43 PM »
This is the only page I have read from this thread, and maybe its already been said...but I think any true 'O', should be at least a '1' because I find some of the worst courses fascinating from an inverse perspective.....they hold my attention for that reason and I find them unique as well.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2007, 07:34:19 PM »
This is the only page I have read from this thread, and maybe its already been said...but I think any true 'O', should be at least a '1' because I find some of the worst courses fascinating from an inverse perspective.....they hold my attention for that reason and I find them unique as well.

Paul,

Thanks, thanks, and more thanks...thats a perfect tie in to my next thread as it relates to this.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 07:34:36 PM by Kalen Braley »

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Doak zeros....
« Reply #108 on: November 15, 2007, 08:06:46 PM »
I think the "don't play" recommendation was a bit of tongue in cheek hyperbole, that went something like "don't play under any circumstance, lest your architectural mind be poisoned for life!"

I don't think he meant it as a "go bowling instead", but as a blast against excessive, bloated, wasteful architecture.
Hey Mike!
That's exactly why I gave atunyote the zero...excessive bloated wasteful...good pick up with shore gate by the way...although I did get an eagle there!  One of only two...on par fours.  (No, no hole-in-one yet...)
I dont think Pine Hill is a zero...that's the one I htink wuld be a doak 4ish...doesn't he call a 3 "average"?  I think that's correct.

Mike and Jay, the course I mentioned in the "bowling" thread, Bartley Cavanagh in Sacto, is definitely a "0", and in fact was built by the same guys and is very similar in bad design to the Doak 0 course Cypress in Los Alamitos that has since been plowed under.

did Perry Dye design Cypress in Los Alamitos?  (it was, I believe a redo of a course that was there before it.)  By the way, I enjoyed playing Cypress occasionally.

Gary Sato

Re: Doak zeros....
« Reply #109 on: February 26, 2015, 03:12:32 PM »
Bump from 2007

John McCarthy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Doak zeros....
« Reply #110 on: February 26, 2015, 06:16:10 PM »
Bolingbrook. 
The only way of really finding out a man's true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself.
 PG Wodehouse

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Doak zeros....
« Reply #111 on: February 27, 2015, 08:54:14 AM »
Thanks for bumping this thread...for some reason it makes me even more fascinated with Doak's 0s.  There are fewer 0s than there are 10s! Probably because Tom hasn't taken the time to play all the 0s (why would he want to?!)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back