> Golf Course Architecture

Hillcrest CC in Los Angeles

<< < (3/8) > >>

For what it's worth, a quick check reveals that Tom himself gave Hillcrest a 3 on the Doak scale.....  :)

I caddied for a friend in a U.S. Women's Amateur qualifier there about 10 years ago (definitely pre-Harbottle) and found it vaguely pleasant but little more.  In a different market it might stand up better but relative to nearby LACC, Bel-Air and Riviera (maybe even Wilshire), it fails to inspire.  Of course, it's been substantially altered since Willie Watson's day -- and since Leo Diegel won the PGA there in 1929.


I'm not sure how many exactly, but some of the Jones flicks were also shot at the long-deceased Flintridge CC, a place I would love to have seen....

Jim Nugent:

--- Quote from: Robert_Ball on November 04, 2005, 12:16:45 PM ---Nice summary of the Doak scale....

--- Quote from: Tom Huckaby on December 13, 2004, 02:47:06 PM ---Here's the concise version of the Doak scale, as sent to me once by somebody here when I asked... the numbers get thrown around so much it is good to keep this on hand... especially when haging out with GW raters, for whom everything is a "solid" this or "bulletproof" that...  ;)

0= poisonous
1= very basic
2= not offensive but offers very little.
3= average golf course.
4= above average but nothing to distinguish itself
5= well above average, likely to have several distinctive holes.  But not worth a special trip.
6= very good course, would be one of the best courses in any area.  Play if reasonably closeby.
7= excellent and no obvious weaknesses, eventhough it might not offer anything unique.  Play within 100 miles.
8= a course of distinction, worth travelling substantial distances to.
9= a world great, may have one or two weaker holes, but a slew of world great holes too.
10= perfect, don't even miss one hole

--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---

What rank does Tom give Pebble?  While I've never played it, seems like consensus that PB has more than just one or two weaker holes.  If so, wouldn't even 9 be a stretch?  

Jason Topp:

The reason I like the Doak Scale is that it is reverse to what happens with something like the Golf Digest places to play ratings.  In those ratings the average is probably something like 3.5 out of five.  Thus, there is little to distinguish between the courses people like.

By contrast, with the Doak scale 3 (of 10) is an average course and anything 4 or above is a good course.  It allows one to recognize that a course is good, but make distinctions between courses that you like.

Stick to your guns on opinions.  It is interesting to learn fresh perspectives on what makes for a good course.  If someone makes a point that I don't understand, I try to press them for some detail in support of their positions.  Many people have been here so long and hashed out these issues to the point that they don't repeat the reasoning, because it has been discussed before.  I've found I have learned a lot from people that I disagree with, even if they are wrong. :)

There is no need for group think on these issues.  We are not curing cancer.  

John Nixon:

--- Quote from: David Ober on November 04, 2005, 01:04:51 PM ---Wow. If people think that Hillcrest is a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale, then I'm at the wrong place.

--- End quote ---

Hey, ya don't like it? Come up with an Oberscale.   ;)

FWIW, I believe there aren't many courses that make it beyond 5 or 6 on the Doak scale.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version