Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Kalen Braley on November 13, 2007, 01:51:57 PM
-
My intent is not to be negative by starting this thread, I am more just curious and or otherwise about Doak 0s.
A couple weeks ago, I beleive it was Cirba who claimed that because the bar for a Doak 0 is set so low, there are actually very few courses that would even qualify for this rating. Sort of the inverse of very few courses qualifying as 10s. I used to think a soggy, tree lined, bunkerless, flat, boring muni would be a zero, but this more closely aligns with a 1. So lets start out with the defintion of a 0:
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
So far, I can think of only one course that I've played that would maybe qualify for this...but even then, some of the shots called for are so preposterous, its almost cool and fun in a twisted way. I think a legitimate qualifer is the "The Ranch" based out of San Jose, CA.
Any others?
-
You said it, THE RANCH. I swear it's as if they set out to TRY to be a Doak Zero.
That being said, it remains one hell of an architectural achievement.
BTW I can think of no others around here... although perhaps The Bridges at Gale Ranch comes very, very close.
TH
-
I think most doak zeros happen to be course where somebody tried really hard to built something, spend a ton of money to shape it and built a piece of crap
-
I would guess two...Liberty National and Blarney Stone casino. (Atunyote).
Maybe one of the trumps...
-
For local ATL golfers, Atlanta National got a 0.
It's located right next to the new Crabapple Course in Alpharetta. This was in 1988, they have done a lot of work on the course since then.
-
perhaps that one Norman course that got plowed under before it opened...although I guess there aren't that many people who actually saw it and could give it a Doak rating!
any GCAers see it before it was killed?
-
I'd say I probably have only played 1 or 2 Doak Scale zeros, and although Jay hates it, I wouldn't say that Atunyote is one of them.
I think it's just another run-of-the-mill-perfect-conditioning-every-shot-requirement-immediately-visually-evident-missing-any-element-of-luck-chance-whimsy-or-fun-or-return-value Tom Fazio "5".
-
The old Belle Terre in Myrtle Beach was probably close to a 0.
-Ted
-
The Falls at Lake Las Vegas fits into that category.
Waste of water, that grass is.
-
The phrase "can't recommend it under any circumstances" seems to me to mean that if you had a choice between playing that golf course or not playing golf that day, you'd decline to even play. I really can't envision a golf course that would garner that sort of apathy from such avid golfers as we seem to have on this group. But I've never read, nor laid hands on the Confidential Guide, so perhaps my interpretation is a bit off...
-
My understanding is that awarding a 0 was almost a punitive measure, reserved for the big budget courses which were overdone.
-
The phrase "can't recommend it under any circumstances" seems to me to mean that if you had a choice between playing that golf course or not playing golf that day, you'd decline to even play. I really can't envision a golf course that would garner that sort of apathy from such avid golfers as we seem to have on this group. But I've never read, nor laid hands on the Confidential Guide, so perhaps my interpretation is a bit off...
I'd choose a round at Belle Terre before deciding not to play.
So if that is part of the definition, I take back my suggestion.
-Ted
-
Definite Doak 0 here in Sacto, Bartley Cavanagh. 18 hole muni built on land that barely would fit a regulation nine. Unsafe at any cost due to huge mounding built between holes to hide the tightness of the course and causes mis-hit shots to fly into other holes without being seen by those that hit them. No driving range. Would rather go bowling than play here.
-
I consider Hudson Hills in Westchester County, NY to be a 0, but it probably isn't.
The 0 really is a special circle of hell--not only does the course have to truly suck, they have to break the bank in the process. They're probably almost as rare as 10s.
-
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.
-
Two come to mind for me;
1) Country Club of THE Poconos At Big Ridge - courtesy of Jim Fazio
2) ShoreGate - courtesy of Ron Fream/David Dale
-
I second Tom....Hudson Hills is an overpriced joke--even for "residents"
-
Having not read the Confidential Guide, am I to assume Doak did not name any zeros ?
-
Stone Harbor.
And I think Tom gave it a 0.
-
Tom Yost,
There are 0s in the CG.
-
It's been too long since I reminded the group of the only -4 (Doak Scale) course I've encountered.
Not only would Trump be embarrassed by the excesses of the rock feature behind the 65 yard wide single green; he would have gagged at the thought that the "second richest man in Wales" would have given the money to build such a course with no drainage whatsoever in his homeland.
The only natural feature left on this course are the gates to Hades, adjacent to the long cart path back from the 18th.
Yes the prize goes to
The Wales National course at The Vale Hotel.
http://www.vale-hotel.com/golf/walesnational.html
-
I have never seen a 0. There is only one course that possibly comes to mind only because the site was far to lovely to waste on a golf course - Old Head. If I thought about it, there are probably some wonderful mountain areas destroyed by golf courses.
According to Doak I have seen several 10s, but I don't believe it. Am I really to believe that not a single hole at TOC, Muirfield, Pinehurst, Ballybunion or Dornoch is to be missed? Sorry, these courses are good, but they ain't that good.
Ciao
-
Seven Bridges a zero? It has 9 very nice holes, and a back nine that is an abomination. Hardly a zero. For me, a zero would have to be pretty bad (even if golf is a good walk spoiled, my worst day on the course is 50% better than my best day in the office!).
-
My defn of a 0 would be any course where I walked off after 9 holes bored to death, and I can think of about about a dozen or so.
-
2) ShoreGate - courtesy of Ron Fream/David Dale
Mike,
Come on, no way this is a Doak 0. I understand your disappointment with the course, but it has grown on me the 2-3 times that I have played it since my first round where I too was disappointed.
Are you saying that you prefer it over the up to a tee box and down to a fairway and up to a green and drive back up to a tee box golf course that is Pine Hills?
I play SG with my brother-in-law probably every other summer. He loves the place and his home course is Aronimink.
Even Tom Doak's rating of Stone Harbor as a 0 is contrived (same as Stone Harbor GC ;) ).
-
My defn of a 0 would be any course where I walked off after 9 holes bored to death, and I can think of about about a dozen or so.
Sorry Cary,
Those are 1's ;D ;D
That being said, a 0 might be less boring only because you are thinking to yourself "what the hell??"
-
It's been too long since I reminded the group of the only -4 (Doak Scale) course I've encountered.
Not only would Trump be embarrassed by the excesses of the rock feature behind the 65 yard wide single green; he would have gagged at the thought that the "second richest man in Wales" would have given the money to build such a course with no drainage whatsoever in his homeland.
The only natural feature left on this course are the gates to Hades, adjacent to the long cart path back from the 18th.
Yes the prize goes to
The Wales National course at The Vale Hotel.
http://www.vale-hotel.com/golf/walesnational.html
Tony
The Vale could definitely qualify for a zero, but there has been some changes since I was there last. Could it be slightly better now?
-
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
Broadmoor South (fortunately NLE, NKA "The Mountain Course" ). Exquisitely bad, and probably wasted a lot of $$ in construction. This Palmer/Seay course basically slid down the mountain into disuse. I understand it has been totally redone by Nicklaus Design and is now The Mountain Course, which I haven't played.
I mentioned recently that I thought Eagle Vail is a Doak 0. Looking at the definition, maybe not since I'm not sure they spent a ridiculous sum of money there. Plus the opening tee shot off the side of the hill is pretty fun. OK give it a Doak 0.5
I've played a lot of other contrived and unnatural courses but they don't meet the Doak 0 definition literally.
-
It's been too long since I reminded the group of the only -4 (Doak Scale) course I've encountered.
Not only would Trump be embarrassed by the excesses of the rock feature behind the 65 yard wide single green; he would have gagged at the thought that the "second richest man in Wales" would have given the money to build such a course with no drainage whatsoever in his homeland.
The only natural feature left on this course are the gates to Hades, adjacent to the long cart path back from the 18th.
Yes the prize goes to
The Wales National course at The Vale Hotel.
http://www.vale-hotel.com/golf/walesnational.html
Tony
The Vale could definitely qualify for a zero, but there has been some changes since I was there last. Could it be slightly better now?
It defies the imagination that it could possibly get worse ;D
(NB I've referred it on here at least 3x, and it just goes to show - you do get kinder with age.)
-
Tony
I've a few friends who are based there, I'll ask them about it.
There's always a chance that it could be worse!
-
Actually Shivas, they flipped the 9s back this year -- Weekly Challenge Tour officials told the manager that we wouldn't play there unless we could play the back 9 first. They're switched on the score cards but not, as of our May tournament, on their website.
It should also be noted that Seven Bridges won a number of awards for its stormwater retention design. Back when I was in high school, there were 36 flat, back and forth holes on this site. The new course has a housing devpt. encroaching on what has once again become the back 9, and it is indeed ridiculous. But, if you can't get a hybrid into a narrow landing area after playing 9 holes, it's your own fault. The course is far from a zero by any stretch of the imagination. . .
-
The China Creek Course at Newcastle near Seattle. Wow.
-
Sean - you can't imply for a moment that Old Head is a zero! No serious golf course evaluator would ever suggest this. It is a high candidate for "Dumb Blond" awards but to suggest that there are few courses worse than it in the world(an implied requirement of a Doak "0") is laughable. JC
-
Furry Creek GC on the road from Vancouver, BC up to Whistler has gotta be a Doak 0!
-
2) ShoreGate - courtesy of Ron Fream/David Dale
Mike,
Come on, no way this is a Doak 0. I understand your disappointment with the course, but it has grown on me the 2-3 times that I have played it since my first round where I too was disappointed.
Are you saying that you prefer it over the up to a tee box and down to a fairway and up to a green and drive back up to a tee box golf course that is Pine Hills?
I play SG with my brother-in-law probably every other summer. He loves the place and his home course is Aronimink.
Even Tom Doak's rating of Stone Harbor as a 0 is contrived (same as Stone Harbor GC ;) ).
Mike,
Please read this definition again;
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
Bingo. ;)
-
Mike C,
I read the "0" scale before, I posted! I think you are taking over Matt Ward's hyperbole. What is your Doak scale rating on Pine Hills?
10 rounds, how would you split between between Pine Hills and Shore Gate?
Father John Kavanaugh is watching so please, direct honest answers are required! :D
PS. Since I don't think you have played Stone Harbor yet, you are probably disqualified from identifying zeros!
-
Stone Harbor is an easy one. Think the phrase "Golf Architortue: was coined there...
But I played it once 15 years ago, I hear they changed it, filled in the island jaws bunkers, etc.
Do they still have the Adidas logo bunkers?
-
Silvertip in Canada is a zero -- it pains me to think about it.
-
Mike C,
I read the "0" scale before, I posted! I think you are taking over Matt Ward's hyperbole. What is your Doak scale rating on Pine Hills?
10 rounds, how would you split between between Pine Hills and Shore Gate?
Mike,
What kind of choice is that? Why, it's worse than choosing between Scylla and Charybdis...worse than choosing between Bobby Vinton and Wayne Newton....worse than choosing between a night of passion with Rosie O'Donnell or a night of passion with Vincent "Don Vito" Margera...worse than having to run a mini-marathon on the 12-miles of cart paths that take you from the first tee to the 18th green at Country Club of THE Poconos At Big Ridge...
And yes, somehow I've managed to never play Stone Harbor, but I want to...a lot.
If one is to know true greatness, one also needs to know exactly how bad the alternatives are, and that is where some of these courses we're discussing really come to the fore! ;D
-
I don't know if these are 0's in the truest sense as defined by TD, but I think they are pretty darn close.
Shorecliffs-in all fairness, it has had some landslides that have destroyed some of the course, but even if it hadn't, I don't know if it would've made a difference. There literally is only one hole that is decent, the 13th.
Lake San Marcos- I may be unfair in this assesment because there are a couple of holes that are halfway good, but there are some that are just plain terrible and offensive.
Fullerton GC- It's been years since playing it, and thank god...
Temeku Hills- absolutely no soul to the course whatsoever....
Menifee Lakes- see above.
Carmel Mountain Ranch- it's been butchered because of housing and people complaining of their homes being hit by errant tee shots. There are a couple of decent holes, but there are alot of bad ones.
Center City, Oceanside-a home made job by the owner. The guy unfortunately didn't have the kind of ground that Fownes, Leeds, Crump and Wilson had. Then again, if he did, I'm not sure he would've known what to do with it.
-
If one is to know true greatness, one also needs to know exactly how bad the alternatives are, and that is where some of these courses we're discussing really come to the fore! ;D
I know you have played way more courses than me, but you probably don't have this certificate from Mahogany Run in St. Thomas:
"Mahogany Run’s Signature 13th, 14th and 15th holes are known as The Devil’s Triangle. Golfers who play all three without a penalty stroke are awarded a special “I Survived The Devil’s Triangle” certificate from the Club’s Pro Shop."
Only the cruise ship crowd would pay for a golf course that advertises penalty strokes.
By the way, The Jans may have it beat, but Newton Commonwealth, MA (the worst Ross in the world?) may be a bigger shooting gallary.
-
Oh Mike...don't get me started on BAD, BAD, BAD golf courses...I might be here typing for the next 30 days.
Someday look up Cruz Farm in Farmingdale, NJ, and let's discuss that solid collection of holes! ;D
However, I do think that the Doak "0" is truly reserved for those courses that sanctimoniously and pretentiously try for "greatness" out of the box, and not the low-budget, amateurishly-designed, we-know-we-suck courses that are such a part of my overall resume.
In that regard, Pine Hill is an interesting choice on your part.
I wouldn't think of it in quite those dire terms, but looking at it on the pretentiousness meter, and those early advertisements playing up the Pine Valley connection, it sure is in the running! ;)
-
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
Broadmoor South (fortunately NLE, NKA "The Mountain Course" ). Exquisitely bad, and probably wasted a lot of $$ in construction. This Palmer/Seay course basically slid down the mountain into disuse. I understand it has been totally redone by Nicklaus Design and is now The Mountain Course, which I haven't played.
Doug,
The new Mountain Course is certainly no Doak 0. Its not near the quality of the East (did not play the West) but its above average now certainly.
-
I believe he gave Tam O'Shanter in Brookville, NY a score of 0
There are a couple of other clubs nearby that would be great candiates for such a score.
-
My guess is that Tom would give a 0 (or less) to a course he played as a kid (and I played when he was jsuta gleam in his father's eye), Hubbard Heights in Stamford, CT. They've changed the name now to protect the innocent, but do you know something--I loved that dog track, and not only because it was just about the only place within 25 miles to play for someone not a part of the country club scene.
Doak Zero's are perfect 10's when the alternative is no golf.
-
Rich: Hubbard Heights (E. Gaynor Brennan today) was a 1 on the Doak scale -- a very basic course with clear architectural malpractice and/or poor maintenance. You had to really make a mess to get a 0.
I had to go back and look up the zeroes again; it's been a long time. When the book was published, GOLFWEEK's review spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on the zeroes -- there isn't even a list in the book, you really have to search through and find them as I just did -- and trashing the book for being so harsh. They even had a guy go to Stone Harbor and write a good review of it to show how wrong I was!
The zeroes were as follows:
Stone Harbor, NJ (since changed considerably)
Kiln Creek, VA (every hole built up ten feet in the air on fill to get rid of dirt from a development)
Renaissance Park, NC (since closed I think, landfill special)
Heather Glen, SC (third nine)
Atlanta National, GA (since changed considerably)
Terradyne, KS
Karsten Course at ASU, AZ
Cypress GC, CA (since plowed under)
Hokkaido GC (Lion course), Japan (I wonder if it's been abandoned)
I think I'll let Shivas defend me on whether the reviews were justified, considering the track record since then.
The list above is from my 1994 edition. There might have been 1-2 more in the 1996 version that I saw in between. There were also a handful of other courses rated "0-5" which meant they were close to a 0 for me but that others would not find them so objectionable.
I did think the attention paid to the zeroes was overkill. There were less than ten of them out of 800 courses in the book, and I didn't highlight them at all.
-
Oh, I do remember one more from the 1996 edition -- the third nine at Port Ludlow in Washington. A resort course pretty much unplayable for anybody over a 15-handicap due to many forced carries over wetlands at the bottom of hills.
-
Tom
Thanks for giving Hubbard Heights a 1. It shows that you have a heart...
As for Cypress GC, if you check out Barney's latest thread regarding building golf courses on top of cemetaries, you will see that only 9 were plowed under and 9 remain (and at a very respectable 6.900 yards for two loops, too!).
I played there a couple of times in the late 70's early 80's and it was not at all bad, IMHO. Sure, searching for lost balls amongst the gravestones was not everybody's cup of tea, but the architecture was OK, and the experience unique. I'd give it a Doak 3.
Rich
PS--for those who do not know, Colma, CA, where "The Other" Cypress is located, was a town incorporated specifically to serve as the graveyard for San Francisco after the spread of disease from corpses following the 1906 earthquake was seen to be intolerable. 73% of the land in the town consists of cemetaries. Perfect fodder for Barney's golf course development dreams....
-
Tom
Thanks for giving Hubbard Heights a 1. It shows that you have a heart...
I have to say that HH is at least a 2, and it can't touch Newton Commonweath on the Doak 0 scale.
The power lines and industrial waste surrounding ASU Karston was pretty bad, but I don't remember the course being that bad?
Mike C,
My Pine Hill - Shore Gate split would be 2-8.
-
Technically speaking is a Doak 0 a course where you drive 100 miles to go play and once there you refuse to get outta your car in the parking lot?
Sean Arble:
I sure don't think Old Head is remotely close to a Doak 0 but I hear you about a golf course being on that remarkable and anthropologically important land. I still can't imagine how they got the permission to put a golf course on Old Head.
But as a site Old Head is about a Doak 15 to me---eg I'd drive 150 miles just to see Old Head itself. When I did get there I had some pretty interesting conversations with some Aereans who lived there about 5,000 years ago. One of them told me he was pretty sure he shot a 72 just a couple of nights before.
-
I think Inniscrone is the worst course I've ever played - at least the worst course that was intended to be serious. It's a 0 on my scale, if not Doak's. Yes, there are worse courses, but for most of them the owner and/or architect really wasn't trying.
-
Jim:
There probably are up to nine or so holes at Inniscrone that for one reason or another some golfers have problems with in play and in concept and maybe a course with that many holes with perceived problems deserves to be a Doak 0 with some golfers. But do you deny that there are probably another nine holes at Inniscrone that are interesting and fun in design and in play? Or do you really think the whole course stinks?
-
There are a few holes are aren't bad - #1, #6 #9, #11, #12, #15 (if my memory serves me on those). There are several that are brutal - #3, #5 (maybe the worst par 3 I've ever seen) #7, #10 (maybe the worst par 4 I've ever seen), #16 (an unbelievably bad hole), #17, #18. I can't think of of a hole there I look forward to playing. Maybe I'm being a little harsh, but maybe not.
-
Jim:
From everything I've ever heard from anyone #3 (the short driveable par 4) would be a short par 4 star on any golf course. That hole is a multi-optional strategic gem. The only problem with it initially was its fairway was something of an aggressive option for the tee shot on #7. ;)
-
You've hit on my problem with it. You can kill people playing #7. It's a serious routing issue. I suppose the hole is ok. But so was the play at Forbes Theater.
-
MikeS
I played Newton Commonwealth a few times 35 years ago but can't remember a thing about it. Does that mean it's a zero, or was it so good that I was completely stunned?
Rich
PS-I'll grant you that Hubbard Heights was a 2--that middle bit with the high wire fences, rubber mats and crossing dirt fairways tied in perfectly to the "West Side Story" look and feel of the surrounding neighborhood.
PPS--hope you didn't grow up there..... :o
-
I mean Ford Theater. I think.
-
I think Inniscrone is the worst course I've ever played - at least the worst course that was intended to be serious. It's a 0 on my scale, if not Doak's. Yes, there are worse courses, but for most of them the owner and/or architect really wasn't trying.
I guess that's why we have horse races. I can't disagree more with your assessment of Inniscrone.
But, could a few trees planted near the 7th tee help minimize the problem with number 3? I think so. And #3 is a fantastic hole. Could the green at number 1 handicap hole #4 be made a bit fairer? Sure, I wouldn't quibble with that, but I still love the hole. Particularly from tips, the teebox from a much different angle.
And is Jim Coleman really Joe Logan in disguise? ;) Logan of the Philly Inky hated #10 as well. I just don't get that hatin' on this hole. Could it be the water treatment plant in view prejudices the hole? What's wrong with requiring a precise 200 yard shot from the tee to get to flatter areas in the fairway for a 150 yard shot over a hazard to small but trapless green?
And I would just love to have all members of GCA play #16 multiple times then give their opinions of it. It is a fantastic par 4, IMO, unlike any I've ever played. Yeah, the high handicapper isn't going to like it. Well, is that so bad? It has options galore. The straight route using the left fairway is tight, but shorter, and can give the best look and angle into the green. The right fairway is wider but longer and unless you are a real big hitter, you have a blind shot in.
#17 is hard to take for most after playing the previous. I would probably think this hole could have made the area short of the green a bit more hospitable. The 18th is not a great finishing hole, I will concede that.
Perhaps people might like to view some photos of the course and see Inniscrone in all its glory. :) Rumor has it that Forewinds is trying to sell it. They are the 3rd owners already. I'd hate to see this wonderul early Hanse design close up shop.
http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Inniscrone/
-
I'll tell you one thing about Old Head ... you would have to be in a really pathetic state of mind to have a bad time there. And perhaps it's the capitalist in me ... but I can't help but think the tax paying residents of Kinsale, by and large, enjoy the economic boost Old Head has provided.
-
Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.
With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.
I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.
Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .
Ted
-
Gillette Ridge in Connecticut seems to fit the definition. Overpriced. Terrible layout. Wasted property.
However, if it was the only option around, I would play there . . . so even at its worst it is still better than nothing.
-
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
Broadmoor South (fortunately NLE, NKA "The Mountain Course" ). Exquisitely bad, and probably wasted a lot of $$ in construction. This Palmer/Seay course basically slid down the mountain into disuse. I understand it has been totally redone by Nicklaus Design and is now The Mountain Course, which I haven't played.
I mentioned recently that I thought Eagle Vail is a Doak 0. Looking at the definition, maybe not since I'm not sure they spent a ridiculous sum of money there. Plus the opening tee shot off the side of the hill is pretty fun. OK give it a Doak 0.5
I've played a lot of other contrived and unnatural courses but they don't meet the Doak 0 definition literally.
The new Broadmoor mountain is pretty fun. (never played the old one) Not a good value the money of course, and not as good as the East course.
I thought Eagle Vail was ok. What do you think is so bad about it?
-
Tom
Thanks for giving Hubbard Heights a 1. It shows that you have a heart...
As for Cypress GC, if you check out Barney's latest thread regarding building golf courses on top of cemetaries, you will see that only 9 were plowed under and 9 remain (and at a very respectable 6.900 yards for two loops, too!).
I played there a couple of times in the late 70's early 80's and it was not at all bad, IMHO. Sure, searching for lost balls amongst the gravestones was not everybody's cup of tea, but the architecture was OK, and the experience unique. I'd give it a Doak 3.
Rich
PS--for those who do not know, Colma, CA, where "The Other" Cypress is located, was a town incorporated specifically to serve as the graveyard for San Francisco after the spread of disease from corpses following the 1906 earthquake was seen to be intolerable. 73% of the land in the town consists of cemetaries. Perfect fodder for Barney's golf course development dreams....
I think the Cypress that got a Doak 0 was located near Long Beach. San Francisco would be a long way to transport dead bodies.
-
AS is correct - the Cypress from Doak's book is in SoCal. The beloved Cypress in Colma is well-described by Rich and seems to change its form annually... for awhile it was a really tough 9 hole par 37... not sure what it is now but I hear it's recently changed again. Doak 3 sounds about right to me. I used to play it quite a bit.....
TH
-
Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.
With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.
I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.
Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .
Ted
Ted,
I completely agree with you. I think in the past I've said it's a Doak 5 or 6 and I'll stand by that.
I just know Sweeney hates it and I was busting him for liking ShoreGate better, which is perhaps the most bloated, excessive, virtually unplayable golf course I've seen.
-
Renaissance Park, NC (since closed I think, landfill special)
Tom - you'll be "pleased" to know that Renaissance Park is still alive and well, near the CLT airport. Each time I drive by I see a multitude of carts and the parking lot is full. If low- cost courses such as they introduce and keep people in the game, they can't be all bad (non- GCA speaking).
I've only played it once, and that was enough. But I do remember a fun downhill-dogleg-drivable par 4...so I'm going with 0.56 and not a zero!
-
So do we have any consensus 0's or than what TomD didn't explicitly mention in his book or otherwise?
As stated before, I think The Ranch can probably be safely put in the 0 category. Looks like the group is still haggling about on the rest of em...
Reminds of Life Of Brian when he's trying to buy that disguise and they merchant won't sell it to him cause he won't haggle...good stuff. ;D
-
Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.
With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.
I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.
Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .
Ted
Ted,
I completely agree with you. I think in the past I've said it's a Doak 5 or 6 and I'll stand by that.
I just know Sweeney hates it and I was busting him for liking ShoreGate better, which is perhaps the most bloated, excessive, virtually unplayable golf course I've seen.
Busting balls is always acceptable . . .
Just wanted to chime in and offer another perspective.
I'd like to play ShoreGate and see it for myself.
-Ted
-
Full disclosure:
I was a member at Pine Hill.
I spoke highly of the course on this and other websites.
I have since resigned my membership.
I'm not so sure the course is as good as I first thought.
Actually, I'm sure the course isn't as good as I first thought.
With that being said, describing Pine Hill as a 0 is a perfect example of why so many outsiders describe this group as spoiled and out of touch.
I'm not an emotional defender of Pine Hill . . . I have nothing invested in its reputation, its success, or anything having to do with the place. I have my problems with a host of things out there, golf course included . . .but I'd gladly debate/discuss the idea of Pine Hill as a Doak 0 with anyone interested.
Considering the course to be close to a 0 is absurd, maybe the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. And here is my first reason why . . .There are holes on that course that are outstanding, simple as that. I'd say that any course with outstanding golf holes can not be described as a 0. And I'd offer at least 5 holes at Pine Hill for consideration as outstanding . . .
Ted
Ted,
I completely agree with you. I think in the past I've said it's a Doak 5 or 6 and I'll stand by that.
I just know Sweeney hates it and I was busting him for liking ShoreGate better, which is perhaps the most bloated, excessive, virtually unplayable golf course I've seen.
I'll agree w/ Mike on Pine Hill. I'd give it a 6 on the TD scale. I think there are a number of nice holes, #12 perhaps being my fave.
I'll quibble w/ Mike on Shore Gate. Too say 'virtually unplayable'! Ouch. Pretty harsh, IMO. But it can't be a Doak zero (I know you aren't saying it is that Mike).
One course in the Philly area I played right after it opened that I vowed to not go back b/c I disliked it is so much is the former Somerton Springs/Twin Towers now called Linfield National, I think. I believe they've since modified the course a bit, but originally it was the most dangerous course I've ever played as holes were too close together. That is as close to a Doak scale 0 as I've ever played, but then again I'm an easy grader. ;)
-
And Mike, I'd like to clear something up with you from a past debate. . . .
You once claimed that after playing #12 at Pine Hill the player needed to walk back up the hill that he/she just played down in order to play #13. I disagreed with you. I was wrong. You also called Pine Hill a Doak 5 or 6 and I called it 6-7. Again, I think I was wrong. I agree with the 5-6 more than my original 6-7.
-Ted
-
I mentioned recently that I thought Eagle Vail is a Doak 0. Looking at the definition, maybe not since I'm not sure they spent a ridiculous sum of money there. Plus the opening tee shot off the side of the hill is pretty fun. OK give it a Doak 0.5
The new Broadmoor mountain is pretty fun. (never played the old one) Not a good value the money of course, and not as good as the East course.
I thought Eagle Vail was ok. What do you think is so bad about it?
Eagle Vail? Contrived (all the mountain holes), boring and unmemorable; also encroaching housing nearly everywhere. Other than that it's fine.
Glad to hear the new Mountain Course is OK; to even mention it in the same sentence as the East Course is saying something.
-
1. Country Club of the Poconos
2. Bear Brook - Fredon, NJ....almost impossible for anyone above 15 handicap to play...18 "signature" holes, but it had the best kept greens in Sussex County, NJ... Jim Rusnic is an excellent Super.
Twin Brook - Warren, NJ - the closest I ever had to walking off a course....removal or 1,500 christmas trees would be a good start.
-
"And I would just love to have all members of GCA play #16 multiple times then give their opinions of it. It is a fantastic par 4, IMO, unlike any I've ever played. Yeah, the high handicapper isn't going to like it. Well, is that so bad? It has options galore. The straight route using the left fairway is tight, but shorter, and can give the best look and angle into the green. The right fairway is wider but longer and unless you are a real big hitter, you have a blind shot in."
JoeB:
Inniscrone's #16 is most definitely a highly controversial hole but not without its supporters. I believe GI's Michael Bamberger thought the hole was wonderful.
I have no doubt at all that the architect(s) knew very well it would be controversial and highly so.
It's interesting to me that you think the right fairway is for big hitters. The architect himself told me that was not exactly his intention when he designed the hole. He said that fairway was mostly for short hitters and some missed shots to be played to in two.
My advice to him long ago was that #16 would be so much more acceptable for most everyone if that bank to the right of the green was reworked into short grass to allow it to be something of a down ramp from the right fairway or something of a kicker from the left fairway.
That, in fact, would provide a number of additional options which have never existed on that hole.
-
1. Country Club of the Poconos
2. Bear Brook - Fredon, NJ....almost impossible for anyone above 15 handicap to play...18 "signature" holes, but it had the best kept greens in Sussex County, NJ... Jim Rusnic is an excellent Super.
Bruce,
I second your nomination of Bear Brook. It's absolutely horrific, and among other abominations, features a 600+ yard uphill, 90-degree dogleg left with a blind pond in play followed by two lengthy wetland crossings.
(http://www.bearbrookgolf.com/golf/proto/bearbrookgolf/images/hole6.gif)
Hole Six
One of our more scenic holes, the first par five you face is also testing. Even the most hearty won't try to get home in two. You'll need to carry a broad natural area to reach the green. Don't worry, you can buy more golf balls in the pro shop at the turn.
The Bear's Tip:
Careful of that pond on the right. It actually comes out further into play than it looks.
And that's probably one of the better holes. :o However, since I'm not sure they had much of a grander goal than selling housing, it's probably not a true "0".
Ted,
Thanks for letting me know that. I thought perhaps I was being overly critical of Tom Fazio, but it's nice to know you concur with the numerous plusses and minuses of PH.
Joe,
No, ShoreGate is a 0. :-\ Or at least it was when I played there about 5 years back. I can't imagine what they could have done to improve it short of blowing it up.
Linfield National is just a horrible and dangerous golf course, and it's even worse with the new changes. However, since they had few pretensions I think it's probably more a 1 or 2.
-
Inniscrone is one of those places that falls along distinct lines.
Those with taste and elegance and a sense of adventure love it.
Those who are melded to their card and pencil hate it. ;) ;D
Seriously, there are a handful of holes at I'crone that don't work well, including 5, 10, 17, and 18. It could also be reasonably argued that 8 doesn't play as a redan and is too shallow for the type of shot required.
I love every other hole.
-
JoeB:
Inniscrone's #16 is most definitely a highly controversial hole but not without its supporters. I believe GI's Michael Bamberger thought the hole was wonderful.
I have no doubt at all that the architect(s) knew very well it would be controversial and highly so.
It's interesting to me that you think the right fairway is for big hitters. The architect himself told me that was not exactly his intention when he designed the hole. He said that fairway was mostly for short hitters and some missed shots to be played to in two.
My advice to him long ago was that #16 would be so much more acceptable for most everyone if that bank to the right of the green was reworked into short grass to allow it to be something of a down ramp from the right fairway or something of a kicker from the left fairway.
That, in fact, would provide a number of additional options which have never existed on that hole.
I think big hitters have the option of playing the hole to the right, but I hope I didn't indicate this was the preferred route. I think your are right TP in that the fairway to the right is typically played by the shorter hitters and the mods you talked about near the green would give it more options. But for me that really changes the way the hole looks and takes away some of the uniqueness.
-
We all define O differently, I played what I condsider to be a zero only once in my life and i DON'T even remember the name of the course. It was in Vegas, some ten to fifteen years ago with 150 dollar green fee, target golf at its worst, with small to medium rock rough. Spent the majority of the time looking for my balls in the rocks as apparently did the majority of people that day because after four and half hours, I walked off and quit after the 13th hole. Maybe I could have completed the round if I they had slot machines on the tees to play while you waited, if they had thought of that or incorporate this idea in the future, then I would give it a new rating of 1.
-
I have to concur with Mike Sweeney on Karsten at ASU. It's cramped and shoved into an area perhaps too small for a "championship" course, but they don't kill you with the rates, they have (or at least had the last time I was there) carts that carry 4 bags, so you can walk if you like, and the green complexes were varied and in decent shape. I'd have a lot more courses as zeros if this is one.
-
" But for me that really changes the way the hole looks and takes away some of the uniqueness."
JoeB:
I hear you but I think reworking that entire bank to the right of the green into short grass would make the hole play even better and more interesting and I think it would make it look even better too.
I did look at it carefully once with that in mind but that was a few years ago and I'd need to look again.
My recollection is that the bank to the right of the green gets steeper the closer it gets to the green and that creates some real problems in both play and actually trying to turn that area into a down ramp from the right fairway and a kicker from the left fairway.
What I mean by that is if one wanted to make that bank less steep right next to the green you'd have to start way back in that right fairway and that would take way too much work and it really would change the entire shape of that right landform near the green.
But if the way it is now could be transitioned to short grass you'd actually have a situation where balls missed slightly right from the left fairway would carom hard left and across the green and off left but if the ball was played higher up on the right bank it could just feed down more gentily.
And from the right fairway if one wanted to use the bank they would have to land the ball way back and let it filter down the steeper part close to the green. Land the ball too close to the green from the right and it would also rocket across the green.
The basic idea would be the best play would be to land farther right and farther from the green from the left fairway and farther back from the right one.
Now come on Joe, just try to tell me that would not be some pretty cool and nuancy playability and options. It would in fact be sort of counter-intuitive but the point is it could work for the savy and clever player as some really cool options.
Matter of fact those options would be so counter-intuitive and so cool it might even get some competitors who hit the green to get upset claiming their opponent actually missed the shot worse and got rewarded for it.
And what could be better than "them kind of apples"?
I love stuff that gets that kind of reaction. If you can get into your opponent's head by some kind of improbable and purposeful play what's all around better than that? ;)
-
" But for me that really changes the way the hole looks and takes away some of the uniqueness."
JoeB:
I hear you but I think reworking that entire bank to the right of the green into short grass would make the hole play even better and more interesting and I think it would make it look even better too.
I did look at it carefully once with that in mind but that was a few years ago and I'd need to look again.
My recollection is that the bank to the right of the green gets steeper the closer it gets to the green and that creates some real problems in both play and actually trying to turn that area into a down ramp from the right fairway and a kicker from the left fairway.
What I mean by that is if one wanted to make that bank less steep right next to the green you'd have to start way back in that right fairway and that would take way too much work and it really would change the entire shape of that right landform near the green.
But if the way it is now could be transitioned to short grass you'd actually have a situation where balls missed slightly right from the left fairway would carom hard left and across the green and off left but if the ball was played higher up on the right bank it could just feed down more gentily.
And from the right fairway if one wanted to use the bank they would have to land the ball way back and let it filter down the steeper part close to the green. Land the ball too close to the green from the right and it would also rocket across the green.
The basic idea would be the best play would be to land farther right and farther from the green from the left fairway and farther back from the right one.
Now come on Joe, just try to tell me that would not be some pretty cool and nuancy playability and options. It would in fact be sort of counter-intuitive but the point is it could work for the savy and clever player as some really cool options.
Matter of fact those options would be so counter-intuitive and so cool it might even get some competitors who hit the green to get upset claiming their opponent actually missed the shot worse and got rewarded for it.
And what could be better than "them kind of apples"?
I love stuff that gets that kind of reaction. If you can get into your opponent's head by some kind of improbable and purposeful play what's all around better than that? ;)
Tom, your idea is very creative. Too bad golf courses couldn't be like a video game and for 16 at 'Scrone one could hit a button on the tee to determine whether you want the original or the 'new and improved TP version'! ;D
-
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.
-
Rich: Hubbard Heights (E. Gaynor Brennan today) was a 1 on the Doak scale -- a very basic course with clear architectural malpractice and/or poor maintenance. You had to really make a mess to get a 0.
I had to go back and look up the zeroes again; it's been a long time. When the book was published, GOLFWEEK's review spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on the zeroes -- there isn't even a list in the book, you really have to search through and find them as I just did -- and trashing the book for being so harsh. They even had a guy go to Stone Harbor and write a good review of it to show how wrong I was!
The zeroes were as follows:
Stone Harbor, NJ (since changed considerably)
Kiln Creek, VA (every hole built up ten feet in the air on fill to get rid of dirt from a development)
Renaissance Park, NC (since closed I think, landfill special)
Heather Glen, SC (third nine)
Atlanta National, GA (since changed considerably)
Terradyne, KS
Karsten Course at ASU, AZ
Cypress GC, CA (since plowed under)
Hokkaido GC (Lion course), Japan (I wonder if it's been abandoned)
I think I'll let Shivas defend me on whether the reviews were justified, considering the track record since then.
The list above is from my 1994 edition. There might have been 1-2 more in the 1996 version that I saw in between. There were also a handful of other courses rated "0-5" which meant they were close to a 0 for me but that others would not find them so objectionable.
I did think the attention paid to the zeroes was overkill. There were less than ten of them out of 800 courses in the book, and I didn't highlight them at all.
Mr Doak,
When was the last time you visited Atlanta Nat'l and what would you have rated it ?
-
i still cant understand why doak mentioned old head in the confidential guide since old head did not open until late 1997!!
i also remember something in the book about Tom refering to the land being too small for a course.I think the course is great and have been lucky enough to have played it in its original and present state to see how much it has changed and developed over the last 10 years.As for Mr.Arbles comments i cant really take too seriously as he has not experienced the place.
Don- I have heard mixed opinions on OH. Always good from people that have played it, negative ones from people on this site, it only emphasises how often this site is unfortunatey 'the minority opinion'. The facts are it has made the top 100 in at least one publication and a few years back the owners were offered a staggering sum, I think $45,000,000 to sale, they declined....so some people think highly of it and some give it a Doak ZERO. I have not played it but it looks to have some stunning holes.
-
I was surprised to see the Karsten Course on this list! It's the only Doak 0 I've played.
My playing partner hit the powerlines on the par 3 (I think it was a par 3). So I was amazed that on such a course there were in-play power lines.
I didn't think it was awful. I thought it was much like that style of Pete Dye course. I can think of other expensive to build and maintain courses I thought were more atrocious.
-
Technically speaking is a Doak 0 a course where you drive 100 miles to go play and once there you refuse to get outta your car in the parking lot?
This happened to me in Wales once. Drove a solid hour and a half out of my way to check out Borth & Ynyslas GC, then turned around in the parking lot and drove back to Aberdovey to try to squeeze in a round before dark. Jim Finegan played Borth this year and said it was good fun, though, so what do I know!
-
The zeroes were as follows:
Renaissance Park, NC (since closed I think, landfill special)
Nope, still open.
Ken
-
I mentioned recently that I thought Eagle Vail is a Doak 0. Looking at the definition, maybe not since I'm not sure they spent a ridiculous sum of money there. Plus the opening tee shot off the side of the hill is pretty fun. OK give it a Doak 0.5
The new Broadmoor mountain is pretty fun. (never played the old one) Not a good value the money of course, and not as good as the East course.
I thought Eagle Vail was ok. What do you think is so bad about it?
[/quote
Eagle Vail? Contrived (all the mountain holes), boring and unmemorable; also encroaching housing nearly everywhere. Other than that it's fine.
Glad to hear the new Mountain Course is OK; to even mention it in the same sentence as the East Course is saying something.
After one play, I would say the following about Eagle Vail...
There is less housing there than ~75% of the courses in the Denver area. OK, that doesnt say much. Only maybe half of the holes have visable houses--and not as encroaching or ugly as many other courses.
I enjoyed the short par 3 #5 over the river as well as the short par 4 #6. The sharply downhill mid-iron par 3 tenth is also memorable, as are the scenic last 3 holes. The short par 4 16th is perhaps too targety though. Some of the greens are very slopey, maybe too much so.
It is too pricey like almost all the CO mtn courses, but I played it at the right time, and got a good deal. I give it a Doak 3 or 4.
-
Never played a 0, but a movie 0 is Lambs for Lions!
-
The description of a Doak "0" sounds like Tattersall to me. In fact, they changed the name of the course to protect the innocent. It's Broad Run. In case someone invites you to play there you will know why to just say "no".
-
Crystal Springs in Hamburg, NJ.
beautiful piece of property, great views, including an old quarry, but a waste of a golf course.
Ridiculous mounds throughout the fairways, sidehill, uphill, downhill lies at random. Throw in cart paths only, with mounds between the path and your ball so can't see the ball and need to bring 4 clubs.
-
Man, I am definitely hearing some solid nominations.
I'm thinking about nominating Barnsley Gardens Resort (The General) in Georgia, although Mike Christensen likes it so perhaps I missed something.
-
I think many people do not like #2 at BR. It is a blind layup that could put you in a spot where you can't reach the green. Many don't like the routing which has loooooong distances from many greens to tees.
But, for me it is the artificial mounding along the edges of the fairway ON INTERESTING TERRAIN !!!!
-
I think many people do not like #2 at BR. It is a blind layup that could put you in a spot where you can't reach the green. Many don't like the routing which has loooooong distances from many greens to tees.
But, for me it is the artificial mounding along the edges of the fairway ON INTERESTING TERRAIN !!!!
Here is the view of the blind tee shot Mayday is referring to:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/BR_2_tee.jpg)
I don't really consider this a completely blind tee shot, but perhaps I'm blind. ;) Any tee ball out there maybe 180-210 yards allows a view of the green like this one:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/BR_2_fw.jpg)
I think #2 is one of the better holes at Broad Run, although the hill there on the right in the 1st pic is clearly courtesy of an earth mover, probably to protect people in the 3rd fairway coming back.
In many places it seems Jones sort of banked edges of fairways to make them play easier. Like on #14:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/BR_14_tee.jpg)
Is BR deserving of a Doak zero? I'm sure plenty would think so. Not me.
-
Joe,
In your first photo look way in the background to that hole that looks to be in the next county !! See that mounding.
I never heard that it makes the hole easier. It seems to hide the cartpath, but is an eyesore .
When you look back from the landing area, Joe, where is the tee ?
-
the other thing at broad run is that you have to be a mountain goat to descend those some of those banks from the cart-path only-path to the ball in the fairway. at least they lowered the green fees when the changed the name or the course.
-
Joe,
In your first photo look way in the background to that hole that looks to be in the next county !! See that mounding.
I never heard that it makes the hole easier. It seems to hide the cartpath, but is an eyesore .
Yeah, that is the par 4 16th:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/BR_16_tee.jpg)
-
It wouldn't matter to me if Old Head was the best course on the planet - they still should not have built a course on that site. Its far too precious to waste on golf.
If you continue this thought, what other courses could be said to fit this description? Cypress Point? Cape Kidnappers?
-
Add New South Wales to that list, Kirk.
-
Old Head has some excellent holes IMO. In fact the only hole at Old Head I really don't care for is #17. Good point about Cypress or even Pebble for that matter. Magnificent property and I'm not sure why golf shouldn't be part of the history at OH.
-
I'm not sure there would ever be such a thing as a consensus "0". If there was it must really suck.
I have never been back to any of the courses I rated a "0" -- why would I? -- so I can't say what I think of any subsequent changes. I do know that Renaissance Park was closed (at least for a time) after somebody was injured or killed in an explosion from smoking near the golf course and igniting some gases. My view of the course was very biased, I didn't even walk the whole thing, but the first hole alone was hold-your-nose bad; in fact I hired an intern a couple of years ago because he chose to try and redesign that hole.
My inclusion of Old Head in the original book goes back to my familiarity with trying to do a routing for the property in 1994. We wound up not doing the job, for a lot of reasons which I won't detail here. However I was aware it would be opening just after my book came out, so I did include something about the place in the Gossip section.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Bump from 2007
-
Bolingbrook.
-
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?!)