Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Josh Tarble on February 23, 2015, 01:40:34 PM
-
How do you decide what equals a Doak 0?
This past weekend I played a relatively highly touted course, one that a couple of my friends were really hyping and held in high regard. As we were playing I was trying to maintain a positive attitude but the course continually kept putting me off. But all I could think of was "this is the type of course that makes golf, long, boring and expensive."
The cart rides between each hole were sometimes in excess of 5 minutes, the bunkering was repetitive, poorly placed and penal. All the fairways were edged by mounding and each had a "bowled-in" feel. The par 3s were almost identical, I teed off with the same club on 3 of the 4 and should have on the other. There was no thought into any shot other than hit it high and far and to top things off it had one of the worst holes I've ever played - a 580+ yard par 5 in which you had to lay up with an iron off the tee.
To sum it up, it was a beautiful day, had a nice group playing and the course was so bad it nearly put me in a bad mood. It actually turned into a joke between 2 of us because it got so bad. So what are the reasons a course would get a 0? I can't imagine anything worse than what I played, so I'd like to know.
-
I think Toms description is that the land is so bad that a course should not have been built on the site to begin with.
Is the course you're describing that bad or was it bad architecture?
-
C.mon, Josh.
At least a hint of the course's name
Or location
Or a pic
-
Heh, that 580-yd three shotter reminds me of the 663-yd second hole at Willow Springs in San Antonio, a double dogleg right that allows for no more than a 3 or 4-iron off the tee. Probably the worst hole I played in 2014.
Like John, I'd love to know the name of this course so I can look it up on Google maps. It's kinda like looking at a car wreck—it's one of those things that's hard to resist :D
-
Gary,
I would say the site was extreme to begin with and the architecture did it no favors. I don't think a tight walk-able routing would have been possible, but surely something a little better than what is there would have been. My main issue was just the overall repetitiveness and blandness of the course. On a wild sit I would have thought there would be a few unique features or at least something better than 4 drop shot par 3s and holes dynamited into the side of the hills.
I'll let it run a bit longer and then give the course.
-
Sounds like the problem is less with the course and more with the taste of a "couple friends"
-
Jeff,
That could be true...I've been known to rub shoulders with a questionable crowd :)
It does bring up an interesting point, as I think it pertains to the courses current ranking.
After the round I questioned my friends' reasoning for liking the course and if they still held the same opinion. They actually said they didn't like it nearly as much the second time around and thought perhaps all they remembered were the views (which are great) and the conditioning (which was also very good).
Point being, I think that makes perfect sense in regards to many courses rankings or status. They have been hit-and-run, one time plays, rated highly because of views, amenities, conditioning, etc. and they would not be regarded nearly as high with multiple plays over multiple days.
-
Was it a Norman or Palmer design?
-
There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.
Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.
-
There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.
Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.
You must be referring to The Ranch in San Jose.
(http://www.lawsonphoto.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/smallThe-Ranch-81.jpg)
-
Actually not a Norman or Palmer design.
I would also add another criteria to a Doak 0:
The cart paths (or path because it was a continuous ribbon of concrete) must cost more than the golf course.
-
It sounds like you're describing a zero to me.
Bland is one thing. Expensive is one thing. Bland and expensive, with long rides between holes and no variety to boot? That's a special class.
I am with Gary. If you tend to feel like not building this golf course at all would have been preferable, then it's pretty much a 0. The phrase of Tom's that always sticks in my mind is that such a course can "poison the mind."
-
There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.
Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.
You must be referring to The Ranch in San Jose.
(http://www.lawsonphoto.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/smallThe-Ranch-81.jpg)
Thanks,
That's the one. I was looking too far east to find it in Google Earth.
-
There have been a few reports on this website of a dud/monstrosity of a course in the hills east of the southern bay area in CA. This report sounds like it.
Unfortunately scanning on Google Earth does not bring into view the course I am thinking of so I may be off on the location.
You must be referring to The Ranch in San Jose.
(http://www.lawsonphoto.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/smallThe-Ranch-81.jpg)
That's the one I was thinking of, until he mentioned the Par 3s being so similar--13 is a flat half wedge hole.
-
The Doak Zero:
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.
-
Bill,
Thank you for providing the definition. What makes a 0 for you? Do you think it varies from person to person?
I ask because I mentioned, this course is fairly well regarded and on a couple of "best of" lists.
-
Given it is frigid in most parts of the US right now, and the description of the course I'd guess a Vegas course, owned by a Casino, in...lets say Boulder City?
-
Given it is frigid in most parts of the US right now, and the description of the course I'd guess a Vegas course, owned by a Casino, in...lets say Boulder City?
Good guess.
My money is on Phoenix / Scottsdale. Josh mentioned it appears on some 'best of' lists. I can't lie...I am dying to know.
-
Should have realized this would develop into a "guess the course". Poorly titled thread on my part, should have called it "the elusive Doak 0"
-
Bill,
Thank you for providing the definition. What makes a 0 for you? Do you think it varies from person to person?
I ask because I mentioned, this course is fairly well regarded and on a couple of "best of" lists.
The Doak Scale is very interesting to read. Tom's ratings are probably based a lot more on the construction costs; he can tell far better than us as "consumers" how much dirt was moved, etc. I don't think he would kill a simple design that cost little to build, a course that was never striving to be more than it is.
For me a zero would be a course where I wanted to walk off the course. A course that was so bad that I lost interest in hitting shots. (And it would have to be REALLY bad to get me to walk off a golf course...)
I think I have only played one Doak Zero, a totally contrived design that went way over the top, was universally panned, and subsequently been has "softened" to look more normal.
-
My money is on Phoenix / Scottsdale.
For that area, my guess is Quintero. The 4 drop shot par 3's brought it to mind.
-
Mark,
Good guess. That indeed was the course.
Bill's last post was more along the lines of what I was looking for in the thread. Why I posted at all is that I don't see Quintero sharing many qualities with the Castle course for example. My disdain for Q was based on what are really difficult yet very generic and repetitive holes and a really poor routing on a severe site. I do think the site could have allowed for something unique and interesting and while maybe it still would have been bad it at least would have been different.
-
I have not played Quintero but it thought id look it up just for kicks. You know how google maps usually shows golf courses as a single lighter color green blob? Well Google maps registers Quintero as 10 or so individual green blobs. When you take a look at google earth you can get a good idea about how far the cart ride really is between the holes.
Quintero really is closer to 18 one hole courses then one 18 hole course.
-
Mark,
Good guess. That indeed was the course.
Bill's last post was more along the lines of what I was looking for in the thread. Why I posted at all is that I don't see Quintero sharing many qualities with the Castle course for example. My disdain for Q was based on what are really difficult yet very generic and repetitive holes and a really poor routing on a severe site. I do think the site could have allowed for something unique and interesting and while maybe it still would have been bad it at least would have been different.
It's interesting, I never before considered Quintero a Doak 0 but the things I disliked about it would absolutely make it qualify. I really disliked how almost every hole played uphill and then straight back down on each par 3. What I'm curious about is whether that was always the plan or if it was the best they could do on that land. It being intentional wouldn't surprise me as the par 3's are very dramatic and certainly the most memorable feature. I'm sure many players walk away thrilled with them (and with a lot of group pictures).
-
You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.
or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."
This is Ballybunion Cashen for me.
-
I travel to Scottsdale regularly, and this course was just recommended to me. Thanks for the post Josh. You saved me a trip.
I heart you and your high standards GCA!
-
Huh. I'm pretty familiar with Quintero and also not a fan. It is a beautiful course, and generally well conditioned. It is also very hard.
That's about all I can say for it. Every hole is basically straight. 3 is a nice cape style tee shot, though over a contrived and unnatural pond. 17, a shortish par 4, is a slight dogleg. The par 5 8th is L-shaped but the dogleg, such as it is, does;'t play like a dogleg. You're still just hitting straight shots with no consideration of ages. Every other hole is straight. Hit it long and straight and you can shoot a decent number, the greens are neither memorable nor particularly difficult. Hit it wayward and it's going to be a very long day. It's just not interesting, even though it has that glossy surface that seems good.
I will say this for it. Josh oversells the cart rides. Quintero was built as a private club but they never got around to building a clubhouse, so you play out of a temporary closer to the main road. There's a very long cart ridge from that not-really-a-temporary clubhouse to the range and #1 tee, and then back after #18. Otherwise, it's not really any worse than a typical AZ high end residential course. You cross small roads a handful of times. The cart rides between holes are not 5 minutes. But, yeah, that's the best defense I'm willing to give the place.
-
You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.
or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."
This is Ballybunion Cashen for me.
That just doesn't seem to be what a zero is. As we saw in the first edition of the new CG, what Tom gave a zero, others gave it a 5. 1s and 2s are not big budget courses that are trying to be great. They're just plain folks. To get a zero you have to have moved enough earth and tried to be enough of something to actually be offensive, as opposed to just mundane. Quintero does feel sort of like it's in the potential conversation for this. A 5 doesn't seem out the equation. Neither does a 0. A 2 would not make sense for this course.
-
You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.
or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."
This is Ballybunion Cashen for me.
That just doesn't seem to be what a zero is. As we saw in the first edition of the new CG, what Tom gave a zero, others gave it a 5. 1s and 2s are not big budget courses that are trying to be great. They're just plain folks. To get a zero you have to have moved enough earth and tried to be enough of something to actually be offensive, as opposed to just mundane. Quintero does feel sort of like it's in the potential conversation for this. A 5 doesn't seem out the equation. Neither does a 0. A 2 would not make sense for this course.
I said Cashen is a 2, a fun place to play a two-man scramble with a case of beer. But extremely diificult for an average golfer (forget about an average woman) especially if it is windy.
10 rounds between BB Old and Cashen, how do you split them?
-
All on BB Old, but Cashen in afternoon when tired, need a cart and can't get back on the Old
-
Bland is one thing. Expensive is one thing. Bland and expensive, with long rides between holes and no variety to boot? That's a special class.
Hey, sounds like you're describing Turtle Point in Kiawah to a T. I guess the land isn't awful, since it's not all that different than other courses on the island (with an obvious exception), but the golf course is terrible. It's also expensive. I don't believe you could pay me to play it again.
-
All on BB Old, but Cashen in afternoon when tired, need a cart and can't get back on the Old
Exactly. And if you are with a group of guys, why not load up the cart with beers and play that round in a two-man sramble format?
-
Given it is frigid in most parts of the US right now, and the description of the course I'd guess a Vegas course, owned by a Casino, in...lets say Boulder City?
Brett, so you didn't like Cascata?
I only had the 'pleasure' of playing it once. That will do. Couldn't believe the hype, expense and the damn drive!
OK, OK, great entry gates and you'll never see a greater waterfall....inside a clubhouse!
But the course was boring and repetitive.
How much so?
Played the tips. Hit 12. 12! Seven irons on approaches. And a few 6's and 8's.
Long holes downhill and short holes uphill.
A real upchuck entry to challenge Shadow Creek.
Shoulda stayed at the CH, had some belts at the waterfall and just jacked at the range for a while.
But Hoover Dam is close and THAT is worth the drive.
-
Jason,
If you don't have it on your agenda play Talking Stick North. It's talked about a lot on here but worth the praise IMO. Defienately the best of the desert courses I've played and a lot of interesting holes. I think that's what made the transition to Quintero so shocking, TSN is the exact opposite.
Matthew,
I probably exaggerated the drives a bit, but the one between hole 5 and 6 was pretty close to 5 minutes straight up a mountain. All in all I bet cart time added 25+ minutes to the round, which because it was so hard it took forever anyway. We played in just under 5 hours and only waited on a maybe 5 shots.
8 was the hole I mentioned that I thought was one of the worst holes I've ever played. 580+ yard par 5 and the drive is limited to 260 yards. Then it's just try to hit it as far up the hill as you can. So bad.
-
John,
I think Cascata is a great place to have a very wonderful day. Lots of window dressing on top of the golf course which at the end of the day was not overly exciting.not sure if you take a look at an aerial photo of the place but almost all the holes run in to opposite directions. The waterfalls are a bit much, drives between holes are crazy, and overall fits the owners plan on catering to the big fish.
-
I was going to guess Rees Jones as the designer of the Doak 0 and that was before I knew the name of the course.
Rees can't say no to a course that should not be built.
Rees sometimes get some of the course right.
I wonder how many of Rees' courses would be a Doak 0? I have one, Hells Point in Virginia Beach, as it was built in a swamp with crowned fairways, and duplicate, template holes.
-
Jason,
If you don't have it on your agenda play Talking Stick North. It's talked about a lot on here but worth the praise IMO. Defienately the best of the desert courses I've played and a lot of interesting holes. I think that's what made the transition to Quintero so shocking, TSN is the exact opposite.
Matthew,
I probably exaggerated the drives a bit, but the one between hole 5 and 6 was pretty close to 5 minutes straight up a mountain. All in all I bet cart time added 25+ minutes to the round, which because it was so hard it took forever anyway. We played in just under 5 hours and only waited on a maybe 5 shots.
8 was the hole I mentioned that I thought was one of the worst holes I've ever played. 580+ yard par 5 and the drive is limited to 260 yards. Then it's just try to hit it as far up the hill as you can. So bad.
Yup, that's a pretty terrible hole.
Then you get to play 9, which is the same drop shot par 3 (same distance, same amount of drop) as #6, but this time there's a fake pond in front. Wheee!
-
I'm trying to think of any Doak zero's that I have had the misfortune of playing and can think of only one (IMHO). It is in the county of Oxfordshire and carries the name of the county, (why is that so many courses that have the indefinite article as the prefix are so insulting). Coincidentally it has a 'topical to this post' course architect.
-
C'mon Josh, the first and 15th holes weren't bad.
-
C'mon Josh, the first and 15th holes weren't bad.
To be fair, 1 was better than most holes. The fairway wasn't in a valley of mounds and actually had some bunkering you needed to pay attention to and 15 was definitely the best tee shot. 15 might be the only semi-unique hole on the entire course so it does have that going for it.
-
I believe I teed it up there with Adam a few years ago.
You might be interested to know that as recently as 2010 Quintero made Golfweek's top 100 modern list with an average score of 6.80. I seem to recall that when Adam and I played there ten years ago it was as high as 65+/-.
I didn't care much for it, but to opine that it's a Doak Zero is quite a claim. How about let's call is a Josh Zero?
I'm amused by folks on this site from time to time. If Quintero's a Doak Zero, I've played a hundred courses that would be relegated to a negative number, and a big one at that.
BTW, the coolest thing about Quintero was a short course built on the large range by a golf architecture student. I'm sure it's long gone.
Bogey
-
Bogey,
I think it's fair to call it a Josh 0 and not a Doak 0. But what I was trying to get at, is what truly makes a 0. I do think Quintero check's most of the boxes.
> Expensive
> Long
> Difficult
> Poor holes
> Maybe shouldn't have been built
I'm just not exactly sure how to truly judge a 0 though. In the original Confidential Guide several courses were rated 0-5 or 0-6. I could see Quintero being rated similarly. It's probably better than most 1s or 2s, but I know I didn't really enjoy the actual course while there and I definitely wouldn't go back. I think that represents a 0 to me.
-
I'm throwing my hat into the ring with the nomination of Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV.
1. Some people really like it.
2. Terrible piece of land for a course
3. Lots and lots of land used for cart paths. They are all over the place and dominate the course
4. Long rides between holes
5. Some nice views
6. Rankings have it up near the top of courses in NV. Really? Brings to mind the lack of really good courses in the state. What 3 or 4?
7. Played there once and not going back, so I can't remember the Par 5 or whether I used the same clubs on the Par 3's
-
As I read through the first dozen posts, Quintero immediately came to mind.
No one has mentioned the perfectly flat characterless greens with nary a bump or wrinkle.
It is highly regarded in the magazine lists.
I would give it a Doak 0 just to raise my middle finger to those that embrace that style of golf design.
Talking Stick North is remarkable not for what it is, but for what it isn't. It isn't like any course built in Phoenix in the past 30 years and I mean that in a positive way.
-
In the original Confidential Guide several courses were rated 0-5 or 0-6.
I take a 0-5 or 0-6 to imply that external factors can influence the rating. The course presents itself very differently on a calm vs windy day, or wet vs dry conditions, or from the tips vs regular tees. Perhaps some crazy bad maintenance practices that could be fixed to greatly improve the course.
While you could make the argument "reasonable people may disagree and what some think is a 0 others will claim is a 6", Tom wasn't interested in what reasonable people might think in the original, he was giving his ratings alone.
-
In the original Confidential Guide several courses were rated 0-5 or 0-6.
I take a 0-5 or 0-6 to imply that external factors can influence the rating. The course presents itself very differently on a calm vs windy day, or wet vs dry conditions, or from the tips vs regular tees. Perhaps some crazy bad maintenance practices that could be fixed to greatly improve the course.
While you could make the argument "reasonable people may disagree and what some think is a 0 others will claim is a 6", Tom wasn't interested in what reasonable people might think in the original, he was giving his ratings alone.
Actually, it was the latter, not the former. I did not want to hand out a parade of zeroes, but I wanted to say that some people would hate the course, and some wouldn't. I might have done the same for the Castle Course at St. Andrews, but with three other guys rating every course now, I am more inclined to give my own opinion and not worry about who might disagree.
-
Quinterro should not have been built in that remote spot and it's not very good but I wouldn't give it a 0.
Cascata considering Rees unlimited budget is more deserving of a 0. It has no redeeming qualities other than the clubhouse and great service.
-
Gary,
What would you consider Quintero's redeeming qualities?
-
You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.
or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."
I have played the Castle Course...and will never play it again. While not a a "0" in my book, I would not go above 2 for sure.
To the OP's item, there is a course here in Atlanta that guys rave about. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what they see. It is very well maintained, costs a lot to join, in an "exclusive neighborhood", etc. etc. However, I think I would rather do anything else than play that course again. Funny thing, I respect the designer but have no idea what he could have been thinking on multiple holes.
-
I probably exaggerated the drives a bit, but the one between hole 5 and 6 was pretty close to 5 minutes straight up a mountain.
Josh,
Looking at a google earth image, the 5 minute cart ride you claim to have taken would have been about a 135 yard journey - I guess my Atlanta "snow" day is my sad excuse for taking the 2 minutes to do this. I can't believe, no matter how steep the climb or how slow the cart, that it took anywhere near this exaggerated amount of time. Your real name isn't Bill O-Reilly is it?! ;D
-
You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.
or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."
I have played the Castle Course...and will never play it again. While not a a "0" in my book, I would not go above 2 for sure.
To the OP's item, there is a course here in Atlanta that guys rave about. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what they see. It is very well maintained, costs a lot to join, in an "exclusive neighborhood", etc. etc. However, I think I would rather do anything else than play that course again. Funny thing, I respect the designer but have no idea what he could have been thinking on multiple holes.
Carson,
Spit it out man.
As an ATL guy, I'd ask you to be frank in your claims.
-
Gentlemen,
Truly awful golf courses, like movies, present themselves in many different shades - between aggravatingly bad and so fucking putrid you actually enjoy them in a twisted sort of way. Plan Nine From Outer Space spent little money and the result was something incredibly bad, but amusing in its glorious badosity. On the Doak grid, I think we need a series of letters to attach next to numbers.
On the other hand, Tommy Wiseau spent six million of his own fortune (from mysterious sources) to make The Room - considered to be the “Citizen Kane of Bad Movies.” Can we give it a true, no bullshit “Doak Zero?” Of course not, because - like Plan Nine From Outer Space - it occupies its own category of horribleness. The Ranch GC is similar - something so completely beyond the valley of ham-handed incompetence it manages to somehow leap from the bottom of a two-dimensional chart to a mysterious point that requires a three dimensional formula to find on the grid.
Tom gave the original Stone Harbor an unqualified Zero, but I vehemently disagree, Des Muirhead created a bizarre curiosity - but an absolute must-see. Therefore, whatever your opinion, something so far afield of the mainstream that it cannot be missed MUST have some merit - even as a cautionary tale. I was fortunate to be amongst the only audiences to see the original 4-hour cut of Heaven’s Gate. The critics destroyed it - it brought down United Artists and Cimino is still a Hollywood pariah to this day. You know what? It is worth seeing once - and has withstood the test of time. Whatever your opinion, it has not been forgotten.
And like Stone Harbor, once a series of revisions were forced on Heaven’s Gate (even a name change), the result is a chopped up, watered down piece of shit. In both cases, something unique that defied conventional analysis was eventually turned into unqualified Doak Zeros. By contrast, Steven Sommers obviously intended Van Helsing to be a noisy, overblown, steaming pile of exploitive excrement - a Doak Zero that spent 36 million dollars (72X what our feature film cost) to create a senseless mess, specifically aimed only at low-vibratory imbeciles.
There is so bad, its fun (Rocky Horror) - and so bad, you leave the theater aggravated and with a pounding head. I’ll put Atlantic CC in that category - if we had not been playing with a member, we would have gotten in the car and left after that silly par-5 that ends with a trek across the driveway to the next tee. I wasted an hour of my life on Van Helsing and the Redhead and I walked out in disgust.
I’ve not thought through how we might assemble a table of clarifying footnotes, but there are so many micro-levels at the bottom of the chart, we might start with dividing up the “Zero” ratings. Any suggestions?
-
Gib,
You have such a high ability with our native tongue that I have to wonder why you feel compelled to use expletives.
I have a barely comprehensible ability with the language, but I find a way to avoid them.
-
Gib,
You have such a high ability with our native tongue that I have to wonder why you feel compelled to use expletives.
I have a barely comprehensible ability with the language, but I find a way to avoid them.
The end result is still barely comprehensible.
-
Gib,
Fantastic post as usual. Let me start with 3 suggestions on potential 0s:
Design 0 - strictly based on design decisions
Land 0 - a course on land so ridiculous it probably shouldn't have been built
Bizarro 0 - a course so bad that it must be seen to be believed
One thing has left me puzzled in the thread...for those saying such and such course is 1 or 2, not a 0. What is it that is making you say a course is a 1 or 2?
To me, a 0 is an experience so bad it defies normal ratings. There are things that are over the top bad...it's trying hard to be something it's not. To me a 0 is probably a 5 or 6 to those who value such things. A 1 is simply a bad course, a local muni. Something that is not trying to put on a front.
-
Gib,
You have such a high ability with our native tongue that I have to wonder why you feel compelled to use expletives.
I have a barely comprehensible ability with the language, but I find a way to avoid them.
The end result is still barely comprehensible.
What I'm saying is that he should not be so appallingly lazy and write that excrement. He should elevate the tenor of his prose.
-
Gib,
You have such a high ability with our native tongue that I have to wonder why you feel compelled to use expletives.
I have a barely comprehensible ability with the language, but I find a way to avoid them.
The end result is still barely comprehensible.
What I'm saying is that he should not be so appallingly lazy and write that excrement. He should elevate the tenor of his prose.
You forgot to use the smiley face.
-
You mean Quintero is gilding the lily when they write on their website, "Rees Jones has taken a pristine piece of lush Arizona desert and created Quintero Golf Club, often described as the “Purest Golf Experience” in the Southwest."
-
Garland,
Terribly sorry to have expelled my mephitic potty mouth in your sewing circle. I thought all the ladies had excused themselves to the powder their noses and it was just us boys here in the Treehouse. Mea culpa.
However, in order to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you refrain from playing in my foursome or by chance sit at my table in the grillroom. I've been known to let fly the occasional streak of cobalt blue oaths when laying the sod over a 40 yard wedge - and can conjugate the street euphemism for intercourse in unimaginable ways.
I was not aware that middle-aged altar boys were susceptible to the vapors, so please accept my heartfelt apologies.
-
I was going to guess Rees Jones as the designer of the Doak 0 and that was before I knew the name of the course.
Rees can't say no to a course that should not be built.
Rees sometimes get some of the course right.
I wonder how many of Rees' courses would be a Doak 0? I have one, Hells Point in Virginia Beach, as it was built in a swamp with crowned fairways, and duplicate, template holes.
Scott, I do wonder how many here or Ran or Tom would bother to drive to Va Beach and drive still further to get Hell's Point. Yes it is bad. Haven't played there in at least 15 years. The flower patch in front of the 8th green is hopeless, I wonder if it is still there?
Is the Doak 0 really all that mysterious when you look at the examples?
-
Scott, I do wonder how many here or Ran or Tom would bother to drive to Va Beach and drive still further to get Hell's Point. Yes it is bad. Haven't played there in at least 15 years. The flower patch in front of the 8th green is hopeless, I wonder if it is still there?
Is the Doak 0 really all that mysterious when you look at the examples?
I believe I rated Hell's Point in the last book ... I saw it when we were working on Riverfront, but maybe that was just after the last edition was written. I didn't give it a 0, anyway.
From Gib's post, I wonder if he is just attracted to seeing the train wrecks that make me want to give a course a 0. Stone Harbor is a great example ... it was in some ways a highlight to see, for how bad it was. But what other number could you possibly assign to that?
-
Garland,
Terribly sorry to have expelled my mephitic potty mouth in your sewing circle. I thought all the ladies had excused themselves to the powder their noses and it was just us boys here in the Treehouse. Mea culpa.
However, in order to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you refrain from playing in my foursome or by chance sit at my table in the grillroom. I've been known to let fly the occasional streak of cobalt blue oaths when laying the sod over a 40 yard wedge - and can conjugate the street euphemism for intercourse in unimaginable ways.
I was not aware that middle-aged altar boys were susceptible to the vapors, so please accept my heartfelt apologies.
Gib,
It's not about me. Ran has repeatedly pointed out that this is a public forum, and that we should restrain ourselves from short cuts to expressing strong feelings such as you have used.
-
As creators of their own scales, Tom and Sean A have given themselves permission to be arbritary and/or quixotic. So, for example, there is an almost insurmountable gap between an Arble *1 and an Arble *2, so much so that they almost seem to reflect two *different* scales. (My poor old Notts is forever destined to be rated the former.) Similarly, a Doak 0 is easy enough to understand, as it is reserved for/reflects courses that should never have been built; but, since such courses are or can be so different than (and in some ways *better* than) a Doak 1, the ratings seem to come from two entirely different scales. In truth, I think the 0s are actually from Tom's lesser known but more deeply felt "This really offends and pisses me off" scale.
Peter
-
Tom,
Your post reminds me of my old friend Sonny Casca, who once opined in his southern twang (not drawl, twang): "Son, if you're lookin' for an argument, you gonna have to change the subject."
That, my friend, is EXACTLY why I specifically sought out that golf course - because a longtime friend whose opinion I respect (uh, you) thought it was a strategic and ocular offense. In point of fact, I went to great lengths and went far out of my way to actually play it - but oddly, the entrails of what had been left pissed me off far beyond what was there originally. But what I could see was Dadaism of the highest order. Just so you know, they still teach it in film school.
I got a snarky email comparing Stone Harbor to Clockwork Orange - from an asshole (oh, sorry to offend Garland) who thought it amusing to provoke me by pissing on Stanley -as if there was some sort of equivalency between a gigantic swing and miss (Stone Harbor) and one of the primary reasons I studied film production.
"Zero" deserves a category in and of itself. I tried to articulate that concept using movies as an example, but it clearly did not stick. Again, some gigantic swings that miss by a mile - but still sought to reach a new epoch - are perfectly valid in my view. We all ought to see them and celebrate the guts and determination to muster up the vision (and insanity) to try and break through that wall.
So, let's perhaps rethink ZERO. Zero is a mysterious number - as opposed to "1."
You cannot throw everything that fails into the same trash bin.
-
You could always give it a 1: A very basic golf course with clear architectral malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid playing even if you are desperate for a game.
or a 2: A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. A friend summed one up "play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer."
I have played the Castle Course...and will never play it again. While not a a "0" in my book, I would not go above 2 for sure.
To the OP's item, there is a course here in Atlanta that guys rave about. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what they see. It is very well maintained, costs a lot to join, in an "exclusive neighborhood", etc. etc. However, I think I would rather do anything else than play that course again. Funny thing, I respect the designer but have no idea what he could have been thinking on multiple holes.
Carson,
Spit it out man.
As an ATL guy, I'd ask you to be frank in your claims.
PM sent
-
C'mon Josh, the first and 15th holes weren't bad.
I think 17 is a nice hole, too. And the first half of 14 is OK. Although the second half ... yeesh.
-
I probably exaggerated the drives a bit, but the one between hole 5 and 6 was pretty close to 5 minutes straight up a mountain.
Josh,
Looking at a google earth image, the 5 minute cart ride you claim to have taken would have been about a 135 yard journey - I guess my Atlanta "snow" day is my sad excuse for taking the 2 minutes to do this. I can't believe, no matter how steep the climb or how slow the cart, that it took anywhere near this exaggerated amount of time. Your real name isn't Bill O-Reilly is it?! ;D
Yeah, it's steeply uphill from the fifth green and then the sixth tee (the first tee box anyway) sits basically at the top of the other side of the hill. But it wouldn't take five minutes to walk, let alone cart.
Josh got pretty much everything else right, though, so I feel bad picking on him.
God that place spent a lot of money. This isn't all to do with the course, but the development in general. There are retaining walls that must have cost 5 figures, where no house was ever built. Paved roads snaking their way up mountains, but leading nowhere. Stop signs where no cars will ever drive. It's an unusual place to visit.
-
I probably exaggerated the drives a bit, but the one between hole 5 and 6 was pretty close to 5 minutes straight up a mountain.
Josh,
Looking at a google earth image, the 5 minute cart ride you claim to have taken would have been about a 135 yard journey - I guess my Atlanta "snow" day is my sad excuse for taking the 2 minutes to do this. I can't believe, no matter how steep the climb or how slow the cart, that it took anywhere near this exaggerated amount of time. Your real name isn't Bill O-Reilly is it?! ;D
Yeah, it's steeply uphill from the fifth green and then the sixth tee (the first tee box anyway) sits basically at the top of the other side of the hill. But it wouldn't take five minutes to walk, let alone cart.
Josh got pretty much everything else right, though, so I feel bad picking on him.
God that place spent a lot of money. This isn't all to do with the course, but the development in general. There are retaining walls that must have cost 5 figures, where no house was ever built. Paved roads snaking their way up mountains, but leading nowhere. Stop signs where no cars will ever drive. It's an unusual place to visit.
Come on guys, it was easily 5 minutes. Brian Williams was with me. ;D
Matthew, thats a really good point too. Besides the course being awful, it certainly is a pretty weird atmosphere. It's almost like a golf course routed through a ghost town. I think some of the views would have been better had there not been massive clearings and flattened lots with no houses everywhere.
Not to mention...it must be the maintenance shed or some sort of pump house, but what's up with the giant facility between hole 12 and 13? Talk about jarring as well. All in all a very strange place as you noted.
-
I probably exaggerated the drives a bit, but the one between hole 5 and 6 was pretty close to 5 minutes straight up a mountain.
Josh,
Looking at a google earth image, the 5 minute cart ride you claim to have taken would have been about a 135 yard journey - I guess my Atlanta "snow" day is my sad excuse for taking the 2 minutes to do this. I can't believe, no matter how steep the climb or how slow the cart, that it took anywhere near this exaggerated amount of time. Your real name isn't Bill O-Reilly is it?! ;D
Yeah, it's steeply uphill from the fifth green and then the sixth tee (the first tee box anyway) sits basically at the top of the other side of the hill. But it wouldn't take five minutes to walk, let alone cart.
While one's mind is being poisoned, it may seem as if time is slowing to a near standstill.
-
I got to play Quintero with Mr Fedeli a few years back. I'd second the ghost town feel. Pretty sure they ran out of money part way through and that's how we got on it. I didn't find it that offensive, although I played tolerably well, which always helps.
On Doak 0s, I know that Tom has been posting in here and far be it from me to second guess how his scale works, but I had got the impression that a 0 might very well be and indeed probably is a "better" course than a 1 or a 2. It's quite hard I would think to create a 1, but it's very cheap. The only way to get a zero is to spend several millions of dollars on the building of the course, but then mess it up so badly that it's offensive. It doesn't necessarily mean that the course is terrible. Rather that it is a terrible waste of money or space or opportunity (I guess). That's why you end up with a course that Tom rates a zero, while the others rate it a 5.
On that basis, Quintero is definitely a contender for a 0, given how much it must have cost. It's much better than some courses I've seen that would be 1s or 2s. But it can still be a 0 for that. IMO anyway.
-
Gary,
What would you consider Quintero's redeeming qualities?
Very little in terms of architecture. Its been over 15 years so my memory fails me.
I do like Michael description that its not "offensive" unlike Cascata and the above mention San Jose course called The Ranch. Both are courses that I wanted to walk off which someone else uses as their benchmark for a 0.
-
I didn't find it that offensive, although I played tolerably well, which always helps.
Don't be so modest. Didn't you reach #5 in two with a driver off the deck? Most impressive non-professional shot I've ever seen. Launched as high and as far as if it were tee'd up.
-
I didn't find it that offensive, although I played tolerably well, which always helps.
Don't be so modest. Didn't you reach #5 in two with a driver off the deck? Most impressive non-professional shot I've ever seen. Launched as high and as far as if it were tee'd up.
I'm English! That's about as effusive as it's possible to be about myself! ;)
-
Gary,
What would you consider Quintero's redeeming qualities?
Very little in terms of architecture. Its been over 15 years so my memory fails me.
I do like Michael description that its not "offensive" unlike Cascata and the above mention San Jose course called The Ranch. Both are courses that I wanted to walk off which someone else uses as their benchmark for a 0.
Wow, I'm glad I didn't shell out the money to play Cascata the last time I was in Vegas. If I wanted views I'd go hiking :)
-
I played Cascata for the first time yesterday. Anyone who gives it a 0 is simply projecting a combination of Rees hate and an inability to get the ball airborne. I have been on record in this form for ripping apart Rees, but in this case he delivered a very good course that has to be an excellent answer and rival to Shadow Creek. The framing features are overdone, and many bunkers are way too big, but the course should get great marks for creating strategic option and emphasizing angle of attack.
-
Robert,
I’d have to agree that Cascata does not merit a “zero” because - in common with most Rees courses - it does not push the envelope enough to warrant analysis , the main problem being the "envelope" is empty. Therefore there is nothing there but a mechanically uninspiring design that was not so much carved as thoughtlessly gouged out of a rocky slope above Boulder City. To suggest any equivalency between Shadow Creek and Cascata is a statement of breathtaking twaddle.
Frankly, Cascata is not even worth a discussion. Unlike Shadow Creek, there is nothing to debate. Shadow Creek - like Lido - is an engineering marvel and though it was grossly overrated when it opened, pretty well deserves its place on the ladder. It is top 100 in America - Cascata is not even the best course in Boulder City. Her Redness was a professor at UNLV - and lived in BC before we finally quit trying to break up - so I am more qualified than anybody on the board to opine on the subject.
Boulder Creek GC (the original 18), less than a mile away, is AT LEAST four Doak scale points above that vapid, overpriced, poorly routed yawn. It matches the personality of its creator - except with a wildly expensive non-sequitur faux-waterfall, so garishly done it would embarrass even Donald Trump. It is like sticking a bad toupee on a fat guy in a grey suit and pretending it looks fetching.
I’d rather go play Boulder City GC (across from BC Creek) because the in-house remodel work sets a new standard in laughably bad architecture. It is actually huge fun in a demented sort of way - at least there is something to talk about on the way back to The Strip. Look, I am no cheerleader for Tom Fazio, but when it comes to Shadow Creek, you have to give the devil his due. Faz is the Steven Spielberg of golf design; like him or not, there is no denying he gives the people what they want in spades.
If not for David Fay, Rees Jones would be pushing a mop like Charlie Gordon before Algernon.
-
At the end of the day , there really are no zeros. Always some redeeming feature , at any course , anywhere.