GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Hillcrest CC in Los Angeles
Brent Hutto:
The dominant point of view on this forum (I'm not saying it's correct, just dominant) seems to be that things like conditioning, difficulty, speed and trueness of greens and attractiveness of surroundings can only get a course to about a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale. The characteristics that seem to be most widely valued here are variety, strategic options to play, appeal to a wide range of players and to a lesser but still important extent spectacular terrain and exclusivity.
So the upshot is that a course can be suitable for hosting a PGA Tour event, raved about by the players and flawless in presentation and playability yet still be "nothing special" in GCA terms because the challenge is one-dimensional and matter-of-fact. It sounds like Hillcrest is shortish but presents a challenge to good players by narrow landing areas, penal rough and greens that are firm with large contours relative to their speed and firmness. If so, you couldn't pick a better "poster child" for a large differential between GCA Forum appeal (and Tom Doak rating) vs. appeal to elite players.
BCrosby:
Dan -
I seem to recall hearing the same thing. Was Flintridge by Behr too?
It is remarkable how many times MacKenzie refers to Lakeside in his Spirit of St Andrews. He thought it ranked up there with Cypress as one of the best courses in the US. How much of Behr is still there?
Bob
David Ober:
Brent! Good to see you're here. :)
I think I'm going to like this place. It seems that while people have opinions, they also (generally) have well thought-out REASONS for their opinions. What a refreshing change... ;)
--- Quote from: Brent Hutto on November 04, 2005, 02:09:27 PM ---The dominant point of view on this forum (I'm not saying it's correct, just dominant) seems to be that things like conditioning, difficulty, speed and trueness of greens and attractiveness of surroundings can only get a course to about a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale. The characteristics that seem to be most widely valued here are variety, strategic options to play, appeal to a wide range of players and to a lesser but still important extent spectacular terrain and exclusivity.
So the upshot is that a course can be suitable for hosting a PGA Tour event, raved about by the players and flawless in presentation and playability yet still be "nothing special" in GCA terms because the challenge is one-dimensional and matter-of-fact. It sounds like Hillcrest is shortish but presents a challenge to good players by narrow landing areas, penal rough and greens that are firm with large contours relative to their speed and firmness. If so, you couldn't pick a better "poster child" for a large differential between GCA Forum appeal (and Tom Doak rating) vs. appeal to elite players.
--- End quote ---
David Ober:
Nice description of the Doak scale, and I, too, can see how it is helpful to really be able to distinguish between average courses and truly excellent golf courses. Doak's scale does seem to offer that opportunity...
--- Quote from: Jason Topp on November 04, 2005, 01:51:37 PM ---David:
The reason I like the Doak Scale is that it is reverse to what happens with something like the Golf Digest places to play ratings. In those ratings the average is probably something like 3.5 out of five. Thus, there is little to distinguish between the courses people like.
By contrast, with the Doak scale 3 (of 10) is an average course and anything 4 or above is a good course. It allows one to recognize that a course is good, but make distinctions between courses that you like.
Stick to your guns on opinions. It is interesting to learn fresh perspectives on what makes for a good course. If someone makes a point that I don't understand, I try to press them for some detail in support of their positions. Many people have been here so long and hashed out these issues to the point that they don't repeat the reasoning, because it has been discussed before. I've found I have learned a lot from people that I disagree with, even if they are wrong. :)
There is no need for group think on these issues. We are not curing cancer.
--- End quote ---
Brent Hutto:
Keep in mind that the Doak Scale originated in his "Confidential Guide" which was intended to be a sort of personal crib sheet for people who might ask Tom D about courses worth traveling across the country or an ocean to see. So he reserved the entire top half of the scale for subtle gradations of much-better-than-average courses.
In my opinion an awfully wide range gets swept into his 2's and 3's. OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version