Jump to content


 

Photo

Doak's Confidential Guide (to Aussie courses)


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#16 ted.arlt.02

ted.arlt.02

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 29 January 2005 - 03:05 AM

QUOTE: speckymagee @ Jan 28 2005, 03:25 PM

A bloke called Mike Clayton  wink.gif  told me a few years back that if I wanted to learn a bit more about golf courses I should buy the book from Amazon. I did and has it been a good investment in both knowledge and money. In fact I got Tom Doak to sign mine so it is valuable!

But a few years ago I was looking around for a fiftieth birthday present for a bloke who reckons he knows plenty about golf. So I gave him a copy but he was too big of a know all to understand it and now its worth a fortune.  mad.gif  We aren't mates any more as he is just too knowledgeble about golf and the direction our course should go. But if I broke into his house and stole it back he would never know!! Should I do it??  biggrin.gif


Specky, you get me the book and I'll give you $A300. No ebay fees !



#17 N & G Ablett

N & G Ablett

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 29 January 2005 - 03:17 AM

I can also count myself as a lucky owner of the "Guide"... got mine through McGills in Melbourne for about $100 5 or so years ago.. if only my share portfolio had increased at the same rate!

Agree in the most part...

The par 3's "dull" at Victoria? I would have thought 7, 14 and 16 were pretty good. Granted 4 might be considered a bit on the plain side. Maybe the comments would be slightly more upbeat post the Clayton restoration during the late 90's early 00's?



#18 judgesmails

judgesmails

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 29 January 2005 - 03:30 AM

A 5 is pretty good then if a 3 is average! I wonder if I could borrow the book from the libary with my ex wifes libary card and then 'lose' the book ph34r.gif



#19 Andrew Beach

Andrew Beach

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 29 January 2005 - 11:20 PM

QUOTE: henry @ Jan 28 2005, 06:56 AM

Jack, he gets it right most of the time, but we should bear in mind that although this latest edition was published in 1996, he saw most of the courses in the late 80's or early 90's. 

Obviously when courses undergo major changes his rating is no longer valid.  Commonwealth (8) for example, was renovated  in the early 1990's, and I assume it would get a different number on the scale if Doak were to rate it today.


Monsieur Henri,

He gets it right most of the time?

Where have I read that before?

Methinks you should have put quote marks around those words and referenced where you got it from, so we know you don't have an original opinion for yourself.

Doak may be an uberarchitect, but, last time I met him, he was still human, and therefore subject to his own biases. Witness the Golf magazine rankings, which feature an inordinate number of his friends on the panel, and which mysteriously manage to rank many of his own favourite courses very high indeed.

Dornoch top 15 in the world. UK magazines rate it top 15 in the UK.

Cruden Bay 72 in the world? Gimme a break. Put a 1 in front and you're still being generous.

Oakland Hills ahead of Prairie Dunes? That is taking the piss.



#20 henry

henry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3562 posts

Posted 30 January 2005 - 04:33 AM

QUOTE: Andrew Beach @ Jan 29 2005, 01:20 PM

He gets it right most of the time?

Where have I read that before?

I don't know. Where have you read it before? Please use quote marks for any reference you provide.



#21 speckymagee

speckymagee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts

Posted 30 January 2005 - 05:42 AM

QUOTE: Andrew Beach @ Jan 29 2005, 01:20 PM

Doak may be an uberarchitect, but, last time I met him, he was still human, and therefore subject to his own biases. 

Did he design a course you have played or a member of? Or want to promote? What have you got against him? unsure.gif



#22 Dela

Dela

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 30 January 2005 - 07:14 AM

QUOTE: Andrew Beach @ Jan 29 2005, 12:20 PM

Doak may be an uberarchitect, but, last time I met him, he was still human, and therefore subject to his own biases.  Witness the Golf magazine rankings, which feature an inordinate number of his friends on the panel, and which mysteriously manage to rank many of his own favourite courses very high indeed.

Dornoch top 15 in the world.  UK magazines rate it top 15 in the UK.

Cruden Bay 72 in the world?  Gimme a break.  Put a 1 in front and you're still being generous.

Oakland Hills ahead of Prairie Dunes?  That is taking the piss.

Andrew,

The above rant is off the mark. Where is the logic in rebuffing one ranking list by referring to other ranking lists or your own ranking?

To give Doak credit, he outlines the reasons for his rating of each course. He describes the logic/reasoning behind the "Doak-scale" and he lets you know when he played the courses. It's quite clear that it's his opinion, we know where he is coming from and we don't have to agree with it.

Perhaps you should list the judges in the Golf Magazine list (what year are you referring to?) and let us know which ones are Doak's friends.

Are the UK magazines not biased? Which ones are you referring to? On what criteria are the courses ranked?

It's easy to criticise. Doak has credibility because he backs up his criticism with reasoning. Unfortunately your post doesn't contain any like reasoning.



#23 John J Jones

John J Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 30 January 2005 - 08:48 AM

The course reviews in the Confidential Guide were obviously valid at a point in time, trouble is that point in time is a long time ago. Doak's reviews of Australian courses were from his visits in either March 1988 or March 1993 which means even the "newest" reviews are now close to 12 years old. Read thru the list of courses at the start of this thread and have a think about how most of them have changed over the last 12 to 17 years.

JJ



#24 Andrew Beach

Andrew Beach

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 02 February 2005 - 03:37 AM

QUOTE: speckymagee @ Jan 29 2005, 06:42 PM

Did he design a course you have played or a member of? Or want to promote? What have you got against him?  unsure.gif

I have NOTHING against him. I'm merely pointing out that his opinion is one of many. Educated maybe,



#25 speckymagee

speckymagee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts

Posted 02 February 2005 - 06:59 AM

QUOTE: Andrew Beach @ Feb 1 2005, 05:37 PM

I have NOTHING against him.  I'm merely pointing out that his opinion is one of many. Educated maybe,

So what does that mean? You a member of StAB or not? If you are why are you bagging him? unsure.gif



#26 miro67

miro67

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 04 February 2005 - 11:42 PM

To get back to the point.

It is always easy to pick inconsistency in these sorts of things BUT he is kidding ranking Newcastle (a good course) the same as NSW (a great course).



#27 ted.arlt.02

ted.arlt.02

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 05 February 2005 - 03:31 AM

My sentiments exactly Miro. Down this way how can Commonwealth be on par with K Heath? Surely Commonwealth is a 5 or 6 at best. Doak says Commonwealth is 'strategically pure'!!!!!!
rolleyes.gif

What sort of crap is that? 'Strategically Pure' laugh.gif That's almost as laughable as 'Trajectile Dysfunction'.

I have been very critical of Woodlands in the past but having given it a good hard look at the VIC OPEN and seeing how it can be brought up to a good standard I would say Woodlands is far superior to the likes of Commonwealth and even at that Woodlands should only rate 6. (7 based on the condition for the Vic Open)

7 – An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within a hundred miles. 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.

6 – A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town but not necessarily worth a special trip to see.

5 – A well above average golf course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if you’re in the vicinity and looking for a game, but don’t spend another day away from home just to see it.

I thought about buying one of those books on ebay but then I realised that it's only use was to fuel debate in golf forums. Ballybunion '10' - Nearly perfect. Ballybunion is full of ordinary holes. If Ballybunion is a '10' the Barnbougle Dunes is a 15 !!!!!!



#28 the_unreal_jeffrey

the_unreal_jeffrey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1928 posts

Posted 05 February 2005 - 04:21 AM

ted,

his rating for commonwealth was before the changes to the 1st 6th, 7th and 12 hoes.



#29 ted.arlt.02

ted.arlt.02

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 05 February 2005 - 05:58 AM

Thanks Jeffrey,

Henry pointed out something to that effect. Even assuming the changes didn't take place - is Commonwealth worthy of an '8'?

Maybe if Doak had it to do all over again he might revise some of the copy describing each rating. Maybe not.

On another note, I don't take issue with the fact that RMGC is a '10' in his book but when he describes a '10' as a course where 'even if you skipped one hole, you'd miss something worth seeing."

Tell me what you'd be missing if you skipped 1 West? What about 14 West (playing as 14 today)?

One thing for certain in my mind, I haven't set foot on a course anywhere with a better set of holes than the RM Composite.



#30 Hux

Hux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 697 posts

Posted 05 February 2005 - 06:36 AM

Jack,
Could you please list the NZ courses mentioned and summarize Tom's comments for them?
Cheers,
Mark






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users