Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Niall C on November 10, 2013, 09:02:07 AM
-
What are your top 3 Scottish moderns and why ?
You choose the criteria, it can be your favourites, or it can be best courses, greatest courses or indeed the worst courses. Or how about architecturally interesting ? I suggest moderns covers anything from 1990 onwards although I’m not too fussed about courses that were built a bit before that date.
Candidates include;
The Dukes (original)
The Dukes (remodelled)
Kingsbarns
The Castle Course
Spey Valley
Castle Stuart
Skibo Castle
The Torrance, St Andrews Bay (original)
The Torrance, St Andrews Bay (remodelled)
The Devlin, St Andrews Bay
Kittocks, St Andrews Bay (remodelled Devlin)
The Roxburgh
Craigielaw, Aberlady
Craighead, Crail
The Renaissance
Balmedie International
Rowallan, Kilmaurs
Cadrona
Whitekirk
Machrihanish Dunes
I dare say I’ve missed a few but you get the idea. Look forward to responses.
Niall
-
Hi Niall,
does Askernish belong in this group? Also Dundonald and possibly Loch Lomond.
Cheers,
Jon
-
Loch Lomond was under construction when I got married in 1992, so belongs on the list.
-
Niall
Don't forget the following courses either:
Brunston Castle
Carrick
Earl of Mar
Forbes of Kingennie
Torrance Park
There are probably others too that I can't think of right now...
-
Gents
Thanks for that. Now what's your top 3 ?
Niall
-
Okay Niall,
The Dukes (original) Played it once found it bland.
The Dukes (remodelled) Not played but looks good
Kingsbarns My Number 2. I saw the site here before construction and was blown away when I first played it. Good test of golf.
The Castle Course Only seen it not played
Spey Valley Like this course and think it will be better once it has bedded in
Castle Stuart My Number 1. Really impressed with everything to do with this course great concept and fun to play
Skibo Castle Only seen this but looks really good.
The Torrance, St Andrews Bay (original) Okay but better golf close by
The Torrance, St Andrews Bay (remodelled)
The Devlin, St Andrews Bay As above
Kittocks, St Andrews Bay (remodelled Devlin)
The Roxburgh Played here in the winter 10 years back and though it looked like it might be a good summer course it was a slog in the winter
Craigielaw, Aberlady Played twice which is enough. Opportunity missed with far better golf all around
Craighead, Crail Not played
The Renaissance Seen it but not played it. Looked good
Balmedie International Seen it several times but not played. Good looking course which will hopefully become even better
Rowallan, Kilmaurs Not seen
Cadrona Long slog with some good holes but very wet. I believe the drainage has been improved since I played though
Whitekirk Nice setting and fun if somewhat difficult course
Machrihanish Dunes Not played
Brunston Castle Not seen
Carrick not seen
Earl of Mar not seen
Forbes of Kingennie not seen
Torrance Park not seen
Askernish My number 3. Fun course which should be a model for more similar projects
Dundonald Really enjoyed playing here tough decision between it and Askernish
Loch Lomond. Great course if you can play it. It was in incredible condition and looked great but unplayable for me in a 20ish mph wind
G-West seen this and it looks good but have not played it
Gleneagles 2014 course. What a missed opportunity
Jon
-
1. Kingsbarn - just a wonderful course
2. Castle Stuart - just as good as Kingsbarn, maybe another day I would have it as number 1
3. Loch Lomond - Pretty site, pretty course & some great strategy
-
My favourite 3 moderns
1. Castle Stuart,
2. Machrihanish Dunes
3. Kingsbarns
all great modern links courses, of which 2 are faux links, however none compare with the eccentricities and accidental ground shapes found on ancient links.
I've still to play the more celebrated golf courses such as Renaissance, Trump, Castle, Skibo and Loch Lomond.
Of the David Williams courses I preferred Spey Valley to Cadrona and Roxburgh, however I found his distinct styling gets repetitive.
Archerfield Dirleton and Fidra deserve a mention, at least they are links.
-
Of the David Williams courses I preferred Spey Valley to Cadrona and Roxburgh
That's Dave Thomas, of course.
-
Thanks Adam - I've been watching too much rugby lately - got my welshman mixed up!!!
-
My top 3 Scottish moderns are as follows:
1. Kingsbarns
2. Castle Stuart
3. Loch Lomond
Renaissance Club would be a very close fourth. I would rank the St Andrews Castle Course (despite its greens) higher than Mach Dunes... The crazy routing of Mach Dunes detracted from the experience.
-
My top 3 moderns would be:
1. Kingsbarns: very much like the design, played it many times, it's greens never seem to be good enough
2. Kittocks: I liked the original but when one of the best par fours in Fife was added the new course became superb, still very underrated but enjoyed by local golfers. Wonderful seaside stretch, the last 14 holes are now an excellent fun test! Best value in area.
3. Dukes: doesn't get the love it could if it was anywhere else. Excellent Peter Thompson design, better before the changes, really good when fast and firm.
4. Castle Stuart Too much old wood 5. Renaissance; only played it 3 times in pouring rain, underwhellming 6. Spey Valley : good hidden gem, fun to play when dry 7. The Carrick: good mix of holes but nothing Scottish 8. Loch Lomond: too much nitrogen for Scotland
-
Not commenting on how good it may be in comparison to the others mentioned but shouldn't Meldrum House be on the Scottish moderns list?
All the best
-
No.1 Kingsbarns.
-
Castle Stuart is my number one closely followed by Kingsbarns.
Having walked around the new holes at Renaissance I think it would probably come very close, but having not played it yet I can't really comment.
-
I have a lot of respect for the work at both Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. The earthmoving and shaping work at each is some of the very best I have seen anywhere in the world, so I am not surprised why they would be seen as the top two modern courses.
That said, I do find it somewhat disturbing that two courses that featured such extensive earth-moving (almost wall to wall) are the standard-bearers for modern design in Scotland, of all places. There is hardly a single natural feature on either course, other than the rocks along the seashore. I am proud of the fact that we did NOT try to re-make The Renaissance Club into something it wasn't.
-
Castle Stuart
Loch Lomond
Kingsbarns
Mach Dunes is good too. But still maturing when we played.
-
I have a lot of respect for the work at both Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. The earthmoving and shaping work at each is some of the very best I have seen anywhere in the world, so I am not surprised why they would be seen as the top two modern courses.
That said, I do find it somewhat disturbing that two courses that featured such extensive earth-moving (almost wall to wall) are the standard-bearers for modern design in Scotland, of all places. There is hardly a single natural feature on either course, other than the rocks along the seashore. I am proud of the fact that we did NOT try to re-make The Renaissance Club into something it wasn't.
Which Scottish modern courses have been built on land good enough to warrant little earth moving?
Mach Dunes
Trump
Renaissance
Crail - Craighead?
I've not played any, I've walked Trump before construction and seen most of Renaissance since the new holes were built and guess both would challenge Castle Stuart for my best Scottish modern course but there isn't much other competition that I can think of.
-
I have a lot of respect for the work at both Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. The earthmoving and shaping work at each is some of the very best I have seen anywhere in the world, so I am not surprised why they would be seen as the top two modern courses.
That said, I do find it somewhat disturbing that two courses that featured such extensive earth-moving (almost wall to wall) are the standard-bearers for modern design in Scotland, of all places. There is hardly a single natural feature on either course, other than the rocks along the seashore. I am proud of the fact that we did NOT try to re-make The Renaissance Club into something it wasn't.
Tom,
At what point do you attempt to make a piece of land something it wasn't?
i.e. if you had taken the jobs at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart, and been given full control, would you have left the land as "something it was"?
-
Tom,
if you want to see a new Scottish course that has very little earth movement then Askernish is worth a look I have it as my number three after Castle Stuart and Kingsbarnes. Mine was also done with very little earth movement as I only had a 3 ton excavator and a wheelbarrow ;D
Jon
-
Crail Craighead was built on flat farmland.
-
Which Scottish modern courses have been built on land good enough to warrant little earth moving?
Tom: That's the thing: many architects and/or developers would have decided that The Renaissance Club warranted a lot of earthmoving, too. Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns are great courses, but the approach to both projects is based on £100+ green fees. Is that really all you know how to do over there anymore?
-
I have a lot of respect for the work at both Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. The earthmoving and shaping work at each is some of the very best I have seen anywhere in the world, so I am not surprised why they would be seen as the top two modern courses.
That said, I do find it somewhat disturbing that two courses that featured such extensive earth-moving (almost wall to wall) are the standard-bearers for modern design in Scotland, of all places. There is hardly a single natural feature on either course, other than the rocks along the seashore. I am proud of the fact that we did NOT try to re-make The Renaissance Club into something it wasn't.
Tom,
At what point do you attempt to make a piece of land something it wasn't?
i.e. if you had taken the jobs at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart, and been given full control, would you have left the land as "something it was"?
Jeff:
I don't know the answer to your question, because it's unlikely I would get hired for a project of that sort. I saw the site at Kingsbarns before it was a golf course and, not imagining that they were going to commit millions to move earth around in Scotland, I thought it wouldn't be a very exciting prospect, so I didn't pursue it.
I'm certainly not saying they did the wrong thing with the ground they had. I'm amazed with what they came up with. But there's a limited market for projects like that. And it's possible that the scale of construction is making it harder to get permits for a course like Trump's, which really did not require a lot of earthmoving [even though they chose to do a bunch, anyway].
-
To Tom:
Which site did you move more earth, Renaissance or Streamstrong?
And while you did not pursue the bid for Kingsbarns, you have moved a lot dirt with the Rawls course. But is that an exception?
-
John C-S
While I generally agree with your comment re modern links lacking "eccentricities and accidental ground shapes" does that include Mach Dunes also ? I've yet to play there but imagined they used a fairly light touch on the existing contours, no ?
Gary
Can I suggest you might be biased with regards the Kittocks ;D Haven't seen the new course but played the Devlin and Torrance a number of times and enjoyed both although some of the off-course bits between holes was pretty poor. As a hacker, and traditionalist (ie. play it as it lies) I tend to see those parts that perhaps you as a professional and straight hitter might not.
Dukes - I played the Thomson layout 20 odd times and enjoyed it however there was several issues with it, mainly to do with the uphill par 5 (15th) which was a slog, that and the general long slog between holes. I've only walked the "new layout" and to me it looks like what they have done is mainly cosmetic (eg hairy lipped bunkers instead of pot bunkers) which I didn't find in any way offensive, but they have managed to reroute part of the course on land which presumably wasn't previously available which has managed to deal with the uphill par 5 issue. Do you not think the course benefits from that ?
Niall
-
Re earth moving, the Dave Thomas designed courses don't look as though they involved a lot of shifting dirt. To me they look as though it was mainly tees, greens and bunkers and little else but could be wrong. Craigielaw (Tom MacKenzie) and Craighead (Gil Hanse) are similar, likewise the Carrick (Doug Carrick and Ian Andrews), all of which developed on sloping farmland and all enjoyable courses.
I suspect the most muck shifted on any of these course would be on the two Parsinen courses (Kingbarns and Castle Stuart) followed by the Castle course and the two St Andrews Bay courses. Arguably all four are US design influenced in terms of approach.
Niall
-
TD says:
"I do find it somewhat disturbing that two courses that featured such extensive earth-moving (almost wall to wall) are the standard-bearers for modern design in Scotland, of all places. There is hardly a single natural feature on either course, other than the rocks along the seashore. I am proud of the fact that we did NOT try to re-make The Renaissance Club into something it wasn't."
I've played Kingsbarns three times. Each time with Americans and each time it was the favorite course of my playing companions. All liked it much more than TOC and other, older links courses. Scratching my head as to why, no doubt part of it is KB's setting. It has sensational waterscapes and lots of big, bold vistas.
But I think KB also appeals for reasons that are more subtle than that. It has to do with earth-moving. Unlike TOC or Prestwick or Carnoustie, if you hit your ball in the fw at KB, you will almost always have a level lie. That is not a minor thing. Nor, I'd guess, is it accidental. American golfers get to play a spectacular course with all the visual trappings of a traditional links course (albeit on steroids) without the annoying shot-making challenges presented by older, rougher, lumpy links courses.
As a business plan for a course whose lifeblood is American visitors, it is pure genius.
Bob
-
Bob
Totally agree. I'd like to say more but time doesn't allow at the moment.
Cheers
Niall
-
Have played only three:
Castle Stuart is number one by miles. Great site, well routed on topography with significant elevation differences. Enjoyable golf holes. In the links tradition from day one.
Whitekirk is decent effort on land not very friendly to golf. Condition when I played was fairly rough.
The Castle Course is a very distant last. Topography ill-suited to golf and resultant holes that are awkward. Not much fun to be had other than spectacular views of St. Andrews.
-
Taking knocks at Kingsbarns is a little disappointing.
It was anything but minimalist but it was a standard bearer for a different kind of golf design (and shaping) in Europe. It dragged us out of the RTJ inspired design that had led the way up until that point. It showed a lot of people what could be done.
By Tom's own admission it wasn't a great site. Another somewhat similar site was the Craighead course at Crail. There the minimalist approach was certainly taken and despite an excellent design by Gil Hanse, I know which course I prefer.
That's not to say that all courses should follow the example Kingsbarns set... But before we damn it as excess, does anyone actually know what the cost of the course was?
-
Ally -
I don't mean to knock KB. I enjoyed playing it and would be pleased to return. Rather my post was an attempt to sort out why my American buddies like it so much more than the courses I prefer, like TOC just down the road.
I too think KB represents a new kind of links course. But by being "new" there are things lost and things gained.
Bob
-
My guess is there are many, many Scots who enjoy playing Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns as well. ;)
-
Taking knocks at Kingsbarns is a little disappointing.
Ally:
Where's the knock you are disappointed over? I think everyone has been respectful of the golf course; if anything, more than it deserves. Are we not allowed to point out its weaknesses, the same as all other courses discussed here?
-
It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.
It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.
-
It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.
It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.
Don't know where you got the first part. My problem is the other way around ... that other modern courses ought to move earth around to compete with a place like Kingsbarns for the title of Best Modern Scottish course. That's the implication from these lists, and I think it pushes architecture in the wrong direction. If you've got a good piece of land, changing it all to create a bunch of infinity greens would not be good design, even if it might win more awards.
I think we agree on the second part. I'd rather play the older links that have more unpredictability ... I think Kingsbarns is rated a bit high compared to some of those. I see why it's rated at the top of "modern Scottish" courses, and certainly, given the site, they had to do what they did to get there.
-
It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.
It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.
Don't know where you got the first part. My problem is the other way around ... that other modern courses ought to move earth around to compete with a place like Kingsbarns for the title of Best Modern Scottish course. That's the implication from these lists, and I think it pushes architecture in the wrong direction. If you've got a good piece of land, changing it all to create a bunch of infinity greens would not be good design, even if it might win more awards.
I think we agree on the second part. I'd rather play the older links that have more unpredictability ... I think Kingsbarns is rated a bit high compared to some of those. I see why it's rated at the top of "modern Scottish" courses, and certainly, given the site, they had to do what they did to get there.
Tom, now that you put it as you do in your first paragraph, I agree entirely.
As for the second paragraph, I also agree. Although I have it as my top modern, its ranking of circa 15 in most GB&I lists is a few places higher than I might have it.
-
I don't think I can finish the 3.
Kingsbarns
Castle Stuart
and probably
Askernish
It's sacrilege to select a parkland course as the 3rd best new course in Scotland. Perhaps there is also something to what Tom has mentioned. I've often described Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart as the Disnyland of golf for American tourists. I enjoy them, but I'm a fan of Disneyland as well. Perhaps Trump should be added to that list. However, in Scotland you could go around and play a lot of great little links courses at a fraction of the price. They are courses you play a couple times in my opinion in between your standard visits to Knotts Berry Farm, SeaWorld and the Sand Diego Zoo.
-
I really must get to Askernish.
I loved Mach Dunes actually. Although I may not consider it "better" than Kingsbarns, I think the joy of playing there was greater.
-
Some of the courses named in this thread, though I'm sure they're absolutely terrific, are, well, just too pricey. If I had a fat wedge of £$£$ burning a hole in my pocket or access to freebee's I'd naturally love to play them all.
In reality, the ones I'd plump for would be Machrihanish Dunes (played in conjunction with Mach' Old and Dunaverty), the Castle at StA, for it's wacky greens, but only then if played in conjunction with some combination of the New/Eden/Jubilee, and a once off cash splash on the travel etc out to play a few rounds at Askernish, as a yee olde special golf experience, probably playing with hickories. The rest? Well to be honest I reckon I'd rather save the cash to spend on playing the likes of Brora and Southerness and lots of the other cracking wee gem courses that lie in between them, plus some special courses like North Berwick and Prestwick.
But if some kind, generous person said to me the magic phrase "free golf" on any of the newies then I reckon I'd plump initially for the likes of Skibo/Carnigie, Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns and Renaissance, plus Covesea!
All the best.
-
David,
I am amazed that a Askernish which has been talked about a lot on here is been more or less ignored. I guess it is too low key for many yet it has all the ingredients that most here say they want. Great setting, good golfing holes at a reasonable price.
Thomas,
good call with Covesea.
Jon
-
One of the interesting aspects of the modern Scottish courses is they don't have nearly the same drawing power for me as the classic links do. I haven't seen many because my perception is that many of the new designs are trying to hard to wow golfers at the expense of good design. Though I have seen Trump and the Castle Course and neither blew me away. To put it in perspective, I just played Dormie which I had mixed feelings about, but I thought it better than either of those two mainly because of the diversity of holes and sensible green surrounds. In other words, Dormie allows for a variety of play which neither Castle or Trump do and I find that very disappointing for so-called links.
Of the newbies, the ones I really want to see are Renaissance, Mach Dunes and Dundonald (which I think looks very good). I would like to see Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns as well, but the green fee is beyond my interest. I don't know if Askernish is considered new or what, but I would like to see it at some point.
Ciao
-
Sean,
do you ever just walk a course?
I'm sure you could walk both for free.... and you would learn a heck of a lot
-
Other than for viewing a tournament, in recent years the only courses I have walked are Rye & TOC. I don't envision not playing while in Scotland in favour of walking a course. I don't feel much need to learn about design when I can just play.
Ciao
-
Though I thought I'd played a reasonable amount of golf in Scotland, I've not played many of the newer courses, well just 3 in fact. As others have said, I'd generally rather play some of the older, classic, traditional, hidden gems when north of the border. They do tend to be cheaper as well!
Those I've played:
1. Castle Stuart, they may have moved plenty of earth, but I really enjoy the course and love that it's playable for corporate hackers but can also challenge the pros. If it was cheaper, I'm sure people would be flooding to the course?
2. Askernish, as if a trip to the Outer Hebrides wasn't magical enough, they go and bring this course to life from the machair.
3. Spey Valley, great setting and a decent course. Repetitive bunkering was a bit annoying, as was the fountain! Worth seeing but not at the expense of Boat of Garten nearby.
Cheers,
James
-
Bob
Re post #26, I think you hit the nail on the head re level lies and is why I find some of these modern designs a bit insipid. Without wishing to get all Melvyn on you, I do think the game of golf is about the challenge and that in some respects a golf course is an obstacle course with the object of getting round/over or through the obstacles and holing out in the fewest strokes. Removing part of the challenge is just dumbing down the game, IMHO of course.
I would say however as much as I might prefer a traditional older links its not to say I don't enjoy playing Kingsbarns or even Castle Stuart, as do my Scottish pals.
Niall
-
Thomas/Jon
Re Covesea, not sure how modern it is as it was a 12 holer consisting of all, or nearly all par 3's. It was only recently that the new owner took over and knocked some of the par 3's together and turned them into par 4's, so it ahs been going for quite a while.
If we are going to include nine holers, and why not, then Ballindalloch Castle, another Tom MacKenzie design, should be included. Good fun with greens very much in the Craigielaw style. Has one of the prettiest par 3's in Scotland.
Niall
-
It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.
It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.
Don't know where you got the first part. My problem is the other way around ... that other modern courses ought to move earth around to compete with a place like Kingsbarns for the title of Best Modern Scottish course. That's the implication from these lists, and I think it pushes architecture in the wrong direction. If you've got a good piece of land, changing it all to create a bunch of infinity greens would not be good design, even if it might win more awards.
Tom
I don't know that there is a recognised list for Best Scottish Modern. What I was suggesting was that people give me their Top 3 on whatever basis they choose. Most went for best and a few went for favourite. KB and to a lesser extent CS (which is relatively newer) have not surprisingly come out towards the top of the lists because I suspect firstly the design work is good, comparative to a lot of the others listed they are in much better condition and lastly the folk on this site aren't going to cross an ocean/travel the length of the country to play a Dave Thomas design. Thats why I think that best of lists become a bit self perpetuating.
Having set the task for others, I sat down last night to come up with my own Top 3's. I picked a "Top 3 - Missed Opportunity/Could've done better" which was quite easy, I picked a "Top 3 of played it once, like to play again" (Renaissance joint first with Loch Lomond) and even a bucket list of courses yet to play. What I found disturbingly hard to do however was to come up with a "Top 3 - Favourites". That probably speaks more for my love of the older traditional golf courses.
Niall
-
Niall,
for me Covesea is more or less a new course as very little of the old course still exists. I certainly hope you would include 9 hole courses as they are GOLF courses and I cannot stand the '18 holes are true golf courses' snobbery. You are right that Ballindalloch Castle is a cracking course. I didn't mention my own course as I think my motives for doing so could/should be questioned.
It is interesting that you chose Loch Lomond as though I was really impressed with the course and the setting I just felt it was too brutal when played in a stiff breeze. It destroyed me on several holes and that was back when I could still play half decent back in the mid to late 90s.
I thought Dundonald might have gotten a few more mentions.
Jon
-
Niall: enjoying the comments! How can Askernish be a best modern considering the designer?
The Devlin could have been a greater course with the ability to add more sand! I understand they were not allowed to bring sand to the site on existing roads. The Devlin was improved when the best hole from the Torrance became it's 17th. When Sam saw what had happened to "his" course, his first comment was "Gary, what the F*** have they done?" And that was only the beginning of the conversation.
The "uphill slog" at the Dukes: cart golf is available! :D Many well-heeled American "golfers" can visit Scotland, see the courses, and play the Dukes and Kittocks in buggies. I did notice Fairmont did get many UK golfers enjoying buggies. There is a place for them, modern golf can be played on carts when necessary!
I heard an older designer once say "you have to move a lot of dirt to make it look like you didn't move any".
-
Frank why walk courses in the land that is the home of golf when there are hundreds of reasonably priced courses to play? You'd learn a lot about top level links golf at North Berwick or Royal Dornoch for half the price of the new American links courses.
Sean didn't you play Trump or was that on a deal?
David Tepper I'd be interested to know how many Scots play the courses at full whack now the local's discounts.
Are the fairways at Kingsbarns like the back nine at Hillside, motorways through the dunes?
-
I played Kingsbarns for the first time this summer. For whatever reason I was pre-disposed not to love it but I did. A ton of great shots and absolutely beautiful. That said, part of the attraction must be how easy it is. It felt almost impossible to miss a fairway on the front nine, every time I tried the ball bounced back to the fairway. They aren't flat motorways through the dunes but the ball does collect towards them.
I've only played four modern Scots courses (KB, Renaissance, Graighead and Craigielaw) and that would be the order I would put them in. That said I'm a big fan of what Gil Hanse achieved at Crail on a flat bit of land and a very limited budget.
-
Frank why walk courses in the land that is the home of golf when there are hundreds of reasonably priced courses to play? You'd learn a lot about top level links golf at North Berwick or Royal Dornoch for half the price of the new American links courses.
Sean didn't you play Trump or was that on a deal?
David Tepper I'd be interested to know how many Scots play the courses at full whack now the local's discounts.
Are the fairways at Kingsbarns like the back nine at Hillside, motorways through the dunes?
Chappers
I've only played two Scot mods; Trump and Castle. Both had some quite impressive aspects to the designs and I think Trump is a great course. I prefer Castle, but think Trump is better, however, both left me slightly flat for various reasons discussed previously. I won't be going back to either at full price.
Ciao
-
"David Tepper I'd be interested to know how many Scots play the courses at full whack now the local's discounts."
Mark -
I am not sure what what you are asking. The majority of Scots I know who have played Castle Stuart have enjoyed it very much.
Regardless, I think green fees should have no relevance in discussing the quality of a golf course. If the question was "what modern golf courses in Scotland are the best values," you could factor green fees into the equation. Otherwise, green fees (and initiation fees and annual dues) should be irrelevant.
DT
-
??? ??? ???
Why does moving dirt disqualify a project such as Kingsbairns, even a little bit ?
Of course I'm sensitive because the only 18 hole course I built moved more than 4,000,000 lol
For my money it's easier to make a good site awesome than a dump. But that's another conversation. Once it's built , it's built .
I've been a little surprised that Trump's new course gets so few votes , hope it's not a bias . Confess don't have enough personal knowledge of Scottish courses to opine on favorites.
-
I always think it's odd when someone says that a parkland course shouldn't be considered for this sort of thing because "it's Scotland." True, Scotland is known for its linksland, but we shouldn't define an entire country by one style of course? I would have to put Loch Lomond in my top 3, especially with the improvements that have been made to the turf conditions there in the last decade. The variety of holes is outstanding, especially the two short par fours and the great cape finisher.
-
Posted in error.
-
Though it is hard to separate the course from its owner, there's no question that Trump International Scotland (isn't it redundant to call it both "international" and "Scotland"?) is an exceptional course, certainly in the handful of great courses built in the last few decades. I am predisposed to not liking it; however, it was very well done, some nitpicks aside.
Castle Stuart is also excellent, though in a completely different way.
And I'm also fond of Kingsbarns.
I'll say this: all three have excellent routings, that turn and wind, play into the wind, down wind and cross wind. Many traditional links are out-and-back; none of the three I mentioned are that way, which is a big benefit to them. There are also a lot of traditional links with questionable closing holes; however, I'd say all three of these modern courses have strong finales.
-
(http://i1374.photobucket.com/albums/ag410/hooverbd/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-04/562CCC4C-BF74-4A40-9615-227C483FC3ED_zpshncp6vfa.jpg)
-
I spose describing Trump Aberdeen's 18th as strong is appropriate so long as strong doesn't mean good ::)
Ciao
-
Robert
As a confirmed links lover who has played most of his golf on links over the last 15 years, I've come to the conclusion that designing a routing to give different winds isn't a worthwhile objective. For a start, in a 3 to 4 hour round, the chances are the wind is going to shift direction repeatedly such it could about face by the time you are finished. Even two consecutive holes playing the same direction tee to green can be different if for instance in the first hole you drive to the right side of the fairway whereas the next hole you drive straight or to the left. Even assuming the wind stays constant, the subtle changes in angle of approach shots is enough to make a difference.
Apart from that enjoy the challenge of a "hard" outward half where you have to knuckle down followed by an "easier" inward half where there is a chance to make some headway on your score, or indeed vice a versa.
BTW, are you still on your Scottish tour and what courses have you played/still to play ?
Niall
-
Agree about the changing winds Niall! Played both1 and 18 on the Old Course into 40 mph breeze one round, also played 9 and 10 with the wind at my back (too long at the refreshment vehicle).
The original Torrance and the original Devlin are both better than their present offering. Although the bunkering on both is now excellent, some of the best work that I have seen.
-
So there is no potential difference in quality between an out n' back design and one such as Muirfield where wind direction constantly changes? If this is what you lot are claiming, I couldn't disagree more.
Ciao
-
Sean
In terms of quality, no, in terms of effect, yes. I just don't think it a worthwhile objective. As I said in my earlier post, even on your typical out and back routing, the wind changes during a round anyway so it seems hardly worthwhile IMO.
Niall
-
Niall
I am not sure what to say ???. My home course is an out n' backer and I can count on two hands how many times the wind has shifted during a round and on one where the wind has shifted significantly. To me, its an obvious advantage to design holes in different directions if possible. Why rely on the rare times when wind changes during a round if you don't have to? In other words, out n' backers are that way because of needs must. What archie would build an out n' backer on a property that doesn't have to be that way? No matter what the wind does during a given round, it will be more varied if more holes run in different directions compared to an out n' back design. Its incredible that yopu would think otherwise.
Ciao
-
My favourite 3 moderns
1. Castle Stuart,
2. Kingsbarns
3. Archerfield (Fidra)
Michael
-
Sean
With regards change in wind direction, I suspect that it’s one of these things we will just have to disagree on however let me say in the hundreds of rounds I’ve played on links over the years I’ve found it’s not at all unusual for a significant change in wind direction during the round and probably happens more often than not.
However the point is surely that even a slight change in angle in wind direction vis-a-vis direction of travel requires the golfer to think and reassess how he’s going to play the shot. Even with a constancy of wind direction and holes playing on an exact some bearing (how often do you get that ?), the average golfer would still get variation in the direction of wind they would be playing into (or behind them) since most golfers tack their way up the fairway anyway either by accident or design, and therefore there would be variation in the approach shots at least.
For my money what’s of much more significance in a routing is the sequencing of holes in terms of how they affect the rhythm of the round, and how the course travels through the landscape.
Niall
-
Niall,
I'm afraid that I once again find myself siding with Sean. That must be 3 times in a row, surely a record.
I think you are on a loser here and if presented with a long narrow strip of land, then I'd do everything in my power to route switchback holes and at least one or two par-3's going perpendicular to the general flow.
Wind changes, yes. But you are far more likely to experience variety over the course of 4 hours with a Muirfield or Portmarnock routing as opposed to a Royal Aberdeen or St Andrews.
-
Sean
With regards change in wind direction, I suspect that it’s one of these things we will just have to disagree on however let me say in the hundreds of rounds I’ve played on links over the years I’ve found it’s not at all unusual for a significant change in wind direction during the round and probably happens more often than not.
However the point is surely that even a slight change in angle in wind direction vis-a-vis direction of travel requires the golfer to think and reassess how he’s going to play the shot. Even with a constancy of wind direction and holes playing on an exact some bearing (how often do you get that ?), the average golfer would still get variation in the direction of wind they would be playing into (or behind them) since most golfers tack their way up the fairway anyway either by accident or design, and therefore there would be variation in the approach shots at least.
For my money what’s of much more significance in a routing is the sequencing of holes in terms of how they affect the rhythm of the round, and how the course travels through the landscape.
Niall
Niall
You just changed your tune. Previously you stated wind wasn't worth designing for because it changes through a round. I think this is a dubious claim, but whatever. Now you are saying there are more important elements to design for. That may well be, but if an archie has the opportunity to switch hole directions several times, do ya think the varying wind directions will have an important bearing on the rhythm and flow of a links? I think all the possible elements get wrapped into one whole when it comes to how a course unfolds and that wind is potentially both extremely important and huge benefit to be taken advantage of for the right properties.
Ciao
-
Sean
When I've got more time I'll check back to see where I've changed my tune, although I don't think I have. My point has always been why bother designing holes in different directions to vary the wind direction that you play with when the wind largely does that for you, therefore holes shooting off in various directions is not at all an essential criteria for me.
Re wind having a bearing on rhythm and flow, are you suggesting that with a routing with holes going at all angles that it’s easier to take the wind into consideration in the rhythm and flow of the course ?
Niall
-
Sean
When I've got more time I'll check back to see where I've changed my tune, although I don't think I have. My point has always been why bother designing holes in different directions to vary the wind direction that you play with when the wind largely does that for you, therefore holes shooting off in various directions is not at all an essential criteria for me.
Re wind having a bearing on rhythm and flow, are you suggesting that with a routing with holes going at all angles that it’s easier to take the wind into consideration in the rhythm and flow of the course ?
Niall
Jeepers, you have lost me. I can't understand how more holes heading in different directions doesn't result in more varying wind directions. You seem to be saying that out n' back design works just as well as at Muirfield in terms of providing wind variety. If this is the case, yer bonkers :D If varying direction of wind is important, I don't think there is any question that altering hole directions will much better achieve this than relying on the wind to change. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I can't help thinking the above is not what you meant.
Ciao
-
Sean, Ally,
I would hope that a GCA would design the course to make best use of the land in respect of its features. If this means an out and back then so be it but it could also mean something more like Muirfield. I understand what you are saying but designing for the wind should be way down the list of priorities here in the UK as the wind does vary a lot. As for two loops of nine, even par 36 both sides or 4 par 5s and 3s these concepts have ruined more courses than created.
Jon
-
Jon,
I reckon changing direction is an integral part of routing a course, not just for wind. I try and avoid multiple holes heading in the same direction, the same as I try and avoid 3 or more sardines back to back. Both options take away from the sense of adventure.
I do like the odd out and back routing at the seaside - just like I like a brisk winter walk along the beach and back - but even most of those have the odd kink. Playing a links in a wind where your front nine is about controlling the ball down wind and your back nine is a slog in to it generally detracts. I prefer it mixed up more.
So I do have it as a consideration. How far down it lies in my list of considerations I don't know. Because I find the process more intuitive than that. You take it all as a whole. That's my experience anyway.
-
Sean
Nope, quite happy with what I said. I think it's the difference going from in yer face to wind in your back and back again, compared to more subtle changes where the change in direction is maybe a quarter or so. You still get variety, just a different flavour.
Niall
-
1. Craighead
2. Castle Stuart
3. Kingsbarns
I think Craighead is overlooked a lot of times as it has the misfortune of being next to one of the best traditional links in the world.
-
Ben
That's an interesting selection, putting Craighead before the other two. I quite like Craighead as indeed I quite like Balcomie but I wouldn't put either of them near the top of their respective categories.
Niall
-
Niall: Not my experience, but I won't argue. At Aberdeen it blew one direction all day, as was the case at Castle Stuart, and the Old Course. Those were the three windiest days. But even then, i think a routing that changes direction is preferable to a singular routing.
And I've been back for a couple of weeks now. Played Old, Eden, Elie, Crail, Lundin, Aberdeen, Trump, Fraserburgh, Castle Stuart and Fortrose. Wonderful trip.
Robert
As a confirmed links lover who has played most of his golf on links over the last 15 years, I've come to the conclusion that designing a routing to give different winds isn't a worthwhile objective. For a start, in a 3 to 4 hour round, the chances are the wind is going to shift direction repeatedly such it could about face by the time you are finished. Even two consecutive holes playing the same direction tee to green can be different if for instance in the first hole you drive to the right side of the fairway whereas the next hole you drive straight or to the left. Even assuming the wind stays constant, the subtle changes in angle of approach shots is enough to make a difference.
Apart from that enjoy the challenge of a "hard" outward half where you have to knuckle down followed by an "easier" inward half where there is a chance to make some headway on your score, or indeed vice a versa.
BTW, are you still on your Scottish tour and what courses have you played/still to play ?
Niall
-
oK, I played a few more modern Scottish links other than Castle and Trump. Without a doubt Castle Stuart is my #1. Despite the horrid rough I would go with Renaissance #2. I still haven't had a good think about Dundonald (Castle, and Carnegie definitely fall short of top 3), but I reckon Trump Aberdeen is #3. At the moment all would make my quality only top 25 GB&I, but I couldn't include any of them among my real favourites.
Ciao
-
To put it in perspective, I just played Dormie which I had mixed feelings about, but I thought it better than either of those two mainly because of the diversity of holes and sensible green surrounds. In other words, Dormie allows for a variety of play which neither Castle or Trump do and I find that very disappointing for so-called links.
Of the newbies, the ones I really want to see are Renaissance, Mach Dunes and Dundonald (which I think looks very good).
Ciao
Now that you've played Renaissance and Dundonald, how do you rate them in terms of green complexes/short game options ?
Niall
-
Niall
Its hard to judge between the two so they must be somewhat similar. That said I think Ren is probably a bit tighter around greens with bunkering, but Dun has more raised greens where a slight error results in balls slinging off the wings. All in all I think Ren is slightly tougher for recoveries but that is probably down to better turf and faster greens as much as anything. But, each course has a good mixture of greens and surrounds.
Dundonald didn't exactly impress me, but it is good golf, generally with some room to miss and a few highlights such as 6 and 16. For me, the course is held back by too much water and too many sharpish doglegs. However, I suspect the property called for more doglegs because while the course felt spacious there isn't that much room if getting two loops back to the house was a priority. The club should really consider offering 9 hole rates.
Ciao
-
Ignoring difficulty, which offered the more interesting and varied shot options around the greens ? For me, an average golfer who doesn't hit may greens in regulation, that's a big thing.
Niall
-
Ignoring difficulty, which offered the more interesting and varied shot options around the greens ? For me, an average golfer who doesn't hit may greens in regulation, that's a big thing.
Niall
Niall
I would probably say Dundonald simply because bunkers aren't featured as much and some greens are built up at Dundonald. But I would need a lot more experience with each course to hold a definitive opinion.
Ciao
-
Sean,
What would keep Castle Stuart off your favorites list aside from price?
-
Sean,
What would keep Castle Stuart off your favorites list aside from price?
Nothing.
Ciao
-
I have just returned from my alleged summer holiday trip back home and had the pleasure of playing trump for the first time. yes there are weaknesses such as the over bunkering ( and occasional over difficulty of bunkers eg left of 4th green!) and overdoing of some greens but overall I found it completely world class. it's a far more exacting test than castle Stuart but I didn't lose a ball and overall I found it very fair.. you get punished for bad shots that leave you kicking yourself as opposed to feeling hard done by. I feel it is a great addition to the world of golf and not to be missed.
as for the scottish moderns, I only have kingsbarns and cs to go on. I would rate trump only a fraction above cs with kingsbarns a shade behind.