Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jim McCann on September 18, 2014, 03:33:10 PM
-
... for Tom Doak to rate it a 0 (yes, ZERO) on the Doak scale is, I would suggest, more than a little controversial :
http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/course-architect-tom-doak-gives-rival-david-mclay-kidds-castle-course-st-andrews-zero-rating-new-book?mobile=n
Or perhaps it's just a clever way of directing attention towards his new book...
-
I thought Archerfield was going to get the 0.
-
The article doesn't explain what a Doak zero means, unfortunately...
-
Was in the St. Andrews area this summer and never considered playing there based on all I had heard and read in the past few years.
Newer courses in that part of the world just aren't my cup of tea with so many more subtle older choices (not exactly fair I know)
Certainly given the neighborhood it would have to be quite an extended trip to consider spending big $$ playing there with so many other options.
That said, Clicked on the Castle website just now after reading the "0" article and the pictures made it look quite appealing-certainly somewhere one could spend an enjoyable afternoon (even if spending some of the time head scratching)
I guess any publicity is good publicity?? (because the course hasn't crossed my mind for a long time and now it has)
-
Is Queenwood in the confidential guide?
-
Got to love golf course architecture.
Wot other profession could you rate someone else's work a ZERO and publish it in a book....?!
Classic!
-
This is the Doak Scale I believe.
"0" in bold.
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
1-A very basic golf course, with clear architectural malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid even if you're desperate for a game.
2-A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. As my friend Dave Richards summed one up: “Play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer”.
3-About the level of the average golf course in the world. (Since I don’t go out of my way to see average courses, my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better, and the best).
4-A modestly interesting course, with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18, or at least some scenic interest and decent golf. Also reserved for some very good courses that are much too short and narrow to provide sufficient challenge for accomplished players.
5-Well above the 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, unless your home is Alaska.
6-A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn’t disappoint you.
7-An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 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.
8-One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8’s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.
9-An outstanding course – certainly one of the best in the world – with no weaknesses in regard to condition, length, or poor holes. You should see this course sometime in your life.
10-Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Drop the book and call your travel agent – immediately.
Question - has the scale changed for the new book?
atb
-
Got to love golf course architecture.
Wot other profession could you rate someone else's work a ZERO and publish it in a book....?!
Classic!
When it's the only zero amongst 288 courses (apparently) it seems a bit of a hatchet job to me.
I did chuckle at the line that Ran Morrissett hadn't seen it. The Arsene Wenger of golf course reviews.
-
This is great. Can't wait to read the rest of the book!
-
Very Strange.
I did not like the shaping of the greens, but thought the landscape and routing they created on a rather unpromising site were good.
I can think of many far worse courses.
-
I'd LOVE to hear Paul Kimber's thoughts.
F.
-
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
I think Melvyn would say Tom nailed it. :D
-
Here is my actual review:
“A friend of mine who had never played The Old Course waited for hours at the starter's box in July to try to get out as a single, and as the day was starting to wane, he told the starter he was thinking of going up to The Castle Course instead. ‘No laddie, you don't want to do that,’ came the reply. ‘We'll get you out yet.’
I'm with the starter on this one. I feel for David Kidd because a lot of the criticisms of the course are things one might say about The Old Course if it wasn't so famous: the greens are huge and wild, and it's hard to discern the strategy from the tee. However, the severe tilt of the land and the size of the greens yields a lot of recovery shots to greens that are up over your head, and the moonscape of the course is only appealing when you’re looking away from it, across the bay toward town. Trying to one-up Kingsbarns (a heralded course just up the road) turned out to be a formula for excess.”
The course was rated 0 - 5 5 ... Ran hasn't seen it, the others each gave it a 5, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
It is one rating out of 288 in the book. I am certainly not rating it that way to be controversial; GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.
It's my honest opinion. You may all choose to play the Castle Course every day for the rest of your lives, if you want. I can't imagine.
-
Tom were there any other courses with a disparagy of 5 or more between marks amongst you?
-
Personally I really enjoyed the castle course. It's absolutely beautiful and i didn't find the greens to be as crazy as people have said. Its not the greatest course ever but it was my first course off the plane in Scotland and I found it to be a fun warmup round.
To each his own I guess. It was the worst of the 6 I played out there but the others were toc, kingsbarns, prestwick, carnoustie and turnberry so that's not saying much.
-
Played it only once, never again. It fulfills most of the criteria in the definition of a zero.
Good views of the town and sea but that can be had from other high points without having to suffer through a round of golf.
-
It is one rating out of 288 in the book. I am certainly not rating it that way to be controversial; GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.
Tom, you're PR savvy enough to know that shitcanning a rival designer's work would be a significant talking point, and as you're launching the first of five new volumes of the book, the discussion and promotion is welcome, I am sure.
GOLF.com is focusing on it because it's notable and newsworthy, which you knew it would be when you assigned the duck egg.
Given you say in the article that you like DMK, did you consider giving him a call privately before the book was published to give him a heads-up that you had given him the only 0 in the book?
-
GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.
Really? You are blaming golf.com for being controversial? I've never played the Castle and have no relationship with Kidd so have no reason to discredit the '5' median rating. And since it's 'The Doak Scale' I guess it is hard to dispute the ZERO rating that was assigned by the founder, but for me it begs the question...'what is the point of the exercise?' Is this really the worst course in the United Kingdom? I suppose that's possible but for me this all seems 'Krugman-esque'
-
GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.
Really? You are blaming golf.com for being controversial? I've never played the Castle and have no relationship with Kidd so have no reason to discredit the '5' median rating. And since it's 'The Doak Scale' I guess it is hard to dispute the ZERO rating that was assigned by the founder, but for me it begs the question...'what is the point of the exercise?' Is this really the worst course in the United Kingdom? I suppose that's possible but for me this all seems 'Krugman-esque'
Please translate "Krugman-esque."
-
My understanding of the Doak scale--at least at the lower end--is to identify some golf courses that are blatantly contrived and shouldn't have been built. If anyone can give a solid reason why St. Andrews needed another course that is geographically separate from its others and sited on a junky piece of land, you're smarter than me. Tom's review read more like he felt sorry for Kidd than anything else.
As for all the hubbub surrounding this first book, a little controversy was bound to occur. It should take the edge off the impending meltdowns that some in the business will have following the second and third installments. It's all very delicious for those of us that love golf courses.
-
Haha I created a term but have since googled and see many others preceded me. I view Krugman as a leader in his field who is clearly brilliant and influential, but commonly makes outlandish, indefensible claims intended to generate publicity as much as anything else (again, in my view). I LOVE the original Confidential Guide (it is on my coffee table as we speak), but really struggle with taking such a shot as a ZERO on a course that has generally received mediocre-to-good ratings...I get that books are being sold, but just cannot understand the need to inflict such harm on a course and an architect...and, from 1000s of miles away and not having read the book, that is what appears to be happening. So yes, Krugman-esque.
-
My understanding of the Doak scale--at least at the lower end--is to identify some golf courses that are blatantly contrived and shouldn't have been built. If anyone can give a solid reason why St. Andrews needed another course that is geographically separate from its others and sited on a junky piece of land, you're smarter than me. Tom's review read more like he felt sorry for Kidd than anything else.
As for all the hubbub surrounding this first book, a little controversy was bound to occur. It should take the edge off the impending meltdowns that some in the business will have following the second and third installments. It's all very delicious for those of us that love golf courses.
Surely all golf courses are, by definition, contrived.
Not sure that Southampton 'needed' another course, either.
There is almost a rite of passage about someone young giving the establishment a bit of a kicking, as the original guide does in places. The confidential premise of the original was to many endearing in its honesty.
When you are the establishment and you've clearly already won the argument but continue to kick, IMO, it is gratuitous.
-
I did not play the Castle course, but I walked around it with a cousin of mine. It is very severe, and the contouring is complex and ornate. There are several tee shots where the landing area is partially hidden from sight. My cousin, who lives in St. Andrews, played it once. To be fair, he is in his seventies, so the course would be an arduous walk.
-
Living within an hour's drive from St. Andrews, I occasionally followed the development of the course as it was being built and was neither impressed nor inspired to want to play the course. A few years after after its completion I walked a few of the holes with Tom (and other archies) when they were in the toun for a conference. This hour's walk confirmed my lack of desire to ever play the course, even if I were comped (which I am from time to time, being a writer). The more I think of it, "wouldinae play the course even if comped" is a reasonable way of defining a "Doak 0."
I tgake a loook of the course annually, as I have business in St. Andrews, and while the Don King's Hair mounds that infested the early version have had a cut and blow dry, the overall routing and green designs are still not value for money. Why oh why did the Links Trust ever even consider building this monstrosity?
Either by my or Tom's scale, this course is a zero.
-
I've played many of the worlds great courses and whilst this isn't one of them it was an enjoyable game with a few cracking holes.
Ryan asks the important question, how many other courses have a 5 point difference between the reviewers? If it's none it kinda undermines this review and suggests to the reader a more underlying factor.
-
Having played the course, I am on the fence. For about 90% of the description of a Doak 0, this course fits it word for word.
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
This is the little part in the middle that I don't agree with. There are 2 circumstances I can recommend playing it:
1. Seeing the Doak 0 side of things: To see what not to do. (not a good reason to play but it is good to learn from mistakes)
2. Seeing the Doak 5 side of things: It was kind of fun to play at times... Ridiculous, challenging, contrived, poison your mind, can all be said about the Castle course, too, but I had some fun playing it. Here is my reasoning: I wasn't keeping track of my score. I was just there to check it out. As the round progressed, my father and I kind of played each other. This is when I had my realization; if you play match play, it isn't THAT bad. Also, there are parts on the greens that are receptive to shots. I made a couple of birdies, and could have made a couple more. That being said, I picked up on a couple holes due to the design, too.
So, my recommendation is to try playing match play against someone you know and check out the course. See what went wrong/could have been better. Make a couple birdies, lose a couple balls, and have a friendly match. If you have the urge to erase everything you see and never play it again after your round, I won't judge you; however, if you do kind of like it and want to try it again sometime, I understand that, too.
I respect the Doak 5 and the Doak 0 ratings.
-
I was shocked when I first read the blurb on the Castle. Yes, the course goes overboard and so far as I know, practically every year more work has been done to tone it down. Still, there are some cool aspects to the course and at least we can say it isn't boring. A 0 rating is very, very harsh, but its Doak's book. We all don't have to agree with everything Doak writes and in this case I definitely disagree, but so what? Its not as if there is a great love for this course and Doak just dumped on our parade.
Ciao
-
No one has combination of "seen more" & "built classics" better than Tom Doak. If he says it's a 0, there's no one in the world I would trust more than him. He may be the BOAT in his field.
But.
The bloke is extremely clever, savvy and on the pulse with regards to the golf industry and the publishing/PR industry.
He is not surprised that GOLF.com picked this up and wrote this story. He knew this would be a leading storyline from Vol 1 of his new multi-volume series and he is loving the attention this is driving towards his books.
I hope you sell a shit ton of books, Tom. But don't treat us like idiots.
-
I liked The Castle Course.
As I've said on here before, I'm glad something bold was built over something bland.
But perhaps it didn't need to be built at all... or maybe not on that site... or maybe with a little variety in the shaping (i.e. toned down) near the edges so it could bleed in to the landscape better..
Tom gave Tralee and Ballybunion Cashen zeroes first time round (although he rated them a rather confusing 0-5)... The zero is definitely aimed at missed opportunities / wrong decisions rather than just poor courses.
-
Oddly, if it got a 3, I would probably never even think about playing it. Now, if/when I go to St Andrews, I feel like I have to play it once, just to see if it really is that bad.
-
I think Tom's point is that he gave it a 0-5. Not a 0. Same as Ballybunion New and Tralee. Courses that are severe and go over the top in places.
-
Rich - From the R & A point of view The Castle Course has been very successful. It is pretty busy and has taken a lot of traffic from Kingsbarns. The price is inside KB. Most people seem to like it and we have several members here that rave about it, most do mention the greens being too severe.
I always rate individual holes on a 1-10 basis and rarely would I give a 9 or 10. The 17th on the Castle I would give a 10.
I think most golf architects will always think they can improve on another's work. IMO the greens are miles too severe. The course is primarely aerial, had I been given the job I would have had more running approaches. The blending and general landscaping I would say is pretty good.
-
Time to cross-reference to numerous photos of the Castle Course, a few years old though they may be. Namely -
Kyle's photo-tour from 2009 - http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40204.0/
and
Franks GAP site - http://www.golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/Scotland/St.Andrews%20Castle/index.html
plus,
here's what it costs an adult to play (per the StA website - standard 18-hole price)
Mar 1-31 - £60
Apr 1-13 - £84
Apr 14-Oct 19 - £120
Oct 20-31 - £84
Nov 1-3 - £60
The course is closed from early Nov to 1st March.
atb
-
Rich - From the R & A point of view The Castle Course has been very successful.
Just a quick, pedantic correction - the Castle is nothing to do with the R&A per se, it was the Links Trust that built it.
-
Adrian do you mean success for the Links Trust?
I loved 17 especially as i hit a 6 iron straight at a far right pin and ended up 10 feet away. There was also a lovely par 4 on the front nine possibly the 7th with a semi blind drive and green hard to the cliff with green views.
The service and staff were fantastic as with all the Links Trust staff, bar TOC rangers who are positively rude to R&A groups.
-
Adrian do you mean success for the Links Trust?
I loved 17 especially as i hit a 6 iron straight at a far right pin and ended up 10 feet away. There was also a lovely par 4 on the front nine possibly the 7th with a semi blind drive and green hard to the cliff with green views.
The service and staff were fantastic as with all the Links Trust staff, bar TOC rangers who are positively rude to R&A groups.
Yes sorry meant Links Trust.
-
As I understand it, the "0" rating in the Doak scale is a special category--rating the Castle Course a 0 isn't quite the same as calling it the worst course in Scotland.
-
A response in four points.
1. My honest opinion. The book promises my honest opinions of every golf course I've seen, and that's what I wrote about the Castle Course, whether you agree or not. Has anyone doubted this? Partly, this discussion is about whether I should still express my opinion even when it's controversial, or swallow it for political reasons. Anyone who speculates about my ulterior motives is essentially calling me dishonest; but in fact, they are saying I should have been dishonest in reporting my opinion.
2. The zero rating. It would have been much easier to just eliminate the "0" rating from the Doak Scale and avoid this controversy, except I had already set a precedent 20 years ago, and many people would have accused me of copping out by eliminating it. And that's exactly what it would have been, a cop-out.
The "zero" is not one point below a "1". It's reserved for a small group of courses which I feel are completely beyond the pale, that cost a lot of money to build and to play. When I'm considering giving a course a 0, it's usually either a 0 or a 5 … because if I didn't find the course in question offensive, it's probably big and well-conditioned and all of that.
The problem with the 0's is that they are all going to be modern courses. If James Braid had built one, it would probably be long gone by now, and for sure he wouldn't have wasted a king's ransom to build it. So anytime I use this grade, it's going to be for a course designed by a contemporary of mine, which is easy to turn into a controversy.
If I'd given the Castle Course a 5, I would have been rating it even with Crail and Dunbar and Gullane #2 and the Eden Course at St. Andrews, among many others. I think you should play all of those before you consider spending $200 to play the Castle Course.
3. The Castle Course itself. Those who express shock that anyone would dislike the course are being a bit disingenuous; it's hardly a beloved institution in St. Andrews. I have walked it twice -- once during construction and once on a tour with a bunch of other architects -- so my review is not just a knee-jerk reaction. Since the course opened, they've modified several greens and taken a bunch of lumpy mounds out of the middle of the fairways, that were part of the original design I saw.
4. The magazine business. I rated 288 courses, and the first magazine article about the book focuses on the LOWEST-rated course out of 288. Why is that? It's because I've given the magazine a free option -- they can finally publish a negative review of a golf course that will attract a lot of attention, and I take all the heat for it. That's the way they operate, and I know that better than anyone; but I still didn't expect it to be the first thing out of the gate, before anyone had read any of the other reviews for balance. If you think I'm deliberately using that to promote my book, I'll refer you back to #1.
Or, as a friend in a 12-step program is fond of saying, "Your opinion of me is none of my god-damned business."
-
A response in four points.
1. My honest opinion. The book promises my honest opinions of every golf course I've seen, and that's what I wrote about the Castle Course, whether you agree or not. Has anyone doubted this? Partly, this discussion is about whether I should still express my opinion even when it's controversial, or swallow it for political reasons. Anyone who speculates about my ulterior motives is essentially calling me dishonest; but in fact, they are saying I should have been dishonest in reporting my opinion.
Thank you.
In other news, it appears I have gotten the music right but not the words:
Ever since Peter Pallotta endorsed the Meta Thread Movement by starting his own navel gazer, I've been wracking my brain for a thumbsucker, for my Napoleon to his Beef Wellington (Woody Allen joke).
I predict GCA.com will implode when the new version of TCG comes out. The devastation destination will be the same - a boatload of commentary on the numbers that completely ignores the writing (or pays it just enough lip service to wrap the commentary in ersatz 'thoughtfulness' - but posters will use three routes to immolation:
1) "All four guys gave [insert course] a 5. Are these people idiots?? I have played [insert course] way more than them. It's a 6, minimum."
2) "Nice to see W gave this course a 7, not sure what X, Y and Z were thinking to give it 6s. Pretty much confirms my belief this course is underrated." (Note: we already saw a variant of this when Doak posted ONE review.)
3) If Dismley Cinqueports scores less than 8 the GCA.com spaceship will cross the event horizon.
Plenty of time for the prophecy to come true, though. It's only the first review out there. We're barely to the Prologue section in the GCA Book of Revelation!
-
Having played the course, I am on the fence. For about 90% of the description of a Doak 0, this course fits it word for word.
0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
This is the little part in the middle that I don't agree with. There are 2 circumstances I can recommend playing it:
1. Seeing the Doak 0 side of things: To see what not to do. (not a good reason to play but it is good to learn from mistakes)
2. Seeing the Doak 5 side of things: It was kind of fun to play at times... Ridiculous, challenging, contrived, poison your mind, can all be said about the Castle course, too, but I had some fun playing it. Here is my reasoning: I wasn't keeping track of my score. I was just there to check it out. As the round progressed, my father and I kind of played each other. This is when I had my realization; if you play match play, it isn't THAT bad. Also, there are parts on the greens that are receptive to shots. I made a couple of birdies, and could have made a couple more. That being said, I picked up on a couple holes due to the design, too.
So, my recommendation is to try playing match play against someone you know and check out the course. See what went wrong/could have been better. Make a couple birdies, lose a couple balls, and have a friendly match. If you have the urge to erase everything you see and never play it again after your round, I won't judge you; however, if you do kind of like it and want to try it again sometime, I understand that, too.
I respect the Doak 5 and the Doak 0 ratings.
I don't think your first point works, since you seem to be saying that, even though a course may be the biggest monstrosity ever, it couldn't warrant a "0" because it should be seen and studied to see how to avoid monstrosities. Such an approach would yield no "0" ratings -- or it would be limited to only those monstrosities the study of which would yield no insight (which seems like a null set, but perhaps I'm not thinking of the right possibility).
-
Tom
Its very easy to argue a ton of new courses were ridiculously (very subjective) expensive to build and shouldn't have been built in the first place. The entire cart course concept could be thrown into this category. Desert courses are another prime example (the epitome of contrived and unnatural). Dare I say Trump Aberdeen and Old Head are two other examples. The list can go on and on. Maybe we will see a huge list of 0s when the N American books come out.
Out of curiosity, did any of the other panelists give a course a 0?
Ciao
-
Out of curiosity, did any of the other panelists give a course a 0?
Not for Volume 1, anyway. (The numbers for future volumes are not yet cast in stone.) I think it's fair to say they are sheepish about using the "0" because of the controversy it generates ... although none of them have said they thought it shouldn't be a rating on the scale.
I would never go so far as to think that every course in a certain category should get a 0 rating ... I may not like courses that require a cart, and it may hurt their rating in my book, but there are no automatic disqualifications.
-
Let's remind ourselves of the full definition of a '0-zero' within the Doak Scale -
"0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place."
Let's break these paragraphs down a little -
* 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.
Does the Castle course fall within both of these? Just asking.
atb
-
Forget about the Castle and hurting DMK's feelings, I'm just glad to hear Tom hasn't lost any of the chutzpah that made the original such a great read. This is but the opening salvo in what will likely be hundreds of threads debating the merits of the various reviews. Those who've never read the original should refrain from comment until they get the whole 0-5 concept. Frankly he could have bagged the number, all he had to do was put it in the same sentence with Ballybunion New and I'd have given it the widest of berths...
-
Tom
Thanks.
Not that you would have thought the 0 rating for Castle was the first lede in the what is sure to be a long public saga of your new editions, but at the very least, once you saw a bunch of guys in the RC house looking sideways, or smirking, or looking shocked or laughing out loud, you must have known the 0 rating would be very controversial...yes?
atb
Without a doubt (except for the poison bit :)), the Castle can fit that description....but so can many, many other courses.
Ciao
-
So, what about the 1s? The 1 seems far more scathing than a 0 :)
Ulrich
-
I actually agree with the premise of the 0 that someone else noted. Ironically, it makes me want to play the course more just to see what's so bad about it. If it had received a 1-4, I wouldn't even bother and strike it from my list to play. But a 0. I want to see that
-
Tom,
Seeing as your 0 is not really a zero could you not change it to an F for failure or failed instead?
0 gives the totally wrong impression than what you have explained.
Brian
-
Tom,
Seeing as your 0 is not really a zero could you not change it to an F for failure or failed instead?
0 gives the totally wrong impression than what you have explained.
Brian
I tend to agree with Brian on that too. Now that you have explained the '0' it is more understandable, other book buyers may not understand.
-
My understanding of the Doak scale--at least at the lower end--is to identify some golf courses that are blatantly contrived and shouldn't have been built. If anyone can give a solid reason why St. Andrews needed another course that is geographically separate from its others and sited on a junky piece of land, you're smarter than me. Tom's review read more like he felt sorry for Kidd than anything else.
As for all the hubbub surrounding this first book, a little controversy was bound to occur. It should take the edge off the impending meltdowns that some in the business will have following the second and third installments. It's all very delicious for those of us that love golf courses.
Surely all golf courses are, by definition, contrived.
Not sure that Southampton 'needed' another course, either.
There is almost a rite of passage about someone young giving the establishment a bit of a kicking, as the original guide does in places. The confidential premise of the original was to many endearing in its honesty.
When you are the establishment and you've clearly already won the argument but continue to kick, IMO, it is gratuitous.
Ryan,
I do see your point but for me it would be wrong to go all 'establishment' simply because you have become the establishment. Far better to have the balls to say what you think.
-
If it had received a 1-4, I wouldn't even bother and strike it from my list to play.
And this is the real problem with the a Doak scale. People won't play a 4 because it's only a 4. That's a good course but not worth playing because it isn't a 5. And this isn't Tom's problem, it's the people who read the guide, understand the words but are too influenced by numbers. It's a bit like Robert Parker and his wine scores. The problem isn't the critic, it's the reader's inability to take the words on board properly.
-
Mark,
I disagree. If anyone is stupid enough to completely ignore the write-ups and how they do/don't align with their own interests, budget and game and solely focus on the numbers, well better the CG than Digest at least. And lets face it gents, I don't think Tom is looking to hit the NYT Best Seller list or finance an oceanfront home on Majorca with the proceeds from this. That's the beauty of it- a travel guide for the guy who already has a clue; The insider's guide to golf travel if you will.
-
I would side with Mark P. I think we live in a world ruled by numbers and whilst I think what you (Jud) say is also correct, most people see a 4 as below the benchmark. It is all explained in the book and largely its a private book, but its highly unlikely a club would boast about its Doak 4 rating.
-
I like the rating....now when TD gives my best courses a 1-2 rating, it will feel like an accomplishment! ;)
More seriously, I saw DMK's response, and wonder if the Doak scale takes context into consideration. As David says, when in St. Andrews, you can't "out old" the Old Course, and many attempts at the same style have been done there. Besides, Kingsbarn was a good effort at a 'modern adaptation of a links course" so it had already been done.
In a difficult comparative setting, I can sure see his reasoning to attempt something totally new for the area. And, the zero comes from a guy who just told us in another thread that uniqueness counts for a lot from him. Granted, over the top has been done elsewhere, so it would only be regionally unique, but I would be sure to play both that and Kingsbarn on my next Scotland trip. Whether it was a bucket list type deal, it shouldn't matter to the Doak ranking, since its basically for the traveling golfer, who would be most likely to see any course just once anyway, no?
-
Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria? I can wait until the book comes out to find out the particulars of theii systems, if different.
Have you every charted out a bell curve?
-
Jeff,
If your goal is to play every course once and see for yourself, and you don't mind paying top dollar sight unseen to do it, then you're probably not in the market for a reference work. Most golfers without unlimited time and budgets have to make some choices.
-
Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria?
Good question Pete!
When re-reading the D-S I couldn't but help think how the style of writing is jovial, jokey, lighthearted, flippant, almost as if written on the back of a napkin by a young man after several beers had been consumed in the company of a few mates. No disrespect intended, but I do wonder if the 0-10 groupings and the phrasing would have been the same if written by someone a couple of decades older?
atb
-
To my knowledge (I read the Scott Gummer book about The Castle Course's conception), the project was actually completed on a relatively modest budget. In fact, the budget constaints aRe partly responsible for the elevated green complexes that Sir Doak dislikes, as the small deposits of sand found on site were used to build the greens up for drainage - the property was quite flat and mud prone and the resources needed to sand cap the entire site were not made available.
Im curious as to how the adjacent Torrance and Devlin courses were rated, as they looked pretty unispired and I suspect they had much higher construction budget judging by the numerous stone walls and water works that were produced to "supplement" the golfing experience.
-
I do not have a copy of the guide so would be interested if there is any other course in there with a '0' rating?
Jon
-
I do not have a copy of the guide so would be interested if there is any other course in there with a '0' rating?
Jon
Jon:
There were about a dozen courses rated 0 in the original book. Several of them have closed, or been totally redesigned in the twenty years since those grades were assigned.
There is only one "0" rating in the first volume of the new edition. There may be a handful of other modern courses in the UK that might be considered for such a rating, but I haven't gone out of my way to see any of them.
I don't know how many "0"s there will be in the whole set, the jury is still out on other places. After all the hullaballoo about the first one, maybe I should just abandon the grade and give those courses a "2". The definition of a "2" is "Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer."
-
Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria?
When re-reading the D-S I couldn't but help think how the style of writing is jovial, jokey, lighthearted, flippant, almost as if written on the back of a napkin by a young man after several beers had been consumed in the company of a few mates. No disrespect intended, but I do wonder if the 0-10 groupings and the phrasing would have been the same if written by someone a couple of decades older?
Thomas and Pete:
My co-authors are trying to apply the Doak scale as best they can.
Thomas, your characterization of the Doak Scale is probably in keeping with the spirit of the book, but at the time it was written I didn't drink! Certainly the phrasing would have been different if I wrote it today. My wife suggested the "0" should only say "I regret having gone to see it", so it wouldn't sound so judgmental ... but by the same token, many readers want the book to be judgmental.
-
I do not have a copy of the guide so would be interested if there is any other course in there with a '0' rating?
Jon
Jon:
There were about a dozen courses rated 0 in the original book. Several of them have closed, or been totally redesigned in the twenty years since those grades were assigned.
There is only one "0" rating in the first volume of the new edition. There may be a handful of other modern courses in the UK that might be considered for such a rating, but I haven't gone out of my way to see any of them.
I don't know how many "0"s there will be in the whole set, the jury is still out on other places. After all the hullaballoo about the first one, maybe I should just abandon the grade and give those courses a "2". The definition of a "2" is "Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer."
Thanks Tom
-
Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria?
When re-reading the D-S I couldn't but help think how the style of writing is jovial, jokey, lighthearted, flippant, almost as if written on the back of a napkin by a young man after several beers had been consumed in the company of a few mates. No disrespect intended, but I do wonder if the 0-10 groupings and the phrasing would have been the same if written by someone a couple of decades older?
Thomas and Pete:
My co-authors are trying to apply the Doak scale as best they can.
Thomas, your characterization of the Doak Scale is probably in keeping with the spirit of the book, but at the time it was written I didn't drink! Certainly the phrasing would have been different if I wrote it today. My wife suggested the "0" should only say "I regret having gone to see it", so it wouldn't sound so judgmental ... but by the same token, many readers want the book to be judgmental.
Tom,
Thank you for responding. Clarification from the source, so much better than speculation from afar! :)
Looking forward to reading the 'new Confidential'.
atb
-
I have a Links Ticket and have played the Castle Course a few times. The routing is good, and there are a couple of nice holes, and but overall there are more contrived holes and features than not. It is very clear that things got out of control during the construction of the Castle Course as every year since it opened The Links Trust have paid Paul Kimber to come back and fix/change parts of the course – including greens. That is continuing again this winter.
The Links Trust have the money to cope with this unfortunate situation, but had the course been privately owned and run as a commercial operation, I think a owner would have struggled to survive. The continual changes to the Castle Course are well known, to the point where in an interview for a new course I was once asked by a developer how much money should be set aside for changes to a course after it had opened. Of course the answer to the question is 'none', and it gives me shivers to think that architects are experimenting with a client's dollar, when they should be 'professionals'. When I dug a little about the premise for the question, it turns out it was based on the ongoing situation at the Castle Course. So, love or hate the Castle Course, in my opinion it is not doing the reputation of the design industry many favours.
Scott
-
A response in four points.
. . .
2. The zero rating. It would have been much easier to just eliminate the "0" rating from the Doak Scale and avoid this controversy, except I had already set a precedent 20 years ago, and many people would have accused me of copping out by eliminating it. And that's exactly what it would have been, a cop-out.
The "zero" is not one point below a "1". It's reserved for a small group of courses which I feel are completely beyond the pale, that cost a lot of money to build and to play. When I'm considering giving a course a 0, it's usually either a 0 or a 5 … because if I didn't find the course in question offensive, it's probably big and well-conditioned and all of that.
The problem with the 0's is that they are all going to be modern courses. If James Braid had built one, it would probably be long gone by now, and for sure he wouldn't have wasted a king's ransom to build it. So anytime I use this grade, it's going to be for a course designed by a contemporary of mine, which is easy to turn into a controversy.
If I'd given the Castle Course a 5, I would have been rating it even with Crail and Dunbar and Gullane #2 and the Eden Course at St. Andrews, among many others. I think you should play all of those before you consider spending $200 to play the Castle Course.
When my son told me of the "0" Doak Rating for Castle, I asked him for the definition. He read me the definition, and I said, "That's fair." I took the "0" to not be less than a "1", but a course on which TD was making a professional critique unrelated to the course.
Over time, the course won't be a "0," because they will stop making changes and it will be rated for what it is, and not what it should have been or could have been (or in TD's opinion that it never should have been?) It is the extraneous "stuff" that makes it a "0", not the course itself.
I played it once, and will never play it again. In the wind, I have to believe it would be nearly unplayable.
I will take a simple course like the Eden over the Castle any day (and for 1/3rd the price).
That being said, the staff was cheerful and pleasant. I appreciated their excellent suggestion for fish and chips on the drive to Edinburgh. And on a different day (on our way to Crail) they helped my son and me in getting onto the daily ballot for the Old Course, which led to us playing the Old Course for a second time on our trip. For those moments, I will never forget it.
So, how about a zero with an asterisk - "0*" :)
-
Castle is in the same category as Machrihanish Dunes. Right next door to an amazing and historic true links course. Makes zero sense to build a modern "fake links" course under such circumstances. Further, DMK repeated the Castle formula at Mach Dunes, which makes Castle all the more clear as a failure. Both deserve a zero.
-
Castle is in the same category as Machrihanish Dunes. Right next door to an amazing and historic true links course. Makes zero sense to build a modern "fake links" course under such circumstances. Further, DMK repeated the Castle formula at Mach Dunes, which makes Castle all the more clear as a failure. Both deserve a zero.
James:
I have not been to Machrihanish Dunes, but what I've heard of it [from my co-authors and from others] is much different than what I saw at the Castle Course. Yes, the greens are severe, but the rest of it is totally natural ... it is anything but overcooked.
-
Castle is in the same category as Machrihanish Dunes. Right next door to an amazing and historic true links course. Makes zero sense to build a modern "fake links" course under such circumstances. Further, DMK repeated the Castle formula at Mach Dunes, which makes Castle all the more clear as a failure. Both deserve a zero.
Mach Dunes may be many things, but fake is not one of them. Part of the same dune system as Mach GC, and almost entirely natural contours. I have to question whether you've even seen the course to make such a bizarre statement.
-
Now I liked The Castle Course...
But Mach Dunes I absolutely loved....
Scott, tell me.... You talk about all of the changes going on each year at The Castle Course and monies put aside to make those changes... But what are they? Softening of greens, mowing Don Kings I have heard of.... You could argue these changes are reactions to public opinion (and not necessarily the majority either)... Are there any significant changes occurring because of technical defaults? Drainage, grasses, soils etc...
Really, I'd hate to think now Tom has damned the course with a "zero" that it will affect peoples' opinion when they visit... But of course, it will... Because too few of us are able to think for ourselves...
I played it twice and walked it once, early on... I remember the par-5 fifth as one of the best modern three shotters I'd seen... I believe it has been changed - probably for the worse - since I saw it...
-
I kinda liked the Castle because it does have some very fine holes and I like the boldness, but I recall being disgusted by the drainage issues. The raised greens were relentless, which makes sense given how poor the fairway drainage is. Still, I think that if 4 or 5 greens were toned down (maybe already done?) the course would be much better off. For me, at the price they charge and with other good options down the hill, the Castle is a one and done.
I spose my bottom line is I don't think the 0 rating is very helpful for the traveller especially when there are arguably several other courses which fit the description (hello, Kingbarns is down the road, was it needed? was it expensive? is it contrived?). If 0 is on the cards, it should be dealt in a more even handed manner.
Ciao
-
Out of interest, were Alister MacKezie's greens at Sitwell Park any more radical when built than those by DMK at the Castle Course? What about his greens as Pasatiempo? More radical when built than those at the Castle Course?
And unlike the 1920's/30's these days we play with golf balls that are actually round and clubs made from the likes of titanium, graphite and steel, not with clubs with animal skin grips, with shafts cut from trees, with low spec golf balls and a jacket and tie! :)
Just asking?
atb
A couple of random photos - greens more or less radical than the Castle Course?
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/MacKenzie_Sitwell_Park.png)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtW2AVm5_aeNbPSGk9cpasy0rvDHeG78TbSkp9Z2UwWn1LkeEuFw)
-
atb
The big difference I note is the two examples you offer are essentially back to front greens. One can play to them relatively easily, then try to cope with the putting. At Castle, there are many raised/plateau greens which are more difficult to hit...then factor in wind. Plus, the greens are firmer than the fairways which makes it difficult to bump shots in even if one wanted to try these very difficult shots, but sometimes with wind, that is all one can do. I recall several approaches at Castle where I thought my aerial approach wouldn't hold, yet my ground option wasn't terribly enticing. Sort the drainage out and more open front greens could be designed. This, btw, is also one of my criticisms of the Trump Aberdeen (not drainage issues though). I don't think enough consideration was given to the the guy who is paying green fees.
Ciao
-
Thomas,
I have not seen the Castle Course for a couple of years now but certainly in its opening form Sean has hit the nail on the head. It gave you no realistic playing options. Considering the money spent and the flatness (not levelness) of the land at the start it was poorly done. Getting the drainage right should have been really easy but apparently it was under done.
As for James' comments on MD. MD suffered at the start the same as many new courses by being very severe, especially the rough. Now they have cut it back and I believe the course has bedded in fine. It certainly looked every bit the true links and a perfect companion to its older neighbour
Jon
-
Sean & Jon,
Thanks for your thoughts.
The two photos were just a couple that were easy to access! I nearly posted and commented in comparison to Perranporth, but held back not being brave enough to go down that route!
Progress/developments/new initiatives, whatever term you wish to use, often go in big steps and then become watered down by little steps. It'll be interesting to see what GCA minded folk think of the course in the years/decades to come. Radicalism sometimes mellows with time into something more acceptable. We'll see.
atb
-
I don't think the issue with the greens is the internal contour so much as the run-offs and approaches that as Sean states often push the ball away from the putting surface, I guess partly due to the soil, drainage issues and therefore push-up nature of a few of the greens. The 9th and 4th are the most obvious examples, though I believe the 4th has been changed since I was there. With the underlying soil and the desire for f&f surfaces the greens are always likely to play firmer than the fairways so the lack of leeway to run the ball in means it is almost impossible to get close to some pins or even in some cases keep the ball on the green from certain spots.
For the record, despite some superfluous features I really like the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 14th and 17th. The 6th has the potential to be a really good hole as well, as do the 7th & 9th. I don't like 4, 15, 16 or 18 though.
-
atb
Your thoughts on P'porth in relation to Castle are not out of line. Both are extreme in places, though for different reasons. Perhaps this is where Doak is heading with his 0. Castle was built to be extreme, but I don't think P'porth was built with that in mind...the archie just used what was available and added the hand of man here and there. To be honest, what separates the two for me is the green fee. I definitely think Castle is a better course, but nearly good enough to justify 4x the green fee of P'porth. I don't mind donating a ball or two or watching something stupid on a golf course if I paid £25. If I pay £100 its a different story, my expectations are much higher...and in that regard, Castle fails. I know many don't take the same approach when viewing courses, but at least a few earlier posters objected to the green fee given the quality of the course.
Ciao
-
Sean and Tom,
I go along with what you say about the P'porth comparison - so much for holding back as not being brave enough to go down that route! I know where you're coming from on the greenfee issue too. The money you are required to pay to play the Castle does seem rather a lot, especially given the prices of the other courses nearby, plus the Castle is closed for 5 months of the year so no winter deals.
Interesting comments about raised greens, run-offs, firm & fast and the ground game for, as Sean mentioned in his earlier post, if "the greens are firmer than the fairways" it's IMO just a horrible combination.
Firm & fast and the ground game was what I, and I'm sure many others, were brought up on, and is my personal preference. But these days the possibilities of finding a higher echelon course - even a links - see recent comments about St Enodoc and Burnham - or a heathland where you can actually play the firm and fast ground game is diminishing - seemingly no more opportunities for 80 yd 6-irons chasing along the ground and onto the green, no it's grab a wedge of some kind and fly it in all the way with loads of spin, which is how the modern generation seem to play the game, and play it pretty successfully too. Perhaps the spinny air game was how DMK envisaged the Castle course to be played? Guess it's time for old timers like me to junk the old style sticks and get some super-spinny wedges in the bag and forget about trying to play the firm & fast ground game unless unusual conditions prevail. A vile thought though, playing the game pretty much just through the air on a links or a heathland or clifftop-hilltop rather than mainly along the ground. Ghastly. I feel a headache coming on.
atb
-
I would agree that Mach Dunes is a better layout a natural setting, but it has enormous distance between tees,making it unwalkable for a lot of golfers, and it is an even more extreme example of building an expensive course that no one will play,.
-
I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say I despise raised greens/run offs. In fact, I like raised greens/runoffs, but in balance with other types of greens. This is where Trump Aberdeen gets it wrong. The design is too much climb up, hit down, approach up. At least there Trump had reasons as he wants the course to cater to top flight golf and that is what modern top flight golf is - aerial. At Castle, I think the raised greens are merely a function of drainage, but I could be wrong.
Ciao
-
Hang-on a minute... Aren't we supposed to love run-offs?
I think Sean has it right. A mixture of green surrounds are good.... though kick-plates and punchbowls are easier achieved when the soil is good.
-
I spose my bottom line is I don't think the 0 rating is very helpful for the traveller especially when there are arguably several other courses which fit the description (hello, Kingbarns is down the road, was it needed? was it expensive? is it contrived?). If 0 is on the cards, it should be dealt in a more even handed manner.
Ciao
Sean,
I think this is exactly why the 0 is spot on. If the Castle were a standard 4, one could make the assumption that Tom might recommend it over somewhere like Balcomie. The 0 makes it perfectly clear that he would not recommend at all.
-
Interesting comments about raised greens, run-offs, firm & fast and the ground game for, as Sean mentioned in his earlier post, if "the greens are firmer than the fairways" it's IMO just a horrible combination.
Firm & fast and the ground game was what I, and I'm sure many others, were brought up on, and is my personal preference. But these days the possibilities of finding a higher echelon course - even a links - see recent comments about St Enodoc and Burnham - or a heathland where you can actually play the firm and fast ground game is diminishing - seemingly no more opportunities for 80 yd 6-irons chasing along the ground and onto the green, no it's grab a wedge of some kind and fly it in all the way with loads of spin, which is how the modern generation seem to play the game, and play it pretty successfully too. Perhaps the spinny air game was how DMK envisaged the Castle course to be played? Guess it's time for old timers like me to junk the old style sticks and get some super-spinny wedges in the bag and forget about trying to play the firm & fast ground game unless unusual conditions prevail. A vile thought though, playing the game pretty much just through the air on a links or a heathland or clifftop-hilltop rather than mainly along the ground. Ghastly. I feel a headache coming on.
atb
Very well stated, Thomas. I despise: raised greens, run offs, firm greens/soft fairways combos and agree fully that these features are becoming the more or less the norm in modern and classic architecture. The only exception being the less high end courses which don't aspire to be anything other than what they are.
Brain,
Actually I quite like raised greens and run-offs if in the appropriate place and in an appropriate number, indeed even if excessively used they can be okay on occasion as a nice variety, provided however, that the F&F ground game is possible (ie no bloody fairway watering!).
As to "less high end courses which don't aspire to be anything other than what they are" I reckon if you haven't been there already you need to get to............Dunfanaghy! Anything but high-end. Low profile and understated. Mellow, relaxed, gentle, serene, tranquil, peaceful and scenic as well. Firm and fast too and with sufficient contours on the fairways and at the greensites to keep the golfing brain interested.
atb
-
atb
. . .
At Castle, there are many raised/plateau greens which are more difficult to hit...then factor in wind. Plus, the greens are firmer than the fairways which makes it difficult to bump shots in even if one wanted to try these very difficult shots, but sometimes with wind, that is all one can do. I recall several approaches at Castle where I thought my aerial approach wouldn't hold, yet my ground option wasn't terribly enticing. Sort the drainage out and more open front greens could be designed.
Ciao
I don't know about the solution of opening up the front of the greens, but I agree with Sean's statements above.
I played the aerial game because there was no ground game to be had, and the aerial game didn't work: I had difficulty holding the greens, despite my reasonable skill and newer wedges. So as the day wore on, I was forced to get more and more precise (which is bad when you are an amateur), and then watched as balls rolled off the front or sides, despite hitting the green. By the end of the round, I was terribly frustrated (until I got my fish and chips ;D).
Everyone has been talking about the flatness of the site, but it was on the side of a gently sloping hill. Architecturally, I saw no reason to add so much contour within the course, instead of letting it naturally meander along the hillside. In my mind, that would have allowed you to see where your next shot was supposed to land, would have opened up the ground game, and gave you an opportunity to either shoot towards the flag or decide where to bail out.
I think that is where my criticism lies: I had no way to determine how the hole should be played and therefore I didn't think about it; it was just grab driver off the tee and shoot at the flag, because you had no idea if being smarter - hitting 3-wood off tee, or shooting away from the flag - had any benefit at all. So, it was aim, fire, and hope. And when you hit it well, and the result is dreadful (despite hitting the green in some cases) and make double because you have an impossible recovery or a very difficult putt from 30 feet, golf is not fun.
This is where the new Gamble Sands is 180-degrees different from Castle. Honestly, it is hard to believe that the same architect designed the two courses. At GS, my son and I talked about what to do on every tee shot, and how to approach every green. At Castle, there was very little discussion.
-
Matthew,
A most interesting post. Pretty disappointing that you found the course was such that you had no way to determine how the holes should be best played. Working out a strategy, maybe even a few strategies, to play each hole is IMO one of the great pleasures of the game. That you ended up adopting the 'aim, fire and hope' approach is pretty sad really, especially when you've forked out a fat wedge of £$ to play. In this respect a Doak '0' is more understandable as the game should be more than just 'aim, fire and hope'.
Very pleased to hear what you say about the difference to DMK's Gamble Sands and how you and your son talked about what to do on every tee shot and how to approach every green at GS. That's such a nice way to play - Lynn, Craig and I and then Lou, Bryan and I had a really pleasant time doing just this whilst at Burnham & Berrow recently.
From what you say it sounds like the CC needs more mellowing, smoothing away some of the radicalism. Would that be fair? I must say that I'd be curious to know what the CC would play like with no watering except minimum keep-the-grass-alive watering on the greens. If that were the case do posters think it would play more acceptably to GCAer's or would it still leave something, or quite a lot, to be desired?
atb
-
Michael
The thing is that most of what you have said about the difficulties of the Castle could quite easily be said of the Old course.
Now, I'm not asserting that the Castle is the equal of the Old, but I do think it was designed to echo a lot of its themes. Consider: wide fairways, but plenty of trouble in the middle; landing zones that are obscured from the tees; ideal lines not obvious at first; big greens that are elevated above their surrounds, and with heavy contouring.
If you buy into this theory then the Castle takes on a slightly different hue. It has been noted on a number of occasions that old courses with quirk get a pass that new courses with quirk don't. Is this the case with the Castle? I don't know, but I think it is a question worth thinking about.
-
Matthew,
From what you say it sounds like the CC needs more mellowing, smoothing away some of the radicalism. Would that be fair? I must say that I'd be curious to know what the CC would play like with no watering except minimum keep-the-grass-alive watering on the greens. If that were the case do posters think it would play more acceptably to GCAer's or would it still leave something, or quite a lot, to be desired?
atb
I'm Michael . . . the dad; Matthew is my son. (No apology necessary.)
From what I understand, and those on this post have mentioned, they continue to modify the course. But the bones of the course are what they are, and IMO, I think F&F would actually make things worse.
I think I went through fairways or my ball settled into unfavorable positions despite hitting the fairway on I would guess four holes; when there are only 18 holes and eliminating par 3s, that is one-quarter of the round getting nothing out of a well struck ball. Happened on the first hole when the starter said to hit it there (pointing), so I did, straight into the fairway bunker. Again, this is where the lack of thinking off the tee (and on the approach) lead to my aim, hit and hope approach. That is not the way I play golf; I have no problem hitting less than driver to get a flat lie, a better angle or stay out of trouble. But when you have no confidence that doing anything differently will lead to a favorable result, why not hope for a favorable result with a driver instead of hoping for a result with a 3-wood? Maybe it was just me, and that this course just wasn't my cup of tea, but my son made some birdies and generally played better then I did, and he came away with the same opinion of the course as I did.
Getting back to the F&F, I think you would be hurt at Castle by the ball rolling into more unfavorable positions, instead of being helped or by bringing the ground game into approaches. I just don't think it would or could work with this routing and the contours that has been added to the course. If the course was laid on the land like Gullane #1 & #2 - which play up, over, and around a hill; and I don't think is an unfair comparison of what Castle could have been - F&F makes sense, but not at the Castle or at least the way the SA Trust apparently wants to present the course. It would take a lot of bulldozing to features (that were added to the course) to creates paths for the ball to naturally roll out, and soften the runs into the greens.
You can see Matt's post at #27. In summary, he said to just play the course as match play and forget trying to score.
In complete contrast, for those with enough willingness to see the options, Gamble Sands is telling you "hit it over here, and you will be rewarded." So, you could aim 30 yards away from the flag, and let the slope take the ball to the green and the pin. I don't know what would have happened if I had actually aimed at some of the GS flags I played away from; maybe GS rewards you two ways (which is why everyone is scoring so low), but at GS you can see how to play the holes. At Castle, you had to read the course guide to get clues, but the guide can't tell you what to do on every shot. You need the course to give you something, even if that something is "don't hit it here." In the end, it was aim, hit and hope, and I can't imagine it changing even with more course knowledge. Hence, one and done for me (and Matthew).
-
Michael
The thing is that most of what you have said about the difficulties of the Castle could quite easily be said of the Old course.
Now, I'm not asserting that the Castle is the equal of the Old, but I do think it was designed to echo a lot of its themes. Consider: wide fairways, but plenty of trouble in the middle; landing zones that are obscured from the tees; ideal lines not obvious at first; big greens that are elevated above their surrounds, and with heavy contouring.
If you buy into this theory then the Castle takes on a slightly different hue. It has been noted on a number of occasions that old courses with quirk get a pass that new courses with quirk don't. Is this the case with the Castle? I don't know, but I think it is a question worth thinking about.
I hear you. I thought about that . For example, the big hole at Lahinch (I can't remember the hole - 8?) comes out of no where. A crater in the dunes; even the yardage book does not do that monstrosity in the fairway justice, and you sure don't think it should or would be there, but that is what yardage books or caddies are for.
And I don't mind an occasional blind shot; in fact I think they are kind of fun . . . occasionally.
But there was this helpless felling that I got playing the course, "If I can't hold the green with my 6 iron, and I can't run the ball up, oh well, I'm screwed." Same from the tee, "Should I hit less than driver? I can't tell from the book or from looking, so just bomb away and hope for the best." That is not a good thought process or feeling for someone with a my single digit handicap.
And that is a completely different feeling than "Oops, just hit it in Hell Bunker (that I couldn't see) and I am about to make a quad. Well, don't hit it there next time. Hey Matt, can you take a picture of me in this thing?"
Am I adequately describing the difference in feeling, and therefore, enjoyment of playing?
What came to me as I wrote this is that at some courses, you get enjoyment from your folly; you laugh about it - Old Course and North Berwick to name two. Even getting punished at Carnoustie was nothing like the feeling of getting screwed at Castle. At Carnoustie, it demands execution, and if you fail, you get punished. At Castle, I didn't know what I was supposed to do, so I felt like I was at the course's mercy and success was random.
I have thought about the fact that if I ever played Augusta, that the precision required of approaches might drive me nuts; that being only a few feet off could be the difference between a reasonable birdie putt and a guaranteed bogey or maybe worse. I don't think a course should punish you for being a few feet off when you hit the green. Lest we forget, we are amateurs.
I could also say it this way - it is one thing to either fail to execute, or fail to make correct mental choices on how to play the hole, and it is another thing to think you did everything correctly, execute as planned, and walk off with a bogey or worse. But (and this is the important part) as you are leaving the green, you are thinking, "I don't know what I could have done differently." On other courses, when you are walking off the green, you know that you shouldn't have done it the way you did, and you will do it differently next time.
But that is how I left a number of holes at Castle, just kind of thinking, "Well, whatever." And having no desire to play the hole again because I don't know what I would do differently.
In contrast, the cross over hole at St. Andrews (8?), the first time I hit 3-wood because I thought I had enough to get out of the dunes, only to come up short despite a perfectly struck ball. Oops. Next time, pull driver and problem solved. Still don't know why 3-wood wasn't enough the first time, but I chalked it up to not allowing enough for the wind or miscalculating, but I never blamed the course.
I think I should add this. I had no preconceived notion of what the course was going to be. I don't remember reading too much about it before we played, or at least I didn't head the comments. It was a fairly windless day with a bit of drizzle. We played as a two ball with good pace of play. And we weren't keeping score. All of that was fine. But in the end, I couldn't wait to get off the course.
-
Michael
The thing is that most of what you have said about the difficulties of the Castle could quite easily be said of the Old course.
Now, I'm not asserting that the Castle is the equal of the Old, but I do think it was designed to echo a lot of its themes. Consider: wide fairways, but plenty of trouble in the middle; landing zones that are obscured from the tees; ideal lines not obvious at first; big greens that are elevated above their surrounds, and with heavy contouring.
If you buy into this theory then the Castle takes on a slightly different hue. It has been noted on a number of occasions that old courses with quirk get a pass that new courses with quirk don't. Is this the case with the Castle? I don't know, but I think it is a question worth thinking about.
Adam:
Great minds think alike, or perhaps you already read my review:
"I'm with the starter on this one. I feel for David Kidd because a lot of the criticisms of the course are things one might say about The Old Course if it wasn't so famous: the greens are huge and wild, and it's hard to discern the strategy from the tee. However, the severe tilt of the land and the size of the greens yields a lot of recovery shots to greens that are up over your head, and the moonscape of the course is only appealing when you’re looking away from it, across the bay toward town. Trying to one-up Kingsbarns turned out to be a formula for excess.”
But I think I also addressed your question there. The recoveries around the greens of The Old Course are pretty much unequaled in the world of golf. The recoveries around the greens on The Castle Course are, emphatically, not.
-
Michael,
I think you've inadvertently pointed out the biggest flaw in the Castle Course in my opinion.
The course actually has loads of strategy and despite the excess in the shaping the strategy is actually quite subtle at times, which is great if golfers are going to play the place over and over again, but like you the majority of the golfers who will play the course will likely only get the chance to play it once and be completely baffled by it. There are too many blind shots and hidden hazards for what is essentially a 'resort' course. Even if the player has the chance to come back after the first hiding, with limited time and money there are so many other options in the area which offer a more enjoyable experience on a first or second play that I believe repeat custom at The Castle is pretty limited. I do think more locals are warming to it slightly though after a few games but I think they missed their target market.
Along with The Old Course, The Castle is only the course I've played in the UK that I would highly recommend taking a caddie on a first play.
Given your comments about Gamble Sands, do you think GS will lose some of it's appeal after a few plays given the strategy there is so obvious to those that look for it?
------
As an aside, I am quite surprised by the number of complaints about the drainage of the course. Yes it's not true links firm underfoot but given the ground that can't be expected. Unless there had been a big downpour I always found the course to be pretty dry and it wasn't through lack of bounce from the fairways that the running approach was made awkward. I know they have problems on 4 and 6 after big downpours but I think they deserve to be given a little slack. The Links Trust definitely know what good F&F is and I'm pretty certain they try to setup all their courses that way.
-
Michael
The thing is that most of what you have said about the difficulties of the Castle could quite easily be said of the Old course.
Now, I'm not asserting that the Castle is the equal of the Old, but I do think it was designed to echo a lot of its themes. Consider: wide fairways, but plenty of trouble in the middle; landing zones that are obscured from the tees; ideal lines not obvious at first; big greens that are elevated above their surrounds, and with heavy contouring.
If you buy into this theory then the Castle takes on a slightly different hue. It has been noted on a number of occasions that old courses with quirk get a pass that new courses with quirk don't. Is this the case with the Castle? I don't know, but I think it is a question worth thinking about.
Adam:
Great minds think alike, or perhaps you already read my review:
"I'm with the starter on this one. I feel for David Kidd because a lot of the criticisms of the course are things one might say about The Old Course if it wasn't so famous: the greens are huge and wild, and it's hard to discern the strategy from the tee. However, the severe tilt of the land and the size of the greens yields a lot of recovery shots to greens that are up over your head, and the moonscape of the course is only appealing when you’re looking away from it, across the bay toward town. Trying to one-up Kingsbarns turned out to be a formula for excess.”
But I think I also addressed your question there. The recoveries around the greens of The Old Course are pretty much unequaled in the world of golf. The recoveries around the greens on The Castle Course are, emphatically, not.
Tom - I think I first wrote that imo the design of the Castle was a direct homage to the Old course about five years ago! I agree with your thoughts on the recoveries around the greens.
-
Given your comments about Gamble Sands, do you think GS will lose some of it's appeal after a few plays given the strategy there is so obvious to those that look for it?
------
As an aside, I am quite surprised by the number of complaints about the drainage of the course. Yes it's not true links firm underfoot but given the ground that can't be expected. Unless there had been a big downpour I always found the course to be pretty dry and it wasn't through lack of bounce from the fairways that the running approach was made awkward. I know they have problems on 4 and 6 after big downpours but I think they deserve to be given a little slack. The Links Trust definitely know what good F&F is and I'm pretty certain they try to setup all their courses that way.
Obvious and executable are two different issues. And, is being obvious bad or boring? I think the strategy was obvious because everything is so big and visible.
IMO, I don't think it would get boring, and definitely not for the 10-20 times I may play it in my lifetime.
I think I am headed back to GS with my wife this Monday, so it will be interesting to get her take on the place. Sean Arble has already played it on three different occasions (if I have my math correct). It is 3.5 hours from Seattle, so it is not someplace you just drop by. It is different than most courses because of its shear size. I would compare its size with Old MacDonald, but easier than OM because of the greens. I went back to the yardage book, and GS has two greens over 70 yards long. Hard to miss those greens, but how many putts would it take to get down from 200 feet?
-
Michael
The thing is that most of what you have said about the difficulties of the Castle could quite easily be said of the Old course.
Now, I'm not asserting that the Castle is the equal of the Old, but I do think it was designed to echo a lot of its themes. Consider: wide fairways, but plenty of trouble in the middle; landing zones that are obscured from the tees; ideal lines not obvious at first; big greens that are elevated above their surrounds, and with heavy contouring.
If you buy into this theory then the Castle takes on a slightly different hue. It has been noted on a number of occasions that old courses with quirk get a pass that new courses with quirk don't. Is this the case with the Castle? I don't know, but I think it is a question worth thinking about.
Adam:
Great minds think alike, or perhaps you already read my review:
"I'm with the starter on this one. I feel for David Kidd because a lot of the criticisms of the course are things one might say about The Old Course if it wasn't so famous: the greens are huge and wild, and it's hard to discern the strategy from the tee. However, the severe tilt of the land and the size of the greens yields a lot of recovery shots to greens that are up over your head, and the moonscape of the course is only appealing when you’re looking away from it, across the bay toward town. Trying to one-up Kingsbarns turned out to be a formula for excess.”
But I think I also addressed your question there. The recoveries around the greens of The Old Course are pretty much unequaled in the world of golf. The recoveries around the greens on The Castle Course are, emphatically, not.
Tom - I think I first wrote that imo the design of the Castle was a direct homage to the Old course about five years ago! I agree with your thoughts on the recoveries around the greens.
OK, I don't have a great mind >:(, but a Ford Fiesta has two doors and an engine, and so does a McLaren 650S, but each provides a different experience. Ultimately, it is the melding of terrain, grass, sand and water that creates the experience. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
And maybe the recoveries are the issue at Castle, along with the marginally receptive greens, that make the experience unpleasant.
I understand what you are saying about the hidden nature of the strategy at TOC, but is it really hidden? Don't you know what you are supposed to do when standing on the tee box? Of course, knowing what to do and doing it are two different things.
When looking at a yardage book, the route off the tee at TOC is fairly quickly discernible; from the ground it is a different story on some holes, but not on many of them from my recollection.
Even a hole as different as 17, when you are looking at a yardage book the obvious strategy is stay as far right as possible: left is junk and brings greenside bunker into play; just don't hit it into the hotel on the right and don't hit it thin. Executing the desired shot is a different story.
Then there is the approach. Hitting the 17th green must be one of the hardest shots in golf, but the shot has a bail out - short and away from the bunker (or long and left onto the 18th tee box; wind was blowing hard right to left and I got it hooking, landed in the middle of the green and ran straight off the green onto a tee box; easy chip back ;)), and the short play is fairly obvious from the fairway.
Aren't the approaches at 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 fairly obvious?
But others like 13 and 14 are blind, and 11 is deceptive.
In my mind, what makes TOC so great is that it has a little of everything.
If every green was like 11 or 12, wouldn't you get sick of the course really quickly? Or if every approach was as hard as 17? Or the burn came into play too often like 1?
But the course isn't that way - it has a some difficult carries over obstacles, it has some blind approaches, it has some blind tee shots, it is wide in some spots and narrow in others (although the bunkers, OB and most desirable angle on approach significantly narrow corridors of the course), and it has long holes and short holes. It throws something different at you on nearly every hole. And that is without having the wind change how it plays from day to day.
In contrast, if every hole was like 9, wouldn't we think TOC the dullest course on the planet?
In conclusion, I found the Castle a frustration, completely the opposite of TOC which is an enjoyable challenge. There was little enjoyable for me at Castle. Maybe Matthew (my son) is right, and just play it in match play.
Cheers.
-
Im curious as to how the adjacent Torrance and Devlin courses were rated, as they looked pretty unispired and I suspect they had much higher construction budget judging by the numerous stone walls and water works that were produced to "supplement" the golfing experience.
[/quote]
as far as I know, the Torrance and Devlin budget was considerably less than the Castle Course, although both projects faced the same restrictions regarding drainage and not allowed to bring any sand to the locations via roads. To improve the drainage on the golfable turf some water storage areas had to be built, this is because both courses are allowed to only let the same amount of water flow off the property into the sea, the same amount that used to flow when this was farmland. The Castle is also home to a water treatment plant, not sure if it helps in any way.
The Castle was built to take some of the local membership rounds off the Old Course during the season. This has happened, originally many locals had bad attitudes about the Castle due to the multitude of nasty comments (including my own), now many local members are enjoying the Castle Course regularly. It is certainly not a 0 on any other scale, and there is no reason anyone should have to say its a 0, but 0 doesnt mean 0.....
This group, Golfclubatlas.com, is the most powerful promotional force in golf. Similarly it is also the most powerful voice to promote, or destroy, credibility of a golf project. This group was successful in getting Cabot Links into a top 100 course, before it opened. Now it is also insuring their second course will be as highly rated, maybe even ahead of Cabot Links, before its had a 100 rounds. At no time has the golfing world ever had such an influential group, its unfortunate that many have axes in the fire, and use the rest to "spread their. Word""
-
Gary
So far as I am aware, there is no group opinion on GCA.com. There are many individual opinions which may or may not sing in harmony with accepted wisdom. Doak has his opinion and a few agreed. Some disagreed. I fail to see how the "group" is conspiring to promote any agenda so far as the Castle is concerned...and you must admit a great many people have rolled there eyes when the Castle is mentioned. From the comments I heard around St Andrews on my last visit, there still wasn't much love for the Castle. In truth, drainage aside, I don't think its all that far away from being a cracking course. I was pleasantly surprised by the width of the course (Renaissance could, learn a thing or two on that score ;D), some cool shaping, handful of fine holes and easy walk. I see way too much in the positive ledger to say Castle is anything remotely close to a 0, but that is my opinion which is heavily tempered by the bloody awful drainage...this alone would not see me pay the £20 surcharge for another game. The local competition is too stiff to pay the rack rate.
Ciao
-
A response in four points.
1. My honest opinion. The book promises my honest opinions of every golf course I've seen, and that's what I wrote about the Castle Course, whether you agree or not. Has anyone doubted this? Partly, this discussion is about whether I should still express my opinion even when it's controversial, or swallow it for political reasons. Anyone who speculates about my ulterior motives is essentially calling me dishonest; but in fact, they are saying I should have been dishonest in reporting my opinion.
2. The zero rating. It would have been much easier to just eliminate the "0" rating from the Doak Scale and avoid this controversy, except I had already set a precedent 20 years ago, and many people would have accused me of copping out by eliminating it. And that's exactly what it would have been, a cop-out.
The "zero" is not one point below a "1". It's reserved for a small group of courses which I feel are completely beyond the pale, that cost a lot of money to build and to play. When I'm considering giving a course a 0, it's usually either a 0 or a 5 … because if I didn't find the course in question offensive, it's probably big and well-conditioned and all of that.
The problem with the 0's is that they are all going to be modern courses. If James Braid had built one, it would probably be long gone by now, and for sure he wouldn't have wasted a king's ransom to build it. So anytime I use this grade, it's going to be for a course designed by a contemporary of mine, which is easy to turn into a controversy.
If I'd given the Castle Course a 5, I would have been rating it even with Crail and Dunbar and Gullane #2 and the Eden Course at St. Andrews, among many others. I think you should play all of those before you consider spending $200 to play the Castle Course.
3. The Castle Course itself. Those who express shock that anyone would dislike the course are being a bit disingenuous; it's hardly a beloved institution in St. Andrews. I have walked it twice -- once during construction and once on a tour with a bunch of other architects -- so my review is not just a knee-jerk reaction. Since the course opened, they've modified several greens and taken a bunch of lumpy mounds out of the middle of the fairways, that were part of the original design I saw.
4. The magazine business. I rated 288 courses, and the first magazine article about the book focuses on the LOWEST-rated course out of 288. Why is that? It's because I've given the magazine a free option -- they can finally publish a negative review of a golf course that will attract a lot of attention, and I take all the heat for it. That's the way they operate, and I know that better than anyone; but I still didn't expect it to be the first thing out of the gate, before anyone had read any of the other reviews for balance. If you think I'm deliberately using that to promote my book, I'll refer you back to #1.
Or, as a friend in a 12-step program is fond of saying, "Your opinion of me is none of my god-damned business."
I quoted the above post because I think it's the most important post in the thread.
I'll also provide my opinion because my opinion is the one that matters most to me. I played the Castle course twice last year. Yes I went back and I'll probably play it again. I bought a 3 day ticket which means unlimited play on all the links trust courses (aside from the old) and I played 3 rounds a day all 3 days. So why did I play the Castle Course twice when I could have gotten another round on the New or the Eden? Well I enjoyed my first round on the Castle. I went out early and the course was literally empty. When I was finishing 9 the next group out was teeing off on #1 (at around 845). I love playing golf when there is no waiting to hit shots, and it doesn't happen often. Further I thought the course was visually appealing and I must not really know what atrocious holes are because I don't remember anything that bad. Could someone please provide the holes they think are terrible?
Like I said when I go back I'll play it again but I won't play Strathtyrum or Balgove again. That being said I completely understand why both those courses have their place. They are great courses to introduce people to the game. Similarly I'm now happy to spend my Saturdays and Sundays playing what I consider an atrocious course, filled with terrible golfers just learning to play, because it's the only option I have.
So now my take on why the Castle Course also has a place in the home of golf. When I went to play the Eden Course early in the morning as a single I went to the starter to see about getting out. The first tee was empty and there was only another American on the putting green. The starter told me I couldn't get out as single as tee times were reserved for local members. I completely understand why they have their policy and asked if he could see the other tee sheets and give recommendations on other courses that had openings soon. I was told I could go to the Castle, Strathtyrum, Balgove and potentially the Jubilee (New had an event). Luckily for me the American on the putting green was a local member and he overheard my conversation with the starter and generously asked me to play with him and his playing partner. The second time I played the Castle course was packed. When I asked how that could be when it was so empty the first time I played I was told it's usually full from 9-1 with American and Australian tourists. So I see the Castle Course as a place to send the tourists.