Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Sean_A on May 19, 2016, 06:27:02 AM
-
Resurrected in the summer of 2000, it is difficult to imagine Kingsbarns Golf Links was once a nine holer with history stretching back prior to the Napoleonic Wars. Fearing the sea front was an attractive foothold for Hitler’s Kreigsmarine, the military closed Kingbarns in 1939 and used the farm land to help the war effort. The modern iteration of the course is far too polished to be mistaken for an ancient links or the 1922 Willie Auchterlonie creation, but this should in no way detract from the grand experience that is Kingsbarns. A very modern sensibility meant the creators, Mark Parsinen and Kyle Phillips, were sure to deliver a product which took supreme advantage of the 2 km of sea front. Kingsbarns is a tiered layout cascading around a links basin. The natural effect of the workmanship is captivating with holes blending effortlessly and this despite the property being divided into three parcels. Also in true contemporary fashion, there are two candidates for the signature hole and both involve water. The 12th is a three-shotter hugging the shoreline and the par three 15th plays every inch of its uphill carry over the rocky beach. For my money the best stretch is #s 4-6...all doglegs. On each of these holes the echelon edges are admirably used to create interest and beauty; yet all have their own identity.
Nearing its 16th anniversary, Kingbarns remains firmly in the public eye mainly due to co-hosting the Dunhill Links Championship since 2001. Fine golfers such as Padraig Harrington, Lee Westwood and Colin Montgomerie have raised the trophy in victory celebrations. In a recent trend for women to play links mainly associated with the men’s game, Kingsbarns is scheduled to host the Women’s British Open in 2017...this event promises to be very entertaining.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1778/43874314682_951d2b10e4_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1778/43874314682_951d2b10e4_b.jpg)
The opener strikes off due north and on this occassion a tailwind aided our cause. The golfer is immediately struck by the authenticity of the turf. When landing most tee shots will see a joyous puff of sand rise to the heavens followed by the ball bounding forward to find its final resting spot.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/932/42113982540_5a8ca4d994_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/932/42113982540_5a8ca4d994_b.jpg)
The second is a straight-forward one-shotter with a tricky green. Carnoustie is a stone's throw away beyond the Firth of Tay.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1811/42113982030_1d5a44d4ec_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1811/42113982030_1d5a44d4ec_b.jpg)
This view of the green from the 5th fairway offers a glimpse of the terraced design. We can also see the hidden bunker back left...one of many on the links.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1778/43874334562_14dfac3e61_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1778/43874334562_14dfac3e61_b.jpg)
The third plays over a corner of the beach, but the fairway leans favourably right. The green lies at the base of a hill and is much more sloped back to front than it might seem.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1840/43922824671_80ee875641_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1840/43922824671_80ee875641_b.jpg)
The view east over the beach.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/930/42113981250_9f2140b9fd_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/930/42113981250_9f2140b9fd_b.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Sean - first Gleneagles King's and now Kingsbarns, my two favorites from my sole trip aside from TOC. Looking forward to seeing more pix and I didn't realize the Women's Open was heading there - setting my DVR now!
-
Sean - I know you to have a keen "value" sense. Must be been tough for you to dust off your pocketbook for the precious visitor's fee at KB. ;D
£234.00 - Really?!?! :o
-
Sean - my goodness, but you are indeed (IMHO) getting even better at this: the opening paragraphs/scene setter is terrifically well done
And my, what an absolutely lovely looking course this sems: a gentler and player-friendlier homage to its elderly stout Rota neighbours...but with (alas) quintessentially modern retail golfer pricing
-
Sean,
Kingsbarns was included on my first golf trip ever, 10 years ago March. Can't believe it's been that long since I've been. I loved it then so it would be interesting to get back and see if and how much my opinion has changed. I'll admit to having an ever growing liking of the Old Course which I thought was nothing compared to Kingsbarns the first time I played it on that same trip.
In general it seems they really did a great job with shaping to make it feel quite natural, as you said they did an amazing job with the turf given the entire site is 100% manufactured. Does it seem natural to your eye like other links or does it feel perhaps more like a Dundonald Links in terms of being artificial?
I'm also curious if find it good value at those rates as I know you are big on that. I really need to get back soon again.
As a side note, you must have one hell of a stone throwing arm...
-
I really enjoyed my one (and almost certainly only, given the green fee) visit to Kingsbarns. It's really well done, there's some clever shaping, the course features a lot of really fun shots and the use of the coast line is excellent. It is also extremely flattering. The front nine is only the second nine anywhere that I have played under par and I didn't play that well. Lots of shots that on a stouter test would have been punished ended up in good spots. I'm sure that this adds to the enjoyment people get from playing there but I do wonder if, after a while, it would get stale.
-
Sean,
So sorry I was unable to join you fine fellows while you were here, but glad to see you had some nice weather!
Great comments so far on KB. Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on some of my favourite holes.
Been over ten years since my caddying days there, but given my impending redundancy, I might be back again this summer!!!
Cheers,
F.
-
Sean, and indeed others who have played the course.
I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the fairways.
Modern links courses made with big machinery have a tendency to have little in the way of the washboard effect, those irregular little ripples and micro-dimples/hollows that make the fairways on older links courses so fascinating and frustrating (and photograph beautifully in early morning or late evening light).
How do the Kingsbarns fairways do for washboards and ripples and micro-contours etc?
Atb
-
Sean, and indeed others who have played the course.
I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the fairways.
Modern links courses made with big machinery have a tendency to have little in the way of the washboard effect, those irregular little ripples and micro-dimples/hollows that make the fairways on older links courses so fascinating and frustrating (and photograph beautifully in early morning or late evening light).
How do the Kingsbarns fairways do for washboards and ripples and micro-contours etc?
Atb
Thomas, this is something I too would like to return to see. However, on the other hand can you name a semi modern links course that actually has this? I tend to think it's something that happens to the ground to a certain extent over the course of many years, perhaps even hundreds of years. Even the best shaping work on modern links, which is awesome, is still not quite like 100% (well 99% maybe lower) natural. Think Prestwick, Dornoch, Deal etc. compared to Kingsbarns, Pacific Dunes, Castle Stuart etc.
Depending on the extent to which you measure it what you suggest may be in part or completely unrealistic. Especially in terms of making a course playable for everyone in the modern game. Most golfers aren't use to these crazy lies that you can get so just having the ball below your feet or above considerably is already challenging enough. I would be curious as to other opinions on this and of course Sean's as well.
-
There's not much in the way of very linksy micro undulation at KB. There plenty of earth movement though and loads of really quirky knobs, hollows, swales, swoops and sweeps to keep you interested.
There's also a fair amount of elevation change, both in the fairways and around the green complexes and between the high ground holes and the low ground holes.
F.
-
I would agree with Marty here. In my one time around the course, I thought the fairways seemed very "modern" and not much like the typical coastal Scottish courses. I do recall the large swales and knobs that introduce some of the randomness I expect from a links course. Kingsbarns definitely feels like a big and new course, but there was still character and charm to the holes that made it stand out from many courses with equally great vistas. When I played Kingsbarns after TOC and Carnoustie, I remember thinking that is did not look very natural (not that this is necessarily bad). But now that I am three years removed and I see Sean's great pictures, I wonder if this is just because it sits a few miles from the most natural looking golf courses in the world.
-
Cheers folks.
Maybe I am more forgiving, but I think Kingsbarns looks fairly natural. One of the things which I noticed is that there wasn't a preponderance of raised greens such as we see at other modern links such as Castle down the road. We also must not forget that micro-undulations are somewhat rare and when they are present it tends to be in patches. A great many links fairways are flatish or with broader contours. TOC is a serious outlier and probably one of a few reasons why it is so great.
FBD - you left your border unprotected! We came, we saw, we left.
KINGSBARNS TOUR CONT
The next three holes are the cream of the course. All are par 4s and none remotely alike. The 4th has all the signs of terror with a fall-away left, a centreline carry and bunkers right. I suspect the hole (indeed 4 thru 6) plays far easier much of the time, but that is part of the amusement of links, even a bit of wind can make a difference of great importance.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/937/43922821981_d88822d59e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/937/43922821981_d88822d59e_b.jpg)
The approach should one not carry the bunker.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1837/43922823161_236a396111_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1837/43922823161_236a396111_b.jpg)
A look at the huge green, one of several sizeable putting surfaces at Kingsbarns.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1798/42113980660_2214c3d30d_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1798/42113980660_2214c3d30d_b.jpg)
Quite a tricky hole, it's generally best to be on the outside of the dogleg on the 5th. In my experience it is common to be given a bunkering road map of the best place to aim; this hole leaves the golfer in some doubt.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1780/43922820751_ec52fc8ff7_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1780/43922820751_ec52fc8ff7_b.jpg)
The inside of the leg is riddled with trouble.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1780/42113980180_6dd4208cd4_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1780/42113980180_6dd4208cd4_b.jpg)
The epic 6th is probably a better hole downwind when big hitters are treating this short two-shotter as a par 3 and therefore have a decision to make regards the club. On this day it took a decent hit to cover the bunkers, but if successful the tee shot will scamper down near or on the green. I usually despise gorse next to fairways, but in this case the course has lured us into a false sense of security with width. Yes, this hole is still wide, but it doesn't take a huge error to mark a kiss on the card.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1794/43922818301_4dbee4f648_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1794/43922818301_4dbee4f648_b.jpg)
From this angle the tiered design is more evident...as is the nearby gorse.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/931/43204709484_35be6fe9cc_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/931/43204709484_35be6fe9cc_b.jpg)
A closer look.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/852/43922820001_786120a56b_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/852/43922820001_786120a56b_b.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I know Bobby Painter who was one of the shapers for Kingsbarns working for Kyle Phillips
http://www.golfshaper.com/
Bobby has been working shaping Greys Green Golf Course with Adrian Stiff and myself
Cheers
Ben
-
While I've played the course a number of times I haven't been there for a few years and therefore great to see some recent photos. I do wonder however if some of the greens have been touched up since I was last there. I don't recall the 18th green being stepped the way it's shown in Seans photo or at least not as much, and likewise the fall-off to the left of the second green. Does anyone know whether the have done any work in the last few years ?
Niall
-
Beautiful pix Sean. In what month were they taken? In May of 2013 the gorse was
starting to bloom and the trees were still bare as can be seen from my pix: https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/albums/72157633680384864/with/8814693653/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/albums/72157633680384864/with/8814693653/)
-
While I've played the course a number of times I haven't been there for a few years and therefore great to see some recent photos. I do wonder however if some of the greens have been touched up since I was last there. I don't recall the 18th green being stepped the way it's shown in Seans photo or at least not as much, and likewise the fall-off to the left of the second green. Does anyone know whether the have done any work in the last few years ?
Niall
I loved KB the time I played it right up to the shot into the 18th. Horrible green complex that has no place on a links course. I think the step you see Niall is actually a ridge running down the green.
Jon
-
I don't know if the step is new on 18, but it certainly makes for an interesting putt. I must be a short hitter. When I was watching people play 18 they all had short irons....I needed a 2 hybrid...which is quite a daunting shot.
KINGSBARNS TOUR CONT
The challenge stiffens considerably on the 7th...long and well uphill. Into the wind the green was out of reach for me.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/851/43922816511_7067904d79_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/851/43922816511_7067904d79_b.jpg)
The green is another bigun' and I reckon with the hole location at the very back at least two more clubs were needed. Below is a view of the green from the 9th fairway.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/859/43204708814_3658ab246d_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/859/43204708814_3658ab246d_b.jpg)
Called Wee Dunt, the 8th didn't strike me as such! I needed 5 iron to cover the 150+ downhill yards. The green is very clever as it is easy to end up in the lower section. The right hand plateau is not at all receptive as the green slithers away from the tee. There is also a hidden bunker right.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1832/43204708214_be4322d2b5_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1832/43204708214_be4322d2b5_b.jpg)
A closer look at the green from near the 9th tee. The 15th green is in the background.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1835/43922815331_2b7087ce5a_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1835/43922815331_2b7087ce5a_b.jpg)
We play back to the house with a merciful wind at our backs after four holes into the breeze. The 9th, on the top tier of the links, is a very reachable par 5 in these conditions. The reachable gorse left brings the drop-off down the right more into play.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1799/43874324162_dc04117bf1_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1799/43874324162_dc04117bf1_b.jpg)
The green is very interesting. There is sharp incline separating the front section. Those who lay-up right are left with a very difficult approach over a bunker to a green moving away. The right edge of the bunker can just be seen right of the pin.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1799/43874324532_c645dd9f80_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1799/43874324532_c645dd9f80_b.jpg)
Turning back into the wind, the uphill drive for the 10th is rather listless looking and doesn't offer any clues to the quality of the approach.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1777/42113973370_532ffb510d_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1777/42113973370_532ffb510d_b.jpg)
Another interesting green.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1816/43874323742_89bab4b43e_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1816/43874323742_89bab4b43e_b.jpg)
Like #8, the 11th feels more inland in nature and is a good change of pace. These sort of approaches are always interesting. Does one want a better angle at the flag, but be aiming at a kiss right, or is it better to drive up the right and play over or away from the bunker and lost ball right?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1840/42113972410_b4ca6b4eae_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1840/42113972410_b4ca6b4eae_b.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Sean,
having not seen KB for quite a few years I do not know if it has changed but I just felt the 18th green complex was totally out character to the rest of the course and not at all linksy. It is target golf in its worst form and if you go through the back it is very difficult to hold the green. I cannot believe they would have designed the green this way had they not found the burn and bridge in front of it during construction. I am surprised they have never changed it.
The 8th played as a low running 8 iron when I played there and was great fun to watch the ball meander it's way down to the green. The 9th green used to be far more severe with the upper level being very difficult to hold on an approach shot but this was toned down in the first few years.
Jon
-
I notably used my rescue twice - on 8 and 18.
On 8 the wind was mightily at our backs so I chipped the ball 15 yards over to the walking path and watched the ball trundle down it for 10-15 seconds. Got within 10'ft of the back right pin, one of the most fun shots I've ever played.
On 18 I had ~200 yards out into the gusts so it took a full swing and I ended up a foot away from going in the back bunker.
Despite the wind I was striking the ball great that day, sadly the gusts made putting very hard - I three-putted both holes.
-
Jon
I think the 18th green is very much in character....the greens are loaded with big bold contours. I don't mind the water aspect as much as you...18 isn't my favourite hole, but it does add spice to the round.
KINGSBARNS TOUR CONT
We now make the long walk to the three-shot 12th tee. On the way there is a full on view of the 15th which is the transition hole between the property sections. I wasn't overly enamoured with the these three isolated holes and as a group they struck me as quite hit and miss. I spose the 12th could be considered one of the two signature holes. The hole is very pretty and the green being turned against play offers a load of difficult hole locations, but I think this hole works best downwind. Into the wind its a bit of a slog and perhaps the influence of water is too similar to the par 5 third.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/861/42113968090_789af88235_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/861/42113968090_789af88235_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/929/43874320072_f38df5a3d2_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/929/43874320072_f38df5a3d2_b.jpg)
Another large green, this one angled against the fairway.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/937/42113969480_94fa314bcd_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/937/42113969480_94fa314bcd_b.jpg)
However, the 13th is cracking short hole. A change of pace, the green is postage stamp tiny and reminiscent of what might be seen at Dornoch.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/853/43874318892_42fc30bd2b_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/853/43874318892_42fc30bd2b_b.jpg)
14 struck me as the least interesting hole on the course. Onto the other signature hole, the already inspected Rocky Ness, a small point jutting into the North Sea. This is one hole where it pays to choose one's club conservatively; there is plenty of room to the rear of the green.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1820/43874317972_57688e531c_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1820/43874317972_57688e531c_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1813/42113966420_ba06775c2e_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1813/42113966420_ba06775c2e_b.jpg)
16 takes us fully back to the main section of the property with a straight forward par 5....except for the hidden burn to the right and rear of the green. I believe this pocket of land was used for a course long ago. These views are from the 9th fairway.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1835/43017827145_682c144758_b.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1835/43017827145_682c144758_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/848/43874317302_73e9690a4e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/848/43874317302_73e9690a4e_b.jpg)
Similar to 16, the 17th legs right predictably toward the sea, but the extreme uphill nature of the approach is what really defines this excellent hole. The 16th green is in the foreground.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/936/43874316702_991a6d144c_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/936/43874316702_991a6d144c_b.jpg)
After a somewhat blind, uphill drive, the controversial 18th is fully revealed. When moving dirt to build the 18th the bridge and Cundie Burn were discovered and rightly included in the design. Below is a look at the hole from the house.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/856/43017826075_34609d3ac6_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/856/43017826075_34609d3ac6_b.jpg)
That then ends the round that is Kingsbarns. To be quite frank, it is difficult to find fault. While still a bit scratchy due to the time of year, conditions were more than acceptable. The design is well balanced with quite wide playing corridors, scads of opportunities to play low, running shots and yet a handful of heroic shots on offer; a few of which are truly penal. There are a few candidates for All Scotland holes such as 4-6 and 13, though I must admit that I thought the top notch holes might be a bigger handful given the world wide accolades. For many golfers the beauty of Kingsbarns can be entrancing and rightfully so. For well travelled golfers, once enough top class courses are played, it is easy not to see what is on offer when looking at a course. Many people may find themselves unwittingly looking for something rather than looking at something. If the golfer simply focuses on what Kingsbarns is rather than what it may lack, it is hard to fathom that most wouldn't come to the conclusion that Kingsbarns is a very great course. 1* 2016
Ciao
-
The 18th may look the part but probably one of the weakest in design terms. Drive 8 iron wedge doesn't make good golf for most people. Overall a bit like CS, the more you play it the less you appreciate it (IMO) whereas other courses like NB and indeed most of the best links it's the opposite.
Niall
-
Niall
I am not sure what weakest means to you, but I wouldn't call the 18th weak. I think thrilling is a more apt description.
Ciao
-
Sean
When I mean weak I certainly don't mean easy. What I really mean is rubbish ;D . The problem with this hole, and for me the 16th at Silloth and the 12th at Gailes have a similar problem.More often than not you are asked to hit a club that you can’t hold the green with and sometimes from a downhill lie. Once you figure that out you are as well hitting a rescue club off the tee, followed by a short to mid iron, followed by another short iron to the green. That was what I meant about it being weak design. OK for the stronger golfer but piss poor for the average player.
Niall
-
Sean
Do you think Castle Stuart is superior to Kingsbarns?
I played the former first and it was the most fun course I'd played until I played the latter.
Most golfers are a strange bunch. They supposedly play for fun, yet give them fun and they clamour for Carnoustie and lost balls.
-
Niall
18 may be a tough ask to reach in two for some golfers, but there is a way to play right and chip up to the green over the bridge. As far as water hazard holes goes this ain't bad.
Ryan
I prefer Castle Stuart to Kingsbarns and think it just may be the better course, but I can see it either way. I give em' both 1*, but will say they are better than most Open venues.
Ciao
-
Sean
You are still hitting a couple of shorter clubs in onto a wide open fairway just to get into position for a chip. Sorry, that's not fun, that's dull.
Niall
-
Niall
I think many who cannot carry the water can get right of the bridge in two into the wind. I don't see how a fronting hazard could be made any more strategic than this. In any case, I am not one to believe that all golfers have the right to reach every hole in regulation. In any case two, the hole should usually play downishwind in season so the idea of two layups is really only after a very poor drive or for very poor golfers....in which case all I can say is all holes can't be for all golfers.
Ciao
-
Niall,
Out of interest, what sort of yardage have you had for your 2nd shot into 18? If you were tempted to go for the green what club would you likely be hitting?
Michael
-
Michael,
I don’t mean to be evasive but I don’t really have an answer as firstly it’s been a while since I played KB and my memory isn’t that good, and secondly I tend to think in terms of what club I’m hitting.
Sean
The issue isn’t whether you can get over the burn/gulley or not but whether you can stop the ball when you do bearing in mind the course is supposed to play fast and firm. Having hit a reasonable drive, who wants to lay up with a shortish iron ?
Niall
edit; can't spell !
-
Niall,
That's perfectly reasonable. I recall I hit a 6 iron for my 2nd shot onto the 18th green the last time I played but can't think what it would have been the previous times I've played.
I was wondering if your tee shot would likely put you in position to go for the green in two or if the threat of the burn means you would almost automatically think about laying up?
-
I understand where Niall is coming from entirely. Sean, during the season with a usual westerly or southwesterly wind the tee shot will play slightly into and from the right. I think 6 iron for the second shot sounds about right. The problem is that you only have one option which is high flighted with the hope of stopping the ball below the pin. Anything else is just about dead. Boring golf typified!!!
Funnily enough the only hole at CS that I do not rate is the 11th which is another one dimensional affair.
Jon
-
In season 18 drive should play mostly downwind much of the time. I suspect a good downwind drive would leave less than a 6 iron for me.
We can agree to disagree about 18. I don't hold the line that all holes must be all things to all golfers all the time. There must be some room in design which separates good golfers from duffers. Its not my favourite hole on the course, but 18 is far from a stinker. Same for 11...I don't know what you mean about being one dimensional. One can play left of the bunker (in the air or on the ground) or fly the bunker.
Ciao
-
One dimensional in as much as it only has one solution which is to fly to the green. I am not saying this is bad but it does lack imagination and for a player who cannot fly it the required distance they have no chance of getting the green. Oh, yes and you can play left of the bunker on the 11th at Castle Stuart but you end up in a steep bank in deep rough which is not really an option Sean.
Jon
-
“I don't hold the line that all holes must be all things to all golfers all the time.”
Sean
I don’t disagree and is that not the point of strategic design, different ways for different players ? My point however, was that for the weaker golfer it’s not much of a hole. For the weaker golfer who is a repeat player at Kingsbarns, the hole becomes a punt off the tee and a short/mid iron to a position where you can chip onto the green, and let’s be honest as long as you don’t go too far with your second and trundle the ball into the water any line will do as it leaves you a straightforward chip.
That’s my issue with KB and CS. There are far too many meaningless shots for the average player. If they weren’t one off pay and plays with visitors being wowed by the conditioning, the views, the beauty of the place and indeed the whole set up, they would be seen as the beautiful dumb blondes that they are. IMO of course ;)
Niall
-
Jon
Sorry...thought we were still on Kingsbarns...my comments were about its 11th.
Niall
Well, thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. But if are talking about hacks...tons of shots on every course are meaningless except in so far as they can be found ;)
Ciao
-
On my one play, 18 was probably my least favourite hole, but it played into the wind on the day I played there. Driver (not my best contact), utility lay up, wedge. Blah. Looks great, though. Downwind and with a decent drive it would be playable, though I wonder with the greens as firm as when I played there whether I could hold anything much more than a wedge downwind and be sure of carrying the water, so I suspect I'd be likely to be chipping back from behind the green.
-
Would Kingsbarns be up to holding The Open?
The pro's scores in the Dunhill seem to be usually pretty low, but then again maybe that's due to the pro-am set-up, time of year, pin positioning, pro-tees used etc.
I wonder how the upcoming Women's Open will work out when played there in 2017.
Atb
-
Lets hope The Open never goes to Kingsbarns. We have seen how the R&A have mucked up TOC with rough (the 16th is the one of the worst 20th century travesties there is in gca)...they would do the same at Kingsbarns.
Ciao
-
the R&A have mucked up TOC with rough (the 16th is the one of the worst 20th century travesties there is in gca)
So true. Far worse than any of the recent changes at TOC and so, so easily remedied.
-
Sean,
I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.
Niall
-
Niall
This is part of the problem in discussing these matters...nothing can be taken out of context and make total sense. I agree that width alone doesn't make for strategic or interesting golf. However, that ain't saying much is it? I believe that in most cases, to create high level strategic golf, a level of width greater than is the current norm must be present or strategic value is reduced. If for any reason at all...it is so the ball can found and played...and that has to be a primary (if not the primary) concern if strategy is to be discussed at all. That said, there is nothing wrong, indeed I think there is everything right with some penal elements to design. Some of these concepts will be met with dismay and others with joy. Either way it makes no difference because these are subjective PoV. In truth, I think courses need shots/holes which makes golfers uncomfortable or may even be disliked....controversy is good for architecture. Architecture needs all forms design. If something turns you off that much...don't play the course. I realize you disagree with what you consider excessive width, but in my experience, I have rarely met that animal....and certainly wouldn't consider Kingsbarns too wide. The far bigger is concern, in my experience, is lack of width.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.
Niall
Wide fairways do not produce strategy, but they are necessary for it. Without width the golfer's options are limited to biff it down the middle. It is cleverly positioned hazards within the context of width that produces strategy.
-
Sean
So, you agree that width alone doesn’t make for strategic or interesting golf. Well my friend, contrary to you I think that’s actually saying quite a lot and is in essence the weakness of a lot of the wide fairways and defend at the green type design. Line of charm doesn’t come into it.
Let me ask you this, what would Golden Age archies like Simpson and MacKenzie do with the wide open prairies at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart if asked to redesign ? I very much doubt you’d get Simpson treating them the same way he did Ballybunnion.
Niall
-
Niall
I don't know what either would have done with the properties as these are modern courses, moving modern amounts of dirt to make them a realization...something Dr Mac and Simpson weren't really able to do in their time.
As I said before, I don't believe Kingsbarns fairways to be excessively wide. Instead, I think more courses on sloping land or with reasonable wind should take a page from this design. I find there to be plenty of interest in driving the ball around Kingsbarns. I can only think of two holes where the line of the drive doesn't doesn't make a difference.
1...for sure...found out to my cost
3...for sure...can play safely left or try to go deep up the right
4....huge difference if one tries to go over the bunker or play right
5...temptation is to go right, but far left opens up the green
6...short left or long middle/right is a huge difference
7...little difference ball buster par 4
9...big difference right or left depending on the day
10...big difference right or left depending on the day
11...big difference depending on the day
12...big difference right or left
14...big difference right or left with right being the dangerous drive which leaves an easy pitch
16...big difference if one wants to go for the green in 2...if not anywhere works
17...big difference...stay left to open the green
18...big difference...stay right to open the green
Ciao
-
Sean
Actually I think I have a very good idea what MacKenzie and Simpson would have done, and that is put in some judiciously placed bunkers. Not flanking bunkers obviously, as they would have to be 30 yards wide to have any impact. Some strategically placed centre line bunkers would be more in order. What's more they would/could do a fantastic job without using machinery and shifting a fair chunk of Scotland to do so.
Niall
-
Maybe you are right Niall, but we shall never know because these designs are from a time which has made it possible to go miles beyond what Dr Mac and Simpson did in terms of turning sites not suitable for golf into golf courses. Dr Mac may have put in 200 bunkers or 30...depends on when any sort of job like this may have come up during career. I instinctively feel like Simpson would have produced a course I would be more at ease with, but so what? What we have now is excellent design...better than 99% of the courses out there so the complaining is really a 1st World problem.
Ciao
-
Is Kingsbarns worth the £234 main season regular greenfee? I can appreciate some folks paying the money as a once-off experience, and understand some can pay less, but this seems to be quite a high price point in comparison to other highly regarded GB courses.
Atb
-
ATB
There is an awful lot of good golf within an hour or so of St Andrews to feel like £234 is good value. For instance, I think Kingsbarns is better than St Andrews New, but I would rather play TNC...its plenty good enough. To be fair though, I am struggling to think of many £234 courses which I would dish out for more than once or in most cases...even once. That said, Kingsbarns does give off a good vibe as a casual venue without lots of rules...which are increasingly becoming a hassle for touristas.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.
Niall
Wide fairways do not produce strategy, but they are necessary for it. Without width the golfer's options are limited to biff it down the middle. It is cleverly positioned hazards within the context of width that produces strategy.
Adam,
that means that NO par 3s can be strategic. Sorry but though what you say about width is on average true you overstate its importance. As you say, width alone does not guarantee strategy but a lack of width certainly does not exclude it.
Jon
-
Jon
Its not about a switch where strategy is turned off or on. There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices. That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so. Maybe you and Niall are not fans of choice...no worries...you are of that age where penal golf was king :D Things are moving on by looking back in time.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.
Niall
Wide fairways do not produce strategy, but they are necessary for it. Without width the golfer's options are limited to biff it down the middle. It is cleverly positioned hazards within the context of width that produces strategy.
so, you are agreeing with me ?
Niall
-
Maybe you are right Niall, but we shall never know because these designs are from a time which has made it possible to go miles beyond what Dr Mac and Simpson did in terms of turning sites not suitable for golf into golf courses. Dr Mac may have put in 200 bunkers or 30...depends on when any sort of job like this may have come up during career. I instinctively feel like Simpson would have produced a course I would be more at ease with, but so what? What we have now is excellent design...better than 99% of the courses out there so the complaining is really a 1st World problem.
Ciao
Sean
I enjoy KB and CS despite you trying to infer I don't. I just don't think CS in particular is anywhere as near as good as billed. Aesthetics seem to have taken over from the quality of the golf in judging the course. While they might have moved many times more dirt at both KB and CS than either Mac or Simpson did at any course in their career I'd contend Mac and Simpson achieved far more with what they did.
Niall
-
Jon
Its not about a switch where strategy is turned off or on. There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices. That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so. Maybe you and Niall are not fans of choice...no worries...you are of that age where penal golf was king :D Things are moving on by looking back in time.
Ciao
Now I'm really puzzled. When did I ever say I wasn't a fan of choice ? My point has been that firstly (very) wide open fairways don't in themselves produce strategy, and that without the strategic element are you really being asked to make a choice ? Yes, you can hit the ball left right or centre and some of CS's 90 yard wide fairways lets you do that but if it makes no material difference to the next shot then where is the need to make a decision ? Hence my comment about golfers flailing away regardless.
Niall
-
Niall
Thats okay, we can each have our opinions about the relative merits of Kingsbarns and CS. It is clear to me that each course is more than eye candy, though the candy helps...as it should with any design. The day I walk a course and cannot or will not appreciate its beauty as an added element of design is the day I should stop playing golf.
Please site specific examples of too much width at Kingsbarns and what you would rather see. Discussion in the abstract is getting nowhere because I have no idea of where you think width is not a desirable element. Although, I highly doubt any such specific discussion will lead much anywhere because I fear we see things very differently where width is concerned.
Ciao
-
Width: I've played KB one time, in a massive wind. It continuously knocked over the two push carts our foursome had and the caddy said it was the worst wind he'd ever seen (this was 2007). Hyperbole? Didn't seem so to me, but perhaps. Windiest day I've ever played that's for sure. I lost one ball day and thank the width for that - I rolled the ball along the ground all day, where I could, and loved every minute of it. The others in my group couldn't come to grips with the concept and/or fought it, and paid the price - I.e. High scores or bitterness of wasting the coin on the course. For my part KB is my all time favorite course and I can't wait to play it again.
-
Jon
Its not about a switch where strategy is turned off or on. There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices. That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so. Maybe you and Niall are not fans of choice...no worries...you are of that age where penal golf was king :D Things are moving on by looking back in time.
Ciao
Sean,
I was responding to Adam's assertion that you need to have width to have strategy which I do not agree with. Though rarer it is possible to strategic holes that are also confined. This has nothing to do with lack of choice or penal school both of which are not my regular cup of tea.
Jon
-
Jon
Again...I think Adam was really saying you need to have width to have more options...which is what strategy is. I don't think this concept is refutable.
As with, Niall, it is best to talk about specific holes...the abstract talk leads nowhere.
Ciao
-
Jon
Again...I think Adam was really saying you need to have width to have more options...which is what strategy is. I don't think this concept is refutable.
As with, Niall, it is best to talk about specific holes...the abstract talk leads nowhere.
Ciao
Sean,
so you to think that you need width to have strategy which I certainly do not agree with. If you have a wall which you need to get beyond but you can't go round, over or under yet it has a doorway then the strategy to get through is to use said doorway. You have NO options but you still have a strategy. What you mean I believe is having multiple choices not strategy.
To me a strategic hole allows multiple ways to play it but at the end of the day for each player there will be one optimal way to approach the playing the hole after taking into consideration the players playing strengths and weaknesses. Most narrow holes still fulfill this criteria. If you have a hole that offers multiple options of playing it but which are in the end all equally suitable to the player's game it could be thought as been less strategical as it does not require the player to think through their game plan nearly as much. More options does not necessarily[/size] [/size]mean more strategy[/size][size=78%] IMHO. [/size]
For me, penal holes are holes where if you cannot play the required shot you are unable to negotiate the hole successfully. I suspect that we are defining the terms somewhat differently hence the difference of opinion.
Jon
-
There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices. That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so.
See above for what I said....so no....width doesn't need to be present to have strategy. But if one is seeking higher strategic value then it follows that width must be present. It is necessarily the case that up to a certain point more width equals more opportunity for strategy....assuming we are talking about competent design.
If you have a hole that offers multiple options of playing it but which are in the end all equally suitable to the player's game it could be thought as been less strategical as it does not require the player to think through their game plan nearly as much. More options does not necessarily mean more strategy.
I think you are badly mistaken with the above statement. I know its goofy logic because of the poor language, but strategic designs refers to what the design offers...not the choice golfers make. On any given day one's choice may change from the previous play. In the case of a lack of width (penal design), the choices are limited to one or perhaps two options...neither of which involve playing around an obstacle....they involve playing short....or between and short. Either way one must necessarily negotiate the obstacles rather than giving them a wide berth. There is no wide birth without width and that is where more strategic options come into play.
For me, penal holes are holes where if you cannot play the required shot you are unable to negotiate the hole successfully. I suspect that we are defining the terms somewhat differently hence the difference of opinion.
Yes, I am using the corrrect definition and you made up your own definition ;)
Ciao
-
[size=0px]There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices. That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so. [/size][/color]
[/size][size=0px]See above for what I said....so no....width doesn't need tp be present to have strategy. But if one is seeking higher strategic value then it follows that wodth must be present. It is necessarily the case that up to a certain point more width equals more opportunity for strategy....assuming we are talking about competent design. [/size]
[/size][/color]
[/size] If you have a hole that offers multiple options of playing it but which are in the end all equally suitable to the player's game it could be thought as been less strategical as it does not require the player to think through their game plan nearly as much. More options does not [size=0px][/color][/i][/b][/size]necessarily[size=0px][/size]mean more strategy[size=0px][/size][size=78%] IMHO. [/size][size=0px]
[/size][size=0px]I think you are badly mistaken with the above statement. I know its goofy logic because of the poor language, but strategic designs refers to what the design offers...not the choice golfers make. On any given day one's choice may change from the previous play. In the case of a lack of width (penal design), the choice are limited to one or perhaps two options...neither of which involve playing around an obstacle....the involve playing or short....or between and short. Either way one must necessarily negotiate the obstacles rather than giving them a wide berth. There is no wide birth without width and that is where more strategic options come into play. [/size][size=0px]
[/size]For me, penal holes are holes where if you cannot play the required shot you are unable to negotiate the hole successfully. I suspect that we are defining the terms somewhat differently hence the difference of opinion.[size=0px][/color]
Yes, I am using the corrrect definition and you made up your own definition ;)
Ciao
Sean,
I know it is probably because of one of the charming quirks of the current site but would you try to re-post your answer in a form that it is legible.
Thanks
-
An enjoyable look at Kingsbarn, as Rick Shiels (starting at -10) takes on Adam Scott over 18 holes of stroke play, a week before the 2022 Open
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgt7btcdG4 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgt7btcdG4)