[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks all for the continued commentary.  

Rich, you played on ahead on 18.  I haven't gotten there at my measured pace.  After I get there, I'd like to hear from you about how many Rhichelin *'s the course got in total and how that total might fit in in your rating system.

_________________________________

Jon,

I wouldn't call it a lack of imagination in the green surrounds but rather a repetitiveness of the elevated green with ridges and hollows.  All things said and done I think that the greens and green complexes are a strength of the course although somewhat repetitive.  I am also more used to and in love with the ability to run the ball on to links greens, something that is not overly evident at TIGLS.

_________________________________

Ally,

I wasn't splitting hairs on the thought of a skyline green.  It was merely a thought.  I think many of us, in looking at golf courses, think about how things might have been different.  It doesn't mean it would have been better.  I'm curious about the possibility of an Aberdeen cityscape view off to the right (or I assume from the 18th high tee)?  There was certainly no view on my day there, but the city is miles away and the cityscape would have to be quite muted. Here's a picture from the south end of the property looking south to Aberdeen.




__________________________________


Niall,

See my comment above re the view of Aberdeen.  The windfarm would have been totally unseen on this day.  And, I suspect not very noticeable even on a clear day.


____________________________________


Steve,

Re your comments to Jon about the lack of imagination, I took his comments as being about repetitiveness of elevated greens and hollows and ridges in the surrounds.  I thought that there were repetitive features.  For me, a few more greens on grade would have been better, but that's just an opinion.  Jon will no doubt speak for himself.

The likes of Brad Klein, Golf's Most Beloved, Geoff Shackleford, Joe Passov and others all disagree emphatically with your bias to dislike this course. Are you a superior critic to them?? I know I'm certainly not.

I haven't found Jon's comments generally expressing distaste for the course itself or disruptive of this thread.  Re the quote above, I think all of us who have had the experience can have opinions, regardless of what the superior critics think.  I thought, for instance, that Ran's love poem to the course was a little over the top given what I saw on the course.  But, that's what makes the world go around - a variety of opinions.


___________________________________

Sean,

No quibble intended.  It was merely a deranged thought in retrospect.  The green is kind of raised relative to its surrounds, a lot on the left side and a bit on the right side, although I agree that it is nicely sited.  I do like the hole.  Perhaps at the end of the thread, if anyone is interested, we can have a discussion about best hole, worst hole etc.  I'm sure there would be a wide range of views.












 
 

[Adam Lawrence]

I am with Sean - I feel 17 is without doubt the best hole on the course. Great green site, really good green, strategically interesting. The front pin is brutal and it sets a very interesting question as to the safest place to miss.

I didn't get chance to comment on 15, but that's another hole I love. Much better from the tees on the left of the wetland; also with the following breeze. Loads of options from the tee - I really like it.

[Thomas Dai]

One of the more unpleasant aspects of playing the back-9 at Royal Aberdeen plus the 1st, 3rd and last few holes at Murcar is the views back over the city what with the white tower block flats, Mastrick tower etc. From this photo you can see them so although I'm not usually fond of eye-candy, I would say that at least this lower 17th green site has scenic benefit.
All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

by lack of imagination I was not referring to any individual green but rather the respective over use of the raised greens with a fall off on a substantial part of the green surrounds. There are too few greens built at grade or even in a dell but that is just my opinion. I think that the 17th at TOC is one of the best holes I have ever played yet I think I would find a course which was this same hole 18 times in a row would be lacking in imagination. Whilst I have seen and walked most of the course on several occasions I have not played it as of yet and will probably not unless the greenfee is substantially lower.

I think if you read through my posts you will find that although I have been very critical of how the project has been handled and some of the shenanigans that have gone on that I have been positive on the whole about the course and have stated my hope that it succeeds on more than one occasion. That I chose to be critical of certain things does not make me the course hater you seem to see me as.  

Whilst you are correct that certain very eminent GCA experts have waxed lyrical about the course there have also been those who have been critical. I think that the manner and tone in which you chose to address my comments does you no credit. Talk of clowns and windmills is not the way to go if you want someone to take your comments seriously. I hope that at some point we can meet and am sure you will find that our view points are not so far apart.

If you attempt to see where the other opinion is coming from and try to bring across your passion and positivity about the course rather than being negative and rude about the person you might have more success.


Jon

[Grant Saunders]

Hole 16

I agree with others who have stated they feel the hole is overbunkered. However, for me, I find the near identical shape, size and orientation (as shown in this photo) of the bunkering to be more offensive.

[jeffwarne]

Hole 16

I agree with others who have stated they feel the hole is overbunkered. However, for me, I find the near identical shape, size and orientation (as shown in this photo) of the bunkering to be more offensive.

almost seems unfathomable that such an amazing landscape and setting could be overshadowed.
Were they worried Mrs. Befuvnik was going to overpower the hole with her ground game?

[Jon Wiggett]

Hole 16

I agree with others who have stated they feel the hole is overbunkered. However, for me, I find the near identical shape, size and orientation (as shown in this photo) of the bunkering to be more offensive.

almost seems unfathomable that such an amazing landscape and setting could be overshadowed.
Were they worried Mrs. Befuvnik was going to overpower the hole with her ground game?

Indeed the more I look at this photo and reflect on when I saw the green on site I am more convinced it really only needs the very middle bunker of the seven and the rest just reduce the shot options/stratergy.

Jon

[Steve Lapper]

Jon,

  Your clarified opinion about "too many raised greens with a fall off " is a quite fair and reasonable critique. I'm not sure I totally agree (although it's clear quite a few share such feature to some degree). Personally, I believe Hawtree, et.al. did so to help define/defend the greens amidst their settings into the pockets of those towering dunes. A Doak, C&C, or DMK, would have likely never embraced those extreme edges, instead deploying a few false fronts in replace.  I also concur that there is no doubt the design is somewhat over littered with a few too many identically shaped pots. Interestingly, a sharp eye might have the same to say about a Carnoustie, Lytham, et.al upon closer examination.

  My refrain about those "very eminent GCA'ers" was a deliberate and blatant attempt to remind people that much more experienced and analytic eyes than mine (and most others.... I'd wager) were delightfully surprised and impressed with these 18 holes. All cited unanimously agreed that in sum, this course was very, very strong design in a spectacular setting for golf. Not one was weighted down with some inherited bias about the supposed suspect process that led to it's creation. Most were previously inclined to not give it's very public owner much of a benefit of doubt. This is and should remain a ringing endorsement for folks to get out and see it for themselves.  I ask you if you genuinely believe the net naysayers can honestly get past their dislike for either the owner or the evolutionary process to see the course with clear focus?

   As you say, the majority of those comments you've posted have taken this course to task, albeit with an occasional rejoinder about a wistful hope  that it now succeeds. You may not appreciate my tone or manner, nor my questions of windmills and clowns, but the level of nitpicking that this otherwise very good design gets from those whose homeland biases remain evident is often overwhelming. I apologize if I've offended you and perhaps I crossed the line of literal civility, however, so very many lurkers view these photo essays and remember only the rebukes of all things Trump, thus tainting their perspective without the opportunity to see for themselves. Also, if you feel I've wrongly lumped you into "the course haters," I apologize for that and will try ever so diligently to avoid such.
 
  You are most probably correct that we'd likely enjoy one another's company on any links. I hope one of these days we can do just that.

  Lastly, I'd ask you a few questions about your recent critique of #16. If you retain just the center bunker and remove the flanking ones, are you not making the hole substantially easier and allowing for misses to be rewarded? Poorly hit shots can find par or even birdie with a stroke of luck. Depending on the pin placement, doesn't the angular placement of this green demand the golfer to "bite off as much risk they can try to muster?" IMO, Hawtree has used these bunkers to retain the symmetry of his demands across all the par 3's. Each side has one full-on aerial request and one with ground approach optionality. Isn't that a relatively good balance across the group? Your game (and many others no doubt) might well prefer the ground approach option, but the general theory behind a competitive/championship level design is to test the golfer's resolve, not reward the apprehensive. Again, I don't disagree about a few too many pots, especially across the par 5's and heaven knows I think the 18th could do with a few less, but  holes like 16, 17, 11 and 12 on the back seem perfectly bunkered to my eye and swing.

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

thanks for the interesting reply. I think the following quotes show where you have gotten your opinion of my supposed attitude towards the course

I wrote earlier

I think if you read through my posts you will find that although I have been very critical of how the project has been handled and some of the shenanigans that have gone on that I have been positive on the whole about the course and have stated my hope that it succeeds on more than one occasion

from which you conclude

As you say, the majority of those comments you've posted have taken this course to task, albeit with an occasional rejoinder about a wistful hope  that it now succeeds

How you reach that conclusion is a real mystery to me. I do not think it is a fair or balanced conclusion. Maybe you have a preconceived idea about what I will say and you read what you want/expect to see rather than what is there.


In relation to the raised nature of many of the greens you say:

Personally, I believe Hawtree, et.al. did so to help define/defend the greens amidst their settings into the pockets of those towering dunes.

This may be true I do not know but my experience of links golf is that the course is not defined in such a way as to stand apart/out from its surroundings but rather blends in with its surroundings so as to appear one with the land it is laid out on.

As to hole sixteen




Is making a hole easier really so negative? Making a par or even a birdie through a stroke of luck is something that happens often and even has its own name 'rub of the green'. It is something that belongs to the game and is one of its charms and attractions. A course with no rub of the green would be very dull and indeed this hole give ample opportunity for it. What happens if my poorly struck shot lands between two bunker and bounces on to the green any way? I for one do not see it as a negative.

To me the line of bunkers force the golfer to hit an areal shot to exclusion of all other options. Yes it is heroic but it is also one dimensional. I wonder how you would play this hole in summer, with firm greens and a strong wind behind. Such a scenario calls for a shot played short and to run up. This option does not exist and so any shot clearing the bunkers will run through.

By removing all but the middle bunker are you making the hole easier?

laying from the angle of the photo the two left most bunkers would become banking which would deflect the ball further away from the putting surface leaving the player with a tricky bump and run or lofted shot to get the ball close to the hole but a more manageable shot for the less accomplished player to simply find the green. The average player would find these two bunkers very difficult if not beyond their capabilities given the depth and steepness of face.

removing bunkers 4 & 5 allows for a running shot through an opening wide enough for some margin for error. However, a weakly hit shot would probably end up in the middle bunker(3) or short of the green and so be penalised.

The two right most bunkers removal would simply mean a shot hit there would leave the golfer facing a tough downhill shot from the fringe which would be no piece of cake.


To me it appears as though this hole was designed to force the golfer to play one particular shot to the point of excluding all other possibilities.

Jon

[Tony_Muldoon]

The Quote function has not really been working of late!


"To me it appears as though this hole was designed to force the golfer to play one particular shot to the point of excluding all other possibilities.

Jon"


Isn't this critique true of many of the holes here and typical of the "modern golf links" approach taken by e.g.  Pat Ruddy.  

The question in my mind is...

Is this a valid way to test the modern game where equipment favours the production of a high spinning ball where courses can be attacked via an aerial route and therefore greens need to be pushed in design so the slight miss hit will be rejected,

OR
is this a way to provide a memorable test for a the target audience of paying golfers who predominantly can only hit a high ball?  


I hope I'm clear here. In the first example it's a valid way of defending the course, in the second the kind of golfer who will play the course hasn't got the skills or imagination to run the ball up to a green therefore there's no reason to provide this option?


Despite Steve's concern that we are factoring too much Trump into judging the merits of THIS golf course, I do feel the Donald understands his target audience and how they want to play.



Great thread.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tony,

I too have been having problems with the quote function.

I do not want anyone to miss understand me. I am not saying that this hole is a bad hole but it is only a good hole if you can hit a certain shot. I would have no problem with this hole except in a strong following wind but my Dad would have really struggled. For him, it would have been a lay it up in the long stuff and hope for a decent lie.

I agree that many of the players here will play a high shot game but ask whether this is justification for removal of the ground game. Links golf is all about option and the ground game is a big part of that. IMO the best courses also allow players of any standard to get round them which is why I think TOC, Alwoodley or Royal Birkdale are great courses but dislike the modern incarnation of Carnoustie and holes such as the Postage Stamp.

I just think this is a hole that would be more challenging with fewer bunkers.

Jon

[Bryan Izatt]

Jon,

I'm OK with the hole as it is with all the bunkers, although I do agree with you that the ground game has been rendered moot on this hole, although that could be said about other holes on the course as well.  If the prime imperative in building the course was to build a championship course then this hole makes perfect sense.  As you say, it will require the pros to play an aerial shot  If it's downwind it will be a challenge for them to any front pin.  Whether it's into the wind or with the wind it also challenges the best players with choosing the right club for the line they choose (the same as the 12th at ANGC).  If the design makes it difficult for us lesser players, then maybe we're just collateral damage on this hole.

Thinking about other links courses and par 3 greens that can't be run up, I immediately thought of the 10th at Royal Dornoch - a pretty good hole.  I also noticed a green at Gullane #2 that looks eerily similar to the 16th at TIGLS.  Both are classic designs, so  the concept is not foreign to links courses, although I think it is much more common on "championship" American courses.

[Jon Wiggett]

Bryan,

I agree with all your sentiments. I have been a consistent critic of the 10th at RD and have long said the removal of the front bunker would improve the hole quite a bit. I think the difference with the example you have photo'd is that there is the option to play short of and if played from the middle of the fairway (photo is shown from right rough) it is possible, though not easy to thread a running shot through the bunkers.

Whilst I am not saying it is a bad hole it is limited in the challenge it presents. That there are other similar holes does not lessen or improve it.

Jon

[Sean_A]

I disagree about the ground game option at #16.  I watched a guy bang one between the bunkers and use the back slope to bring his ball back onto the green from the white markers.  The shorter markers on this hole all allow for some leeway.  It is the longer markers further left which are purely aerial unless someone wants to get needlessly funky for some reason.  I think this hole is superior Dornoch's 10th.  I once read a member say that a legitimate way to play the hole downwind was to bounce over the bunkers.  How daft is that?

Ciao  

[Bryan Izatt]

Hole 18





Walking from the 17th green , past the 13th green, we arrive, through another refined rye grass path between two small dunes at the 18th tee.  As we arrive, you get one of the better views across the mammoth dunes to the North Sea.




From the tee, the hole is all laid out in front of you, albeit with so much going on that it takes a little time to process all the inputs - two ponds on the left, the usual marram rough to the right, and bunkers seemingly everywhere.  As a very long par 5, it seems like Hawtree tried his hardest to create a hole that would be a fitting challenge as the closing hole for a major championship.  Would anybody, with a championship on the line actually have a go at this green in two to set up a birdie?  For the rest of us it is an almost mandatory three shot hole and in that manner a little less interesting.

From the tee, the question is where to place the drive.  Especially into the prevailing wind, not very many would be able to carry the first set of four bunkers which are arranged in a Bottle Hole fashion.  There doesn't seem to be any particular strategic advantage to going left or right other than choosing whether to flirt with the marram rough right or the pond left.




Zoomed in from the tee, most of the seventeen bunkers are visible, as is the roof of the hospitality tent.




From the fairway level, on the left side, and past the first set of bunkers you can see some of the crossing bunkers although many remain hidden.  Laying up short of the two bunkers that are closest seems like the most prudent play, leaving a third shot of some 150 yards to the green.  You could attempt to carry those two bunkers, especially to the left where there appears to be a bailout area, with your second shot, but is a third shot of 80 or 100 yards significantly better to take on the risk.




From the two bunkers at 120 yards from the green, the plethora of ten bunkers, short of the green are in your face.  There are two more, one to the right and one back right of the green that are not in the picture.  What was Hawtree thinking?  There is no earthly way to thread a shot through this mess.  If the intent was to force a long carry to attempt to reach the green, and given the hole was built on sand, why not create a Hell's Half Acre waste area.  Or, why not remove enough of the bunkers to entice players to have a go at it and then possibly meet their doom in one of the pots.  




From closer in, it still appears impossible to run it in.  The last pot, built into the front edge of the green would be really great to protect this pin position if anybody ever wanted to take a run at the green in two.  By itself, it might have been enough.  You can see in this picture that there is the usual bit of runoff on the right side of the green.




From the front left of the green you can see the interesting contours on this long and slightly angled green.  Too bad they didn't build some dunes or a berm to hide the clubhouse in the background.  It could have provided a nice amphitheater for the conclusion of course.

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi Sean,

interesting to hear that. My impression of the shot was that it would be very hit and miss to use the back slope but having said that looking at the photo they have cut the grass down back there since I last saw it in person. It will be interesting to see how it looks next time I drop by. Do you think it would be a reliable shot to play?

On the 10th at Dornoch, I think on Sergio would contemplate the bunker hop shot or running through. The weakness of 10 is there is no bailout area just hit the green or face a really nasty shot.

Jon

Added: 18 is a great looking tee shot but the hole is so over bunkered as to be farcical. Bryan, you are right to ask what Hawtree was thinking!!! However, a very nice looking green complex.

[Ally Mcintosh]

So Bryan,

I'll take you up on a few things here because I - like Rich - think that this hole makes you think and therefore can't be bad.

Sure, that same thinking could possibly have been achieved with a handful less bunkers but look at all the options you have going up the fairway. You say "There doesn't seem to be any particular strategic advantage to going left or right other than choosing whether to flirt with the marram rough right or the pond left". Is that not strategic enough? In other words you still have to choose where you are hitting it and many will blast away and find one of the pots for their stupidity – the fairway is massively wide (in effect two fairways) so there should be no excuse for not thinking… The second shot asks great questions because carrying those fronting two bunkers and leaving your third from 100 yards along the orientation of the green is significantly better than 150 yards against the angle over the fronting pot… This left position for the 2nd is incidentally easier from the left because it will be a shorter carry.

You also say “Too bad they didn't build some dunes or a berm to hide the clubhouse in the background”. Seeing that most great courses revel in having the clubhouse situated behind the 18th green and none of us like to see earthworks for the sake of it, I find this a strange sleight on the last hole (I’d prefer Sean’s assertion that there’s a little walk afterwards if we have to pick negatives).

I’d like to have seen a few less bunkers and a few different shapes. Other than that, I applaud the architects for throwing a little chaos in to the placements of the 18 bunkers that are there. And for including multiple split fairways over a huge width and scale.

[Sean_A]

18 is dog's dinner bad.  The are so many things wrong with the hole that who knows where to start.  The drive is incredibly pinched, to the point that layng up on a god knows how long par 5 is a serious option.  I am shaking head as I type.  Someone lost the plot on this one.  I was left hitting three woods into the green with absolutely nowhere to go for the third after taking on the bunkers off the tee and for the second.  Short right spills right.  Short left spills left.  Then, after all that, there house is nowhere in sight.  Jeez, talk about smash mouth golf.  Ally, you and Rihc can have 18. 

Jon - no, I wouldn't try to bang one between the bunkers on 16 unless the hole played seriously downwind.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

18 is dog's dinner bad.  The are so many things wrong with the hole that who knows where to start.  The drive is incredibly pinched, to the point that layng up on a god knows how long par 5 is a serious option.  I am shaking head as I type.  Someone lost the plot on this one.

Jon - no, I wouldn't try to bang one between the bunkers on 16 unless the hole played seriously downwind.

Ciao

Sean, please do start - I think you are wrong.

Dealing with your first point, the drive is not pinched. At least no more so than any other number of holes with centreline bunkers (and that taking in to account the wind from elevation).

The width was needed given the land / panorama. Some kind of visuals were also needed given the land / panorama.

[Mark Pearce]

I disagree about the ground game option at #16.  I watched a guy bang one between the bunkers and use the back slope to bring his ball back onto the green from the white markers.  The shorter markers on this hole all allow for some leeway.  It is the longer markers further left which are purely aerial unless someone wants to get needlessly funky for some reason.  I think this hole is superior Dornoch's 10th.  I once read a member say that a legitimate way to play the hole downwind was to bounce over the bunkers.  How daft is that?

Ciao  

Not daft at all, I had a tap in birdie last year playing it exactly that way.  If only I could claim it was deliberate....

[Sean_A]

Mark

Come back to me when you successfully hop the bunkers intentionally.  In any case, bunker hopping suggests to me they are insipid and fail to perform their function.

Ally

We played forward tees and carrying the two left bunkers took a good poke.  Playing right between the bunkers is quite narrow.  Playing left is very dangerous.  IMO, given how long the hole is and uphill from the second in, there is not enough space from the tee.  It takes a good wahck to get up to the next set of sand and from there it is no bargain into the green.  The hole is more than annything about brute strength with pinched landing areas. Plus, it looks horrible from any angle.  I can't think of anything positive to say about #18.

Ciao

[Bryan Izatt]

Sean,

I was once daft enough to try to bounce one over the bunker into the 10 at Dornoch.  I had heard the same story.  Needless to say, I don't have the talent to make it work.

[Bryan Izatt]

Ally,

I understand and respect your first point about strategies.  I have a different opinion, and that's OK.  Maybe with more plays (which is very unlikely) I'd come around to your view.  I expect that this hole will be polarizing for those who care to study it.  I would also think that some of the carries for the second shot to get anywhere other than a layup could be quite long, especially into the prevailing wind.

Re the clubhouse, perhaps if it, and the tent were a nicer structure it would be fine even closer to the green.  Given the experience of the course is being isolated in primeval dunes for all the holes except the 9th and 18th I thought that maintaining that design ethic on those two holes would have been nice.  But, I quite like the links courses that start and return to the town.  That is quite nice too, but in a different way.

If you like a little chaos in your bunkering from time to time, then this hole does it for you, as does the 4th.  It didn't work for me, although I don't think it is quite Sean's dog's breakfast either.


  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bryan, Sean,

It appears to me that 18 would create a really strategic hole for today's long hitting pros. That would make a pleasing difference. Most strategic design - through the green at any rate - that we talk about on GCA is rendered null and void by the world's best.

As for 4 Bryan, I'm less keen on that bunkering. Not chaotic enough... And too many for its enclosed location.

[Sean_A]

Ally

I suspect you are correct.  Although, where does that leave every sucker out there paying the fee?  I guess I am saying that to some degree, the golfer must be accommodated.  I don't believe 18 does that very well.  I would hope to at least be entertained if not accommodated.  18 failed on both counts.  Its rockem' sockem' modern golf lacking in charm or subtlety.  I can only take so much of that and 18 was the straw that broke the Camel's back.  Great course for sure, but I think great for a certain segment of the golfing population.  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()