[Sean_A]

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

[Thomas Dai]

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

[James Brown]

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,. 

[Sean_A]

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

[Ally Mcintosh]

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.

[Josh Tarble]

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.

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Michael Essig]

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  ).

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.

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Adam Lawrence]

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.

[Michael Essig]

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 Essig]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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 Kelly]

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.

[Adam Lawrence]

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.

[Michael Essig]

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 Essig]

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.

[Gary Slatter]

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""

[Sean_A]

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  ),  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     

[Joe_Tucholski]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()