[Mike Benham]

Whistling Straits vs. Kingsbarn - perhaps 2 of the most manufactured, most contrived modern courses in the world today that are immensely similar in their development and the vision of the architect ...

Compare and contrast ...

If anyone has played both, or seem them intimately, can you provide a match play of the holes ...

[Joe_Hatley]

I've not played WS, so I can't compare them at that level of detail.  For that matter, perhaps I shouldn't compare them at all.  However, I recently played Kingsbarns and would have to disagree with your characterization of it, compared to what I saw of WS on television.

I thought the designers of Kingsbarns did a terrific job of manufacturing a true links course.  It plays fast and firm (including the run ups) and was quite comparable to many of the other Scottish links courses in terms of both appearance and playability.  (Pricing is another matter, however  ).

I believe it is not proper to call WS a "Scottish-style" course (as it tries to market itself) because I've never seen a Scottish course that looks anything like it.  It is more of a caricature of a Scottish course.

From what I've seen, they are not similar at all.

[Travis Ripley]

i've only played Kbs of the two.  i would agree entirely with another poster this last week who mentioned that from the middle tees "bunting it around" was possible.....but also included the many lines of proper shot-making were enabled by the architecture and punished some otherwise.  

from the back tees, i don't know.

i thought Kingsbarns was fantastic.

[Tom_Doak]

I have not played either one, although I saw them both at about the same stage of finish ... just as they were becoming playable but before they were open.

Kingsbarns definitely did a better job in creating true links conditions.  This is due to the agronomy input of Dave Wilber and Walter Woods, and to the fact that the soils [though they had to be stripped and replaced] and temps and wind conditions were more conducive to links conditions at Kingsbarns than in Wisconsin.

I also think the visual effect of Kingsbarns is more appealing than at Whistling Straits.

Hole-by-hole, I don't remember Whistling Straits quite well enough to do it justice.  It's tough to match them up since the par-3's fall on different numbers, so you're always comparing the best holes on one course against the par-3's on the other.  I think it would be pretty close.

[Brad Klein]

Kingsbarns is much more thoughtful about backgrounding as many holes as possible with the shoreline, not with just the water per se. KB is also built on sand, whereas WS is clay - a crucial difference. KB also has a more natural tilt towards the ocean whereas WS had to be created entirely - all of its contours.

WS is more playful, more distracting; KB is more serious and focused and controlled. Both are equally fascinating to walk and to play.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Brad,

You say Kingsbarns is built on sand. Now, that property is not linksland, is it? If not, was the inherent soil there sand? If not, how much of a "sand cap" was put on the course? I'm curious.

Any idea?

[Paul Richards]

I'd take the Straits (note - not Straights) over Kingsbarns.

Yes, both are contrived and both obviously man-made, but I think that WS overall is a better course - and definately leaves a better lasting 'impression' than Kingsbarns.

That being said, they are both excellent golf courses.

[Yancey_Beamer]

Jeff,
I walked the course with Walter Woods when it was under construction.The sand was stripped and stored.After shaping the clay soil the sand was returned as a cap.I played the course this year when Walter invited me out.It plays precisely like linksland.A remarkeble creation.This course could have been there a century.

[Michael Whitaker]

I had the good fortune to play six rounds of golf in Scotland a few weeks ago with three friends who were visiting the Auld Sod for the first time. We played The Old Course, Carnoustie, Kingsbarns, Scotscraig, North Berwick (West Links), and Dunbar.

On the trip home I asked them to compare notes and give me a "ranking" of the courses we played, based on their overall experience. I asked them, "If we had to do it all over again, and you didn't know how many rounds you would get to play, in what order would you pick the courses to play."

Here is their ranking:

1) Kingsbarns
2) North Berwick
3) Carnoustie
4) Old Course
5) Dunbar
6) Scotscraig

Surprised?

[Paul Richards]

Michael

very interesting.

now my take on this would be that if Whistling Straits were 'added' to this list, it would be the new #1!

 

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, I played only two of the six, North Berwick and The Old Course.  While I was absolutely fascinated with TOC, and loved seeing the bunkers, greensites, etc which I had studied for many years for the first time, and can't wait to play it again, I enjoyed playing North Berwick's West Links more than any course I've played in years.  It has to do with the unusual and historic holes, the low key atmosphere of the town and course compared to St Andrews, and the beautiful setting where the ocean is in view on every hole.  As you can tell, I just LOVED North Berwick.

[Sean Walsh]

I am an unabashed fan of Kingsbarns.  And although it is perhaps a little unfair to pass comment on WS after only doing so on tv, I am now going to do just that.

The main difference I could see between the two was that although man made Kingsbarns appears natural.  In fact I wasn't aware until after playing it how much dirt they had actually moved.  Those with greater experience with Linksland may have been able to notice the man made features, I couldn't (except perhaps the hill in front of 11, which has some similiarity in contour to the hill in front of 15 at Royal Dornoch but closer to the green).

With WS the man made features are immediately striking to the eye (i.e 18 and the railway sleepers.).

Based on this one facet I would say Kingsbarns is a true links course while WS is an imitation.  A very good imitation but an imitation nonetheless.

Also gladly Kingsbarns played reasonably hard and fast, which according to the pro's WS didn't.  Which may have something to do with the climatic and perhaps geological conditions Tom was talking about.

Lastly, to my mind Kingsbarns seemed to have a flow about it.  Even while watching the Dunhill last year on tv I think this could still be said.  WS appeared to be a series of good holes placed together not a course routed over good ground.  This may be just the effect of television coverage, I'm not sure.

No really lastly, At Kingsbarns very wide even double fairways a la TOC are provided on some holes.  This I presume adds to my feeling that the course flows better amongst the created environment.

That's it, finished now, nothing else to add, I'll be going, see ya, bye,

 

[Wayne Freeman]

I'll vote with Paul on this one.  I thought Kingsbarns was good, but no way in the same league with some of the other biggies there like Carnoustie or Turnberry.  And I'd take Whistling Straits any day over KB.  

[Brian Phillips]

I have not played either one, although I saw them both at about the same stage of finish ... just as they were becoming playable but before they were open.

Kingsbarns definitely did a better job in creating true links conditions.  This is due to the agronomy input of Dave Wilber and Walter Woods, and to the fact that the soils [though they had to be stripped and replaced] and temps and wind conditions were more conducive to links conditions at Kingsbarns than in Wisconsin.

Not just those two but also Dr.Paul Miller and of course the Super. Stuart M. who looks after the course sooo well.

I have not played WS but I have played, walked and studied Kingsbarns and I am sure that my children (when they play it) will class it as a pure linksin about 10 years time and don't tell them about the construction.  If you didn't know the history of the course a normal golfer would think it was a links course.

Those that like WS over Kingsbarns surprise me.  Kingbarns is fescue wall to wall even on the greens...it plays like a links course (unlike WS).  It has fescue greens not creeping bent and the greens are hard...unlike WS....no contest..

WS is not even close to being a links course (from what I saw on tv due to the softness of the course). WS to me is a more 'in your face eye candy sort of course'.  I doubt (and I am guessing here) that many from Europe would vote WS over Kingsbarns because of our love for links courses.

As Sean says..Kingsbarns has something on EVERY hole that WS doesn't have....width...one of the main ingredients of strategic golf design...

Jeff,

I don't have time to go into detail about the construction that Dr.Paul Miller and Stuart M. taught me but the old links sand that was found was turned over and brought to the top and used over the whole course.  Stuart has told me afterwards he lost a lot of sleep as they were nearing the end as he wasn't sure there was enough of it to go around.

Stuart was the Project Manager for Southern Golf during construction and took the job of Super. after construction.  Before going into construction he had worked on the Links Trust courses so he has a pretty good background in links courses.

Brian.

[Marty Bonnar]

...and Kingsbarns, with 79 (I think!) bunkers, has approximately 1321 less than WS....!

FBD.

[Shane Gurnett]

Can someone provide a comparison between Whistling Straits and Kiawah Island (Ocean Course). Both P Dye courses, both on the water, they look similar to me from some of the profile pic's on this site. I haven't seen any of these three courses in the flesh.

Is KI closer to WS than K?

[Bob_Huntley]

I have not played WS and in looking at its degree of difficulty, I am not inclined to jump on a plane to do so.

KB is a gem and anyone that is not enthralled playing it is a gofing curmudgeon indeed. My enthusiasm for the course is it allows one to play in the air, along the ground and does so for the scratch man and duffer, not just because it only costs me twelve pounds to play it.

[Lloyd_Cole]

As a Dye fan, am I alone in having no desire to visit a faux links that plays like target golf where I'm pretty sure the golf is 99% cigar and cart and the rounds are 5 hours minimum? Fun to watch them play, sure, but so is Sawgrass and I'm never going back there. Kingsbarns I will get to next year for sure.

[Brad Klein]

Lloyd,

the pace of play at WS is 4.5 hours, easily achieved, thanks to a caddie program that has everybody walking.

Kingsbarns and Whistling Straits are both fascinating, and the fact they can generate this much controversy is pretty impressive - though when the battle is taken up by folks who judge on the basis of what they see on TV I have a problem with their argument. In any case, the two courses are certainly more compelling and sophisticated than The Ocean Course at Kiawah, which is a fine test, recently much improved, but not comparable with respect to views, integration of shoreline, variety of shots, and the visibility of approaches. No knock on the course, but as long as we're comparing . . . .

[Tom_Doak]

The irony of this conversation ...

Kingsbarns did a great job of creating links conditions and pretty natural contouring, yet when someone with a trained eye goes to Scotland to play it, it must be compared side-by-side with Muirfield and Dornoch and St. Andrews and it cannot pull off the illusion completely.  I think they did a great job of creating natural-looking contours, and yet there is something a bit American about the way those contours are used, particularly in the greens complexes.

On the other hand, if you plopped down Whistling Straits five miles from St. Andrews, Scots youths would probably take to it with cans of spray paint because it is SO artificial and American in appearance ... and yet, in Wisconsin, it passes for a "links" because few people here really know what a links is.  It's a fine golf course for which I have a lot of respect, but it is not a links.

I do not share Brad's view that they are both way better than Kiawah just because they are more elaborate, however neither stoops to placing a pond in front of the 17th green.

[Mike Hendren]

The set-up and telecast gave a highly false impression of the fairway widths at Whistling Straits.  In fact, they are easily among the widest and most accomodating fairways I've ever played and are a true strength of the course, IMHO.  

The only comparison I can make is this:  I can easily live without playing WS again and without ever playing Kingsbarn.  That does not speak to their respective architectural merits, but merely reflects the fact that if I'm in the neighborhood I'd rather play The Old Course for the 3rd, 4th, 5th .... time than Kingsbarn for the first.  

Regardless, we are fortunate on both sides of the pond that such golf courses are being built.  It's just a shame that they are so darned expensive to play.

Mike  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

One of the biggest misconceptions from this post is how artificial WS is relative to KB. I am not sure how you look out to the fields on the first five holes at Kingsbarns and think the course is anything but manufactured. I enjoyed the course for the elements of the ground game that its wild greens, but the contours are clearly manufactured.

As for WS, having narrowed it for the PGA, it did not resemble the course I have played entirely, but target golf? There is lots of width and the openings in front of most greens really make the comparison to Sawgrass confounding. Whistling Straits may be a slog for the pros from the back tees, but in the four rounds I have played there the other average golfers in the group had no trouble scoring if they stayed on the high side.

Given the greater chance for the wind to blow at Kingsbarns, I cannot believe that it is much easier for the average golfer than WS. To those who think it lacks the fun element associated with Kingsbarns and have not seen it, I would suggest that you might be surprised.

As for the matchplay:
WS 1up
WS 2 up
WS 3 up (Though this is a neat reachable par five at KB)
WS 2 up (KB's neat green and solid angles win over the brute)
WS 1 up (My least favourite hole at WS)
AS (KB's wild short par four to WS' cool short hole, which was better with the split fairway.
AS (KBs tough par four against another lakeside par three)
AS (WS long slog against the short par with a near green)
AS (Only KB's green makes this a halve)
WS 1 up
WS 2 up
WS 2 up (Two of each courses greatest holes)
WS 3 up
WS 2 up (Kingsbarns second solid short par four)
WS 1 up (The beautiful 15 at KB, though into a wind this is far more penal than anything at WS)
WS 1 up (Though this might go to WS)
WS 2 up
WS 2 up - It is a bit eerie to think how similar the closing holes are in a way. The approach is from a flattish downhill lie with a fronting hazard and tough green. Both are two of my least favourite holes on either course.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Brad

My mistake, that is encouraging. I hope someone is teaching them how to caddy, though. In Bandon 90% are actually bag carriers, with little or no knowledge of golf or the courses, and I don't need someone to carry my bag, yet..

Re - the artificiality of WS, I think the problem is that it in no way attempts to to be part of it's locality, obviously this is what Kohler wanted, but it looks more like a theme park than a golf course to me. It should be noted that WS is not alone in being highly rated and not on my wish list.

Lloyd,

the pace of play at WS is 4.5 hours, easily achieved, thanks to a caddie program that has everybody walking.

Kingsbarns and Whistling Straits are both fascinating, and the fact they can generate this much controversy is pretty impressive - though when the battle is taken up by folks who judge on the basis of what they see on TV I have a problem with their argument. In any case, the two courses are certainly more compelling and sophisticated than The Ocean Course at Kiawah, which is a fine test, recently much improved, but not comparable with respect to views, integration of shoreline, variety of shots, and the visibility of approaches. No knock on the course, but as long as we're comparing . . . .

[Lloyd_Cole]

Ben

What is the point in having the openings to the greens if you can't use them?? if you can't roll it. That is why folk are calling it target golf, I think.

As for WS, having narrowed it for the PGA, it did not resemble the course I have played entirely, but target golf? There is lots of width and the openings in front of most greens really make the comparison to Sawgrass confounding.

[Jeff Goldman]

Folks, I know that WS played slow and soft this week, and I don't know why, but it hasn't in the past.  I have rolled the ball (really  ) from 100-150 yards out onto the greens there.  For a mid-handicap, it is significantly easier than the River Course (which is better imho).  If they widen back the fairways, it will be again.  And nobody has answered the question why a course can't be firm and fast if it has bentgrass approaches, and fairways I guess.

Jeff Goldman

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()