I'm going to jump to the defense of Kingsbarns here -- largely cause I think one of the knocks on it that my good friend Ben points out is that the fields surrounding the course give away the artificiality of it.
Mark Parsinen, the man largely responsible for the creation of the course, points out that you'd never notice the fields off the tee, and if you're anywhere near the fairway, you won't see them then, either.
I played Kingsbarns the first time and completely missed the fields that are on the west side of the opening nine. Kyle Phillips and Parsinen did such a good job that a golfer's attention is never on the course's surroundings, unless it is the ocean. I think the grading and routing really keeps a golfer's focus on the hole and away from the surrounding area (except, perhaps, for the 12th, where you can see Crail in the distance.)
Sure, Kingsbarns doesn't look exactly like Crail, or St. Andrews, or Cruden Bay. But it is pretty damned close. Any knock against the course comes largely from critics who find some of its nuances (ie. -- the large greens) overdone. However, I wonder if this course was 90 years old, would we think of these facets in another way?
To me, Whistling Straits looks excellent, but quite obviously constructed. I don't think Kingsbarns does. That is not a knock on the quality of golf experience at either place.
My only criticism of Kingbarns is the routing makes it a long walk -- 4.5 hour rounds aren't uncommon, even if you're playing at a good clip. However, I don't recall Cruden Bay being a breeze to walk either.
As for the comment that people would simply return to St. Andrews over and over and pass on Kingsbarns.... well, then they really don't know what they are missing, now do they?
Robert