A Pictorial: The Castle Course!!!

[Michael Dugger]

I would love to see what Melvyn would have done with that site.....

And while I too adore sheep    measuring the greatness of a golf course based on whether or not the sheep seek refuge in bunkers is about the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Like I said before, Melvyn, do you use hickories?  If not, why not? 

Do you play with featheries?  If not, why not?

The one constant in the world is change, Melvyn, you can fight it, but you will loose.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

I would love to see what Melvyn would have done with that site.....

Nothing – would never have used that site.

And while I too adore sheep     measuring the greatness of a golf course based on whether or not the sheep seek refuge in bunkers is about the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

I feel you may have missed the other part of the joke, but then when you see the top 100 course list perhaps the judges used the same criteria – as it would certainly explain some of their placements.

Like I said before, Melvyn, do you use hickories?  If not, why not?

Yes, at times.

Do you play with featheries?  If not, why not?

No, as just too expensive and not really available anymore. They don’t hold their shape and tend not to roll very far. Although at time the odd old one is still found on TOC

The one constant in the world is change, Melvyn, you can fight it, but you will loose.

I am not against change or technology, but in a sensible controlled way and not in the current free for all approach.

Melvyn

[Michael Dugger]

I think you are being a little harsh, Melvyn.

For starters, you are out of touch with reality with your "that plot of land should never have had a golf course put upon it."

In some regards, I'm right there with you, such as in the case of desert courses.  I dislike the idea of needing a bunch of water for something to grow in the middle of the desert!!!  Terrible idea.

But I accept that the earth is a finite place, and the population is growing exponentially.  Golf course architects do not always get "plum" sites to build courses for us to play this great game upon.   

I think the best we can hope for is architects to give homage to the great old courses of yesteryear when it comes to their designs.  We should hope they embrace mother nature by attempting to emulate her great features. 

In this regard the Castle Course should be viewed as a success.  It could have been faaaaaaaaar worse.     

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

I think you are being a little harsh, Melvyn.

You do, well good for you, voice your opinion after all its your right

For starters, you are out of touch with reality with your "that plot of land should never have had a golf course put upon it."

Glad to see that you are well conversant with that plot of land, having walked and known the land as a farm? Out of touch with reality, I could be, but not as far as locating a course on that site. Nor would I have been stupid and thrown millions to correct my error in selecting the site in the first place. As for reality, it’s only a state of mind anyway.

In some regards, I'm right there with you, such as in the case of desert courses.  I dislike the idea of needing a bunch of water for something to grow in the middle of the desert!!!  Terrible idea.

However, are you out of touch with reality?

But I accept that the earth is a finite place, and the population is growing exponentially.  Golf course architects do not always get "plum" sites to build courses for us to play this great game upon.

So there are shortage of sites, so don’t waste money building a course, or is the course just the cherry on the developers cake?   

I think the best we can hope for is architects to give homage to the great old courses of yesteryear when it comes to their designs.  We should hope they embrace mother nature by attempting to emulate her great features.

Yes, embrace Mother Nature but don’t violently rape her first to try to create your b*~!?*d

In this regard the Castle Course should be viewed as a success.  It could have been faaaaaaaaar worse.   

Yes I suppose we could say a success but in producing a Disneyland outside St Andrews at a ridicules cost.  What do you mean “It could have been faaaaaaaaar worse”, it is, plus there are talks of modifications already – far worse, a slight understatement IMHO

Melvyn 

[Kyle Henderson]

MHM,

Do you think the building of the Castle Course "raped" the land on that site nay more than agricultural practices or the once-upon-a-time construction of an actual castle?

Also, what was the exact cost of construction for the Castle Course and how does it compare to the cost of more minimalistic designs completed on "better" sites in recent years (e.g. Machrihanish Dunes, another DMK course or Barnbougle Dunes, etc)?

I think numbers would do well to support your perspective.

Respectfully,
Kyle

[David_Tepper]

Kyle -

Don't worry, MHM never bothers to let the facts get in the way of his opinions!

DT

[Jed Peters]

Kyle--

Any similarities to Morgan Creek? I've had people say that they can totally tell Kingsbairns and MC were built by the same guy.....

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Oh Dear David, just because I don’t give you the answers you want to hear or acknowledge, you feel that you have the right to take the Mick.

Go ahead, but I will just leave it that we don’t agree on certain subjects. One in particular - the right of GCA.com Members to have the right to freedom of opinion, speech & independence of thought.

Kyle

As for the Castle site, I have a double interest, one, I know or knew the land prior to the course and the second, related to St Andrews golf. There may be others who share my double interest and they may therefore understand my position.

I attach a few older photos of the land without the course to explain one of my objections to the building of a course on this section of land.




To change the landscape to what you played over a few weeks ago is nothing short in my opinion of grievous bodily rape of the land, but of course it is your right to disagree. As for the cost of the Castle Course, if I remember correctly we may have had a topic on it last year here on GCA.com

Kyle, do you get a feel from the photos that there could be a golf course on this land? I don't but it's just my opinion.

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

Perhaps one day the Castle Course will be "Carts Only" AND require all golfers to play the exact same set of clubs and golf ball.
Then you will be really conflicted! (but that is just my opinion )

DT

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Are you playing Devil’s Advocate or have sincere opinions in that direction?

Maybe neither, but seeking some fun at my expense. 

As for the Castle Course, I feel it might have been more fortuitous if the unexploded German bombs that fell during WWII on that plot of land had indeed exploded

However, to be totally truthful I would hope that during the middle of the night (so no one is hurt) that any bombs missed would suddenly explode sending the Castle Course down the cliff into the sea. For a few seconds the Castle Course could then be described as a true Links course before disappearing under the waves (with carts and all). I for one would not miss it, but poor Kyle may not share these unlikely hopes. Nevertheless, we can but dream.

Melvyn

[Kyle Henderson]

Truthfully,
I've seen courses bulit in California at much greater expense (both to the site that existed before the golf course and in terms of dollars) that did not turn out nearly so well The Castle Course. Again, I'll refer you to the Hotel and two courses built on the shores of the Pacific at Half Moon Bay, or even the Fairmont St. Andrews project.

Like I said, I respect your opinion and agree with many of the concept you put forth. It just so happens that I also think the golf course provides some value. Having no persoanl experience with the area before May of this year, I'm not qualified to speak as to whether or not the value makes up for the expense.

David

Oh Dear David, just because I don’t give you the answers you want to hear or acknowledge, you feel that you have the right to take the Mick.

Go ahead, but I will just leave it that we don’t agree on certain subjects. One in particular - the right of GCA.com Members to have the right to freedom of opinion, speech & independence of thought.

Kyle

As for the Castle site, I have a double interest, one, I know or knew the land prior to the course and the second, related to St Andrews golf. There may be others who share my double interest and they may therefore understand my position.

I attach a few older photos of the land without the course to explain one of my objections to the building of a course on this section of land.




To change the landscape to what you played over a few weeks ago is nothing short in my opinion of grievous bodily rape of the land, but of course it is your right to disagree. As for the cost of the Castle Course, if I remember correctly we may have had a topic on it last year here on GCA.com

Kyle, do you get a feel from the photos that there could be a golf course on this land? I don't but it's just my opinion.

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

On that note, I think we should leave it. However, I am pleased you had a good time overhere

Melvyn

[Greg Tallman]

Are all those frilly bunkers really necessary?   Perhaps this photograph answers that question:



Bogey

Agreed, they look totally out of place in this setting.

[Anthony Gray]

Are all those frilly bunkers really necessary?   Perhaps this photograph answers that question:



Bogey

Agreed, they look totally out of place in this setting.

  Look at this green closely. It is a roller coaster.

  Anthony

[Gary Slatter]

Kyle, when can you come by and visit our Torrance and Kittocks Courses?  The former St Andrews Bay, now Fairmont.
I think you might be surprised at how good the Torrance has become with the recent improvements. Before the improvements it was very popular, with Scottish golfers!  Its everything the Castle could have been!  Re-opens July 14th but you can play it anytime!

Melvyn: please drop by too!  Since reading so much about potatoe fields and sheep I have been investigating somewhat.
Before the potatoes fields what did this coast look like? there are undisturbed areas and they look very rumpled.  I also just read that sheep were not that common in this area.

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle, when can you come by and visit our Torrance and Kittocks Courses?  The former St Andrews Bay, now Fairmont.
I think you might be surprised at how good the Torrance has become with the recent improvements. Before the improvements it was very popular, with Scottish golfers!  Its everything the Castle could have been!  Re-opens July 14th but you can play it anytime!

Melvyn: please drop by too!  Since reading so much about potatoe fields and sheep I have been investigating somewhat.
Before the potatoes fields what did this coast look like? there are undisturbed areas and they look very rumpled.  I also just read that sheep were not that common in this area.

I peeked at the courses from the club house, but it was obviously impossible to gauge their quality by that method.

I doubt the land was rumpled in a manner exactly like that of the Castle Course, but Kidd's intent was to restore naturalistic golfing features that he presumed existed before agricultural pratices took their toll. Certainly, the features hi team bulit differ markedly from what was constructed at your facility right next door.

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle--

Any similarities to Morgan Creek? I've had people say that they can totally tell Kingsbairns and MC were built by the same guy.....

Kingsbarns and The Castle Course both featured Mick McShane as lead shaper while Kingsbarns and Morgan Creek both had input from Kyle Phillips,  the lead GCA of record. To my knowledge, their is no direct connection between the personnel that buikt the Castle and those involved with "Morgan Creek.

That being said, their are some similarities in shaping around the green complexes (big swales and deep, fescue-lined bunkering). Certainly both courses were heavily shaped from mediocre sites and both turned out pretty well.

[Tom Kelly]

Just stumbled across this thread via a few others and although a few years late and you may have since found answers to some of the questions posted here by now, I thought I could answer a couple if you hadn't!

1)
Melvyn the course wasn't initially built to earn money. The original idea was to take load of the courses down on the links as they were getting over played and the course condition was suffering as a consequence. The original budget was relatively small and the links trust just asked for 'another course' without any specific requests for a championship or modern or faux links course or anything. I am told it was DMK design who convinced the links trust to raise the budget and buy some extra land which is now 16th green and 17th in order to give the course the chance to be something special as any new course at St Andrews should aspire to be. I believe the total cost ran into the region of £10mil (?) maybe a touch under.  The prices then had to match the construction costs an competition, the links after all is a charity and can't afford to make a loss. You can also look on some of you £110+ as funding the continued up-keep and preservation of the Old course, which may help the bruising you wallet has taken?!!

I personally think £60+ for the New is far better value, but would recommend people as least try to see the Castle, especially on a sunny day as the views alone are fantastic and almost worth the green fee.

2)
I do not know of any other land around St Andrews, especially on the coast which is/was any better or more suitable and the links aren't going to build a course miles out of town/in a different town to ease the load on the west sands.

3)
I think everybody involved will probably admit now they may have got a bit over excited with the greens and surrounds contours. Changes are being slowly made each winter to certain areas of the course, especially some run-offs to make them less severe.

4)
It is definitely a 'Marmite' course but I believe playing it with the right mind set (i.e. not caring about your score and with a smile on your face) it can be very enjoyable. I would hate to have to play a medal round there though!

5)
I would rather see someone try to push the boundaries on a project like this than settle for mediocre and I believe the architects etc definitely tried to push the boundaries. Maybe they went too far and a 'better' course might have been built, but given the land I think they can say they made a good effort.

They wanted to create a course people would talk about and they definitely did that!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Thomas

The Castle Course was built to make money, that was confirmed by the initial high Green Fees when it opened.  The course is not needed due to congestion but was wanted within the St Andrews post code to attract golfers, why to make money certainly not overspill.

No harm in wanting to make money out of a course, but trying to sell a fake links, one at the beating heart of the game is quite honestly madness. TOC, The New, Jubilee and I suppose we could just about include the Eden course (well it’s been cut about a bit now) are what St Andrews is all about. Introduce a new course on unsuitable land that has to be stripped back to its bare rocks then reformed is not what I believe St Andrews should represent.

Regrettably IMHO the Links Trust have allowed fake into the equation.  The Castle Course is just another mass produced course positioned on the outskirts of St Andrews – located at that position to sell the St Andrews heritage to any golfer not up on his history of the game.

Re-locate the course in any other part of GB or the world and it would be just another expensive mass produced course trying to be what it certainly is not in the hope of satisfy the needs of a community. Its totally wrong for the Home of Golf as it does not represent the GCA that one should expect at St Andrews.


Add to that the need from the start to modify certain parts of the course has not done The Links Trust or the town of St Andrews any favours.

Melvyn

[Tom Kelly]

Thomas

The Castle Course was built to make money, that was confirmed by the initial high Green Fees when it opened.  The course is not needed due to congestion but was wanted within the St Andrews post code to attract golfers, why to make money certainly not overspill.

No harm in wanting to make money out of a course, but trying to sell a fake links, one at the beating heart of the game is quite honestly madness. TOC, The New, Jubilee and I suppose we could just about include the Eden course (well it’s been cut about a bit now) are what St Andrews is all about. Introduce a new course on unsuitable land that has to be stripped back to its bare rocks then reformed is not what I believe St Andrews should represent.

Regrettably IMHO the Links Trust have allowed fake into the equation.  The Castle Course is just another mass produced course positioned on the outskirts of St Andrews – located at that position to sell the St Andrews heritage to any golfer not up on his history of the game.

Re-locate the course in any other part of GB or the world and it would be just another expensive mass produced course trying to be what it certainly is not in the hope of satisfy the needs of a community. Its totally wrong for the Home of Golf as it does not represent the GCA that one should expect at St Andrews.


Add to that the need from the start to modify certain parts of the course has not done The Links Trust or the town of St Andrews any favours.

Melvyn

Melvyn

Trust me, having heard it from a number of people involved at The Links Trust and the Castle Course in particular who are all very high up, the course was built to reduce congestion and wear on the west sands courses especially the old. Around the same time other measures were taken such as reducing the number of tee times per day on TOC to help improve the course condition, which have both worked.

As I'm sure you know The Links Trust is a Charity therefore can not make a profit by law. Why build a course to make more money? Any money made from the Castle would have to be spent on the others courses (If they do make a profit it can therefore only be a good thing surely?). If money making was the original aim why not just raise the visitor fees for TOC? When comparing it to the competition in Scotland of Turnberry, Kingsbarns, Muirfield etc they could charge far more for a round TOC and still fill the tee times everyday easily, why build a new course?! Your argument makes no sense. As I stated above the high fees for the Castle (which are too high imo) are there as a way of recovering the cost of the construction having seen the costs rise due to the extra land purchased and more money spend on the course to try to achieve a better standard of course.

I do agree with you up to a point about a 'fake links' is not really in keeping with the tradition of St Andrews, but needs must and alternative links land was not available, so as a final result the Castle is not a bad one. It could have been better, but also could have been far worse.

Tom

p.s. Ignoring the Castle Course for a moment your continuing point on many threads about changes having to be made a few years down the line means it must have been really bad in the first place doesn't always ring true either. Colt in particular regularly said to wait and see how a course played before adding more bunkers or altering the severity of greens and other slopes around the course. I also believe Mackenzie did the same on occasion. Did they build many bad courses? It is true sometimes changes were made because the original design was poor, but it is not always the case.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hi Tom

I believe you need to check with The Links Trust, but attendance is not that good at this new overspill course, while the main courses are still turning out the rounds each year.

As for making money, that’s the name of the game for a charity, it needs the money to achieve its aims and pay its staff as well as accumulate more courses to continue the process. To make money and charge a heavy Fee the course had to be seen as part of the St Andrews set, but why anyone wants to pay for this mess is beyond me. I understand why some people are against golf and in particular golf courses, all I need to do is look to The Castle, its out and out shouts misunderstand of every part of the design process, it’s the modern tendency to destroy and raping the land to build a fake Disneyland course yet have the nerve to cash in on the name of St Andrews.

As for the changes these are due to cock-up, poor understanding and wrong location for a course as well as some that might have been generated while reforming the land, It has nothing to do with the way the early designers worked – that for the most part was continuing the design process, the Castle was just mistakes after mistakes.

Old Tom was well known to leave a course in play for an average of 3 months or so before returning to locate and build the bunkers or add more. They used the divot marks to access the position and location of the bunkers. But that’s on-going development of the original design, it was known before the designers left on the Opening day. The Castle was a total f@*k up as the problems arose later.

I am a great supporter of The Links Trust, but they got this wrong, They are trying to sell what in affect is the equivalent of a mass produced run of the mill course at The Home of Golf. Golfers expectations are high but you suddenly realise or should I say forget where you are as it could be anywhere in the world. Someone seems to have missed the point at The Links Trust and produced a white Elephant, but they still need to sell as many rounds as they can to make money. Bloody pity, but that’s my opinion.

Melvyn

[Tom Kelly]

Hi Tom

I believe you need to check with The Links Trust, but attendance is not that good at this new overspill course, while the main courses are still turning out the rounds each year.

As for making money, that’s the name of the game for a charity, it needs the money to achieve its aims and pay its staff as well as accumulate more courses to continue the process. To make money and charge a heavy Fee the course had to be seen as part of the St Andrews set, but why anyone wants to pay for this mess is beyond me. I understand why some people are against golf and in particular golf courses, all I need to do is look to The Castle, its out and out shouts misunderstand of every part of the design process, it’s the modern tendency to destroy and raping the land to build a fake Disneyland course yet have the nerve to cash in on the name of St Andrews.

As for the changes these are due to cock-up, poor understanding and wrong location for a course as well as some that might have been generated while reforming the land, It has nothing to do with the way the early designers worked – that for the most part was continuing the design process, the Castle was just mistakes after mistakes.

Old Tom was well known to leave a course in play for an average of 3 months or so before returning to locate and build the bunkers or add more. They used the divot marks to access the position and location of the bunkers. But that’s on-going development of the original design, it was known before the designers left on the Opening day. The Castle was a total f@*k up as the problems arose later.

I am a great supporter of The Links Trust, but they got this wrong, They are trying to sell what in affect is the equivalent of a mass produced run of the mill course at The Home of Golf. Golfers expectations are high but you suddenly realise or should I say forget where you are as it could be anywhere in the world. Someone seems to have missed the point at The Links Trust and produced a white Elephant, but they still need to sell as many rounds as they can to make money. Bloody pity, but that’s my opinion.

Melvyn

Melvyn my point about the course changes was not meant to be specific to the Castle, yes they made mistakes that have had to be rectified, but the architects also say they set out to try to push the limits with the green severity....they got too excited and went over the limits!!

The other courses do get more rounds true, but I believe I am right in saying the number of local links ticket holder rounds on the Castle is increasing ever year.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about the cost/money making issue as I don't understand your argument about a charity wanting to make more money? They make enough to cover their costs and present the courses in the necessary high quality manner and that is it. Other places build extra courses to bring in more people and more rounds to create a bigger profit, charities do not need do this. They do not need or intend to "accumulate more courses to continue the process". A Charity of The Links Trust type does not need to expand to make more money, they are not trying to feed Africa?! I believe they would prefer it if less people came to play their courses and they took less money so they could preserve the land and courses more easily and give the locals more chance to play on the courses.

Anyway lets agree to disagree?

Tom

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Why have the Links Trust just bought The Tom Morris Business when they already have another outlet, could it be to make money to reinvest again - it's all about making money and using it for future projects, be they a charity or not.

Why buy Old Tom shop?  Can’t be to make money so why spend all that money then refurbish the shop too – It’s a business, so it’s a charity, what has that to do with not wanting to make money?

Melvyn

[Tom Kelly]

Tom

Why have the Links Trust just bought The Tom Morris Business when they already have another outlet, could it be to make money to reinvest again - it's all about making money and using it for future projects, be they a charity or not.

Why buy Old Tom shop?  Can’t be to make money so why spend all that money then refurbish the shop too – It’s a business, so it’s a charity, what has that to do with not wanting to make money?

Melvyn

I don't know all the reasons behind this but, I could guess that with the previous business not doing very well, it is an excellent way of ensuring the shop does not get re-developed by an outsider and lost into the history books, it is prime "real-estate" after all. It will always be kept and maintained whilst under the eyes of the Trust??

Just specualtion?!

[Gary Slatter]

The "trust" is a charity, however it competes unfairly with almost every other business in St Andrews.  And it pays it's employees more than any private golf company can.