News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #225 on: July 29, 2009, 02:08:50 AM »
My mistake Mark, I should have said you are condemning the cosmetics of the course.  

I sense ulterior motives when people draw very strong opinions before they have all the information.  If you have none then great.

I look forward to hearing about what you think of the course after you have actually seen it.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 02:16:59 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #226 on: July 29, 2009, 04:32:28 AM »

David

One of the things that saddens me regards this site, is the inability of you Americans just to accept an honest comment without thinking that we are attacking not just you but your culture.

I look at the way this tread has increased its longevity because you will not accept that we are not keen on – yes, let’s call it cosmic feature or two. There is no malice in any of the statements I have read, just honest opinions on what some of us believe seem pointless and does not appear to reflect a Scottish golf course feature in the correct manner. Let’s not forget that this course is sited near the heart of many old and highly respected courses towards the North of our country.

As for the course, no one has mentioned how it plays or criticised it in any way, not having played it.

Chocolate Box highly manicured courses maybe your preference, which I have nothing against but it’s not for me. I want natural or as natural as common sense allows, I certainly see no reason to dress bunkers or have crenulations to the tops of sleepers, which with your photos have clearly shown is not an old Scottish golfing custom. I have used the word faked parts regards a few bunkers, because that is true. If it is not a Scottish tradition then what is the purpose, perhaps to dress these odd bunkers to attract overseas visitors perhaps may be a plausible excuse, well if excuses are required.

Michael

“never thought I'd see the day when someone was bitching about an architect attempting to make a feature look weathered or like it had been there for a while”.

Bitching, not just an honest opinion of what was seen in the photos. Nevertheless, bitching. Nice one Michael, show the contempt you have for your fellow members. I don’t know your Nationality and will not hazard a guess, but features as previously describes are acceptable to you, fine that’s your belief. However, show some consideration and respect for other who hold a different point of view. Your intolerance is, I suppose no real surprise to me but I am disappointed you feel that you need to try to belittle your fellow Members on a Discussion Group. Perhaps it’s just a reflection of your own shallow personality, hope my initial conclusions are wrong, if not for you, but certainly for this site.

Tom D

Feedback on a design feature is “meaningless”, well that both shocks and surprises me. Clearly, I have in the past considered you a good designer, however, after that unbelievable statement your arrogance seems to know no bounds.

Honest from the heart opinions are meaningless, perhaps that is why we get the courses we do because the designers will not listen. Tom, I am extremely shocked by your statement, but if that is your opinion then you have every right to make it on GCA.com.

On that shocking note, I have said all I intend to say on some of the CS bunkers and features.

Melvyn

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #227 on: July 29, 2009, 07:54:42 AM »
It will be interesting to see how Castle Stuart is received, particularly by the locals.   In comparison with say Loch Lomond which is a far more "Americanized" course but garnered very little criticism when it opened, everyone seemed to love it (the course at least).
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #228 on: July 29, 2009, 08:24:25 AM »
Dvaid M

Yes, I have said that this course does look more American than traditionally Scottish. I said that in relation to the width of the landing areas and not just the styling. What I've not said at any point is that this is a bad course, not surprising as I've not played it yet, and indeed suggested that I expected that I would probably enjoy it. My comments on the styling were in relation to context, and a tradition of what I would call practical greenkeeping in this country, and that in my view the styling ie. revetted banking between grass areas/use of ineffectual sleepers etc was out of context.

Somehow out of all that you inferred that I might have problems with the designers being American. That could almost be interpreted as suggesting I'm racist in some way. Can I politely suggest that in future you maybe think through what you are saying before making such a statement, as being falsely tarred in that way is not something I enjoy.


George

I think it would have been more accurate for me to talk of the width rather than the shaping. KB has wider landing areas/fairways than pretty well any other links I can think of, always excepting TOC which makes up its own rules.

Tom D

See my comments to George above. We had a discussion on another thread about fairway widths and the point I am making is really the same. Bear in mind also that my golfing experience encompasses largely older/traditional UK courses, therefore KB and from what I can see of CS from the photos both are wider than what I am used to. Perhaps it might have been less contentious to suggest modern rather than American, I'm not sure, but probably over the last 20 years there have been more new courses built in the US than anywhere else (I would guess but I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong).

From my limited experience of playing modern US courses or courses designed by americans, they tend to be more expansive. And for the record, I have enjoyed nearly every one.

Niall    


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #229 on: July 29, 2009, 10:37:16 AM »
Melvyn,

I understand your comments, and would probably feel the same way, but when you make statements like "Chocolate Box highly manicured courses maybe your preference . . . "   Youare speaking about at least two things you know little about; my preferences in golf courses and Castle Stewart.  Might I suggest you consider learning more about both before you draw such conclusions? 

Niall, "American" is not a race or even a nationality (if you ask a Canadian, etc.)  When you dismiss the styling of a course as too American even though its styling is nothing like anything in America, then speculation about your biases are bound to follow.  Perhaps you should think through what you say.

All kidding aside, I appreciate the various opinions that have been offered.  And as said to Mark, I look forward to hearing both of your opinions when you have actually seen the course.
 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #230 on: July 29, 2009, 11:14:38 AM »
Thanks for the answer, Niall.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #231 on: July 29, 2009, 11:36:22 AM »
Melvyn:

I fail to see how I could be classed as arrogant for dismissing comments about someone else's course.  And those comments are from a bunch of people who have never actually seen the course, no less.

It is you who are arrogant to believe that your opinion of how a course should be styled should have more weight than the opinions of others.  As for my own work, I am concerned primarily with what the client thinks, and with what I think is appropriate to the site.  There is no rule anywhere that a designer must set out to please everyone else, or in fact, anyone else.  And while we have to accept criticisms from others, a majority of them may be classed as Just Another Opinion.


Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #232 on: July 29, 2009, 11:38:43 AM »
Melvyn,

I have known Tom since I started in the business and "arrogant" is the LAST word I would use.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #233 on: July 29, 2009, 12:25:22 PM »
David

I am not simply dismissing the styling but trying to give a considered opinion on why I think some aspects of it look strange or out of context. I have stated a number of times that I haven't seen or played the course and that I was commenting on photos which highlighted aspects of the design which appeared out of context in my opinion. As Tom D says, and I have happily admitted, I have not seen the course in the flesh and my opinion is just another opinion but it is one which I have at least considered before submitting. If others don't agree then that all adds to the discussion and more often than not I can come away with a different perspective.

With regards to the designers, it was you who brought up their nationality and suggested I had a problem with that. I don't. Nor do I think it an obvious inference to make from my comments, so please desist.

Thanks

Niall

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #234 on: July 29, 2009, 12:55:02 PM »
Niall, Desist what?   You said the styling was American even though it most obviously is not.   Yet you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.   And in my honest opinion, whether it applies to you personally I don't know, but this entire line of criticism reeks of posturing and protecting one's own turf, which is only natural, I guess.  I have admitted above that I could be accused of the same on this very thread, if only indirectly.   If I am wrong so be it, but I'd be more convinced of that if you and others offered your opinions after you have seen the course.




« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 12:58:22 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #235 on: July 29, 2009, 12:58:59 PM »
...
Tom D

Feedback on a design feature is “meaningless”, well that both shocks and surprises me. Clearly, I have in the past considered you a good designer, however, after that unbelievable statement your arrogance seems to know no bounds.

Honest from the heart opinions are meaningless, perhaps that is why we get the courses we do because the designers will not listen. Tom, I am extremely shocked by your statement, but if that is your opinion then you have every right to make it on GCA.com.

On that shocking note, I have said all I intend to say on some of the CS bunkers and features.

Melvyn


I have to support Tom D on this. IMO his comment was distinguishing what matters to the golf, vs what matters trivially to the eye. This whole thread has been about artistic style. I admit that such style is a part of golf, but a very, very small part when it comes to whether the ends of sleepers should line up, and whether in some cases sleepers may be separated by sand.

To criticize Tom's design capability based on this issue is IMO mistaken. I could care less what style of bunkers he puts in his courses if their placement is interesting to the playing of the game on the course. I suppose the next time he chooses to leave a tree on the course, it will be criticized for the placement of the branches!
 ::)

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #236 on: July 29, 2009, 01:17:00 PM »
Niall,  there is nothing in America that looks anything like what those photos show.  At least of what I have seen.   I can't help but wonder if the problem isn't that the designers are American, rather than their course. 

this is the sort of crap you should desist from.

Niall

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #237 on: July 29, 2009, 01:57:05 PM »
Niall,

You seem intent on turning this into some sort of fight.   First you write that I may have called you a racist of all things, and now you won't let this issue go.    

I don't think my opinion was "crap," but was rather well founded on the strange comments about the stylings being "American" even though they obviously are not.   Naturally, you won't agree with me, but that does not make my opinion "crap."  Might I suggest that when you start throwing around words like "racist" and "crap" that you are taking this a bit too seriously?

"Crap" is an interesting word choice though.  Reminds me of something . . . http://sounds.wavcentral.com/televis/snl/scottish_crap.mp3
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #238 on: August 05, 2009, 02:53:09 PM »


Castle Stuart is a fine course ruined by attempts at faux antiquity.  At least that's what Mark Pearce told me to say.  ;)

Played it today, and will have more comments when I get more internet time.  But, in truth I didn't find the aesthetic all that intrusive or annoying.  I did ask the chatty starter what the point of the RR ties was and he said "to make it look more ancient than it is".  I questioned where else in Scotland they were/are used.  He mentioned a couple of courses including Cromarty.  Others will know better than I if this is true.

More thoughts on the course when I have more time.



Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #239 on: August 07, 2009, 07:36:45 PM »


After a couple of days of links therapy at Royal Dornoch, I can report on my experience at Castle Stuart.  The day dawned clear and quiet after a few breezy cloudy days.  I went sort of expecting an American CCFAD experience.  The impression was ruined on the drive in on a gravel road, not that that is bad.  As I pulled into the parking lot for my 10:00 a.m. tee off time, I did notice that there was only one car in the parking lot.

I was met by a greeter and the starter, both very genial.  No need to go into the clubhouse, the green fee was already paid over the phone on booking.  They pointed me to the practice area, including a nice range and short game area with unlimited balls, that’s included in the fee.  The putting green is enormous and slopes down from the clubhouse toward the firth.  In a Hansian touch that reminded me of Rustic Canyon, some of the slope to the sea is an optical illusion, you get putts that look to break uphill towards the clubhouse.

The starter walked me down to the first tee and explained the course – much the same as you’ve seen on the web site.  He was very chatty (and perhaps a bit lonely, as I was only the 3rd person out on the day) and said he wanted my opinions after I finished the round.

I should point out that the conditions, apart from being bright and warm, were also windy, around 35 to 40 m.p.h., by the time I teed off  The prevailing wind blows from the west along the firth. There’s no doubt the wind affected my view of the course.  It was pretty close to unplayable and it bordered on unenjoyable because of the wind.  The course stretches generally east/west along the firth.  The first three holes on each nine are along the firth but in opposite directions.  The first three of the front were upwind and the first three of the back downwind.  The rest of the course is on a 100 to 140 foot high ridge above the firth and is treeless and completely exposed to the wind.  To give you an example of the wind, on the 14th, one of the high points of the course, I hit a pretty good driver 190 yards and a knock down 3 iron 130 yards and came up short on a 360 yard downhill par 4.  And, I’m not a short hitter.  Now the wind is probably not always that bad, but based on my experiences at Nairn, just down the coast, it must be fairly common.  One of the design features of the course is super wide fairways, up to 60 and 70 yards wide – two to three times wider than any other links course I‘ve seen over here.  I expect they are this wide to accommodate resort golfers, but also to accommodate the wind.   

The pictures that have been posted describe the course better than I can, so I’m not going to try to describe individual holes.

Things that struck me about the architecture, which they seem to attribute more to Mark Parsinen, than to Gil Hanse include the following.

There are areas where the links style seems clearly the creation of man.  Some areas are not natural looking.  They told me that, in fact, it is all manufactured, that it was formerly a farmer’s field on the upper portion.  Consequently, it’s not really a links.  It reminded me of Bandon, but with some holes a sea level.

The routing is not a traditional out and back links.  The holes change direction fairly frequently on both nines, but mostly aligned along the prevailing wind direction.  The frequent changes in direction are good on windy days, you don’t get as frustrated as having to play 8 or 9 holes upwind, before turning around, or vice versa.

With the wide fairways, they claim that there is a strategic element to the course, but I was unable to see much of it in one round and given the winds. One wonders whether the strategic elements are designed for calm conditions or for the prevailing wind  direction and speed.  There are defenses at the greens, both bunkers and the positioning of the greens.  The greens themselves have quite a bit of internal movement.  They were smooth and true and running at 9 (they said).  Any faster and the balls would have blown off the greens.  Most greens provide a run-on option in keeping with links golf, and these are probably necessary from a wind perspective.

The holes are fairly isolated from one another and there are signs to direct you to the next tee, otherwise you might not find them the first time around.

The course has significant elevation change although most holes play level or downhill.  It is a tough walking course because of the elevation changes.

The bunkers are a mixed metaphor of natural ragged edging and stacked sod wall, sometimes in the same bunker, as can be seen in the pictures.  Functionally it makes no difference, but visually it’s kind of schizophrenic. Beware that the bunker sand is a lot heavier than the practice bunker.  Even heavy as it was it was still blowing around in the wind.  Maintaining the bunkers looks like it will be a challenge. There were bunkers all over the place, including places it looks like no one would ever go, sort of reminiscent of Whistling Straits.  Despite the number of bunkers and the wind, I only found one all day. It left me wondering if they were more for visual affect than for functioning hazards.  I’d need more plays to sort that out.

There were continuous tees and fairways if you like that kind of stuff.

I did notice some of the sod walled mounds or ridges, but they weren’t so many or so odd as to cause revulsion. The most egregious was in front of the 18th green.  Theoretically you could roll a ball dead against the end wall and have literally no shot other than to try to putt it around the horseshoe curve of the wall or take an unplayable.  I noticed today that Royal Dornoch had sod walls supporting the back of the third tee and the side of the seventh tee.  Maybe it’s not so odd after all.

I asked about the RR ties.  The response was that they were meant to make the place look older than it is.  I don’t think anybody will be fooled into thinking this is an old Scottish course. The ties are ubiquitous in the parking lot and around the clubhouse, hardly used at all on the front nine and again more common on the back nine.  They are frequently along the walking paths to retain the hills rather than in play.  In any event, I think they are neither here nor there.

I don’t think anyone will come to a conclusion that this will become a classic Scottish links course.  It just looks too different.  It might appeal to those who like well designed modern American courses in attractive surroundings.  And, the surroundings are spectacular.  And, the views are incorporated into the design in several instances.

When I finished, I spent about 20 minutes chatting with the starter about my feedback.  He seemed genuinely interested.  I said that it was worth playing once, for me as a hard core golfer, but I wouldn’t play it again at 150 quid.  It just isn’t that special.  Maybe no course is for me.

I asked about their target demographic and business model.  They said they get little local play because the locals who have the money and are serious about golf are already members at Nairn or other area courses, and they don’t want to pay even the discounted local rate.  Scottish thrift, perhaps.  He seemed to think they could be successful on the rich American tourist trade making a triple header of Dornoch, Nairn and Castle Stuart.  He also noted that they were successful at Kingsbarn, so why not here.  I did count the cars on the way out – there were 12, but, some of them were local gawkers looking around at the rich man’s play ground.

The clubhouse is super nice, with wonderful views from the top floor bar.  Perhaps it will attract the Skibo Castle crowd.  I imagine the prices are appropriately high.

So, in summary, for me, it’s a good and interesting design in a spectacular setting but the price and possibility of ferocious winds would deter me from returning.  With all the authentic links courses and limited time on my trips, I don’t see why I would come over here to play a modern course that for all intents and purposes could be in America, and is very expensive compared to the classics.  Perhaps its competitors over here for the American tourist trade would be Kingsbarns and the Castle Course.  If they can attract people who go there they might succeed.

So, I think it may be a design success and an aesthetic success that may be done in by location, price and wind.  For context, I wouldn’t go back to Bandon in the summer or Pebble Beach anytime for the same reasons. 




Jason McNamara

Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #240 on: August 07, 2009, 09:21:05 PM »
Bryan, thanks for the extensive report.  Just for comparison's sake, for you, what Scottish courses remain playable at 35-40 mph winds?

Thanks.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #241 on: August 08, 2009, 03:28:18 AM »


Courses that I can recall playing at that wind speed include TOC, Nairn, Silloth and Rustic Canyon (not in Scotland) and all seemed more playable to me in the wind.  Perhaps Castle Stuart seemed worse because it was more exposed on the top of the ridge or perhaps because I was driving the ball badly most of the day.  I expect that I would have liked CS better with less wind, but not enough better to spend another 150 quid to find out.  In 20 years id it is considered one of the best courses in the world I might go back.


Grant Saunders

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #242 on: August 08, 2009, 04:18:42 AM »
Bryan

Sounds like you lucked out with the wind. I dont believe strong winds like you describe to be the norm there at all. Check out the following link: http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_inverness.htm

I personally cant think of any courses I would enjoy in 40mph winds. I do hit the ball pretty high though.

Rich Goodale

Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #243 on: August 08, 2009, 06:48:23 AM »
Interesting discussion.  Having been shown around the course by one of the principles in April (have not played it, yet), it is obvious that a lot of thought has gone into the design of the course and that a lot of that thought was artisitic rather than pragmatic (form vs. function), and I sympathize with Mark on that issue.  It looks great, but I'm holding off any judgement until I get a chance to walk the course with balls and implements in my hands (not at the same time).  And yes, as others have said, except for the 6 holes down the hill and along the Firth) it is not linksland.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #244 on: August 08, 2009, 02:11:44 PM »

Rich,

You should be ashamed if you have your ball in hand anywhere but on the tee or greens.   ;)

I don't believe that the lower level is linksland either.  If you look east from the top of the hill above the 12th you can see the original landform.  It is covered in gorse and it borders a stone beach.  I'm not convinced that there was any sand or dunes there on the lower level.  It's not at all like the lower level at Dornoch, say.  The big sand deposit on 13 was apparently something they found in construction and mined for sand on other parts of the course, leaving the exposed face.  I'd be interested to hear what you discover when you are there with implements in hand, and balls down.  Hopefully as a Scottish resident you can get a better deal on the fees.

After two calm days at Dornoch, I'm willing to concede that I was unlucky to have had the big wind on the day I was at CS, although I would note that it blew hard for the preceding three days.

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #245 on: August 09, 2009, 10:23:47 AM »
Bryan,

Thanks for that report.  It certainly sounds like you brought the wind with you for your trip!  Thanks for providing a detailed insight.  Knowing something about your game having played links golf with you a couple of times it sounds like CS is, indeed, extremely tough in that sort of wind, though I suspect just about everywhere is hard enough in 40 mph winds.  If it's tougher than Silloth in the wind, however, it's a bear.

Very interesting to hear your thoughts on the aesthetics, too.  I have to make a trip up there myself at some stage.

Mark
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #246 on: August 09, 2009, 12:05:05 PM »
Bryan

Enjoyed your report on your windy day of golf.

Therefore, it sounds that the Club itself does not feel it will attract the locals. That the course seems to be aimed non at locals but “Others”  who may consider it a traditional Scottish Course, but certainly not the locals who seem well served by Nairn.

The club appear not to know if it is a real Links course or is that still open for debate but we should settle for more a course by the sea. Yet the real proof of the course is to play it, but how many are attracted to try their luck at that price and knowing both Brian’s photos and Bryans report.

I think someone has made a few minor errors (including marketing). Because it is in Scotland does that allow caution to be thrown to the rather strong wind, well time will tell and the quality of the course is I expect in understand its repeat business.

From what I have seen and read, I believe I would miss it and go and play a round at Cullen (http://www.cullengolfclub.co.uk/) saving in the process £128.
 
Pity, but I wonder when some of the modern designers will learn that golfers just want a true course to play.  I might even go as far as to say that not one designers seems to have understood or for that, matter learnt from Askernish. If you need to ask what, then we are in for more Castle & Castle Stuarts courses with high end fees.

My thanks to Brian & Bryan for two great presentations and reports.

Melvyn
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 12:25:07 PM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #247 on: August 09, 2009, 07:51:47 PM »
Melvyn -

Once again you are having problems seeing the forest from the trees. ;)

Have you been to the Castle Stuart website? Have you read what is there? (www.castlestuartgolf.com)

It states in the very first line that Castle Stuart intends to be a golf resort along the lines of Turnberry and Gleneagles. Castle Stuart has been developed as a commercial, for-profit, business enterprise. It will have a hotel, a spa and factional-ownership lodge accommodations. The primary market for this project is clearly not the local golfer.

Mark Parsinen was a major factor in the development of Kingsbarns, which is arguably the most successful golf course, both artistically and financially, built in Scotland in the last 20 years or more. I can assure you that he knows the market for Castle Stuart and he knows EXACTLY what needs to be done to make it a success, notwithstanding the current global recession.  
  
The wonderful thing about golf is that there is a market for both Castle Stuart and Askernish. I hope both, in their own way, are successful.

DT  
    
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 07:55:06 PM by David_Tepper »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #248 on: August 09, 2009, 09:03:17 PM »

David

I can see, but on this occasion, I might agree that it’s difficult in seeing anything apart from sleepers. They are sprouting from nearly every orifice. 

I understand the intention, yet I wonder if it was a wise move, however we will all know the answer in time. But lessons are not being learnt, courses still charging £150 yet effectively a virgin course demanding that sort of Green Fee.  What is it, call it a Castle and that gives one the right to put its fees up and beyond some of the courses with a solid track record. New courses should be introduced at reasonable rates, and earn the right to charge these sort of prices. What is the Castle Course, the bastard of the set, nearly built out of sight of St Andrews. As for the Castle Stuart, not seen it in the flesh, nor am I intending to stop and look at those prices.

Golfers are not stupid, and I believe the approach re the two Castle course is simply exploitation and totally wrong. Are these courses actually worth their Green Fees?

I do not believe that these two courses are doing Scottish golf much good. Scares hell out of me to what to expect from Trump and his circus.

Once again, I can honestly say I have no problems, the vision or should I call it flare/drive seems to be lacking if not totally missing from these Disney based productions. The use of sleepers at CS I expect may be the result of running out of creative ideas, actually we are so lucky we did not find a Green surrounded by water – that is the usual sign that someone has lost vision.
So perhaps we have been saved, but boy will you be paying (£) for the pleasure of an untried course (yet again)

Once again, I do not think I have a problem, I looked and formed an opinion, which I am voicing on GCA.com. Don’t agree, that’s down to you.

A local course should be reaching out to the locals, but at £150 each £300 for man & wife, that’s not what I would call reaching out to the average golfer.

Melvyn


Jason McNamara

Re: Castle Stuart Photos
« Reply #249 on: August 09, 2009, 09:55:11 PM »
Hi Melvin -

To get an idea of your scale, which Scottish courses should charge £150? 

Also what is a recent course that has served Scottish golf well?  Will you grant Kingsbarns?  If so, I'd be interested in seeing a couple options beyond that.

Thanks, and yes, if CS troubles you, then Trump should scare the hell out of you.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back