[Niall C]

Re earth moving, the Dave Thomas designed courses don't look as though they involved a lot of shifting dirt. To me they look as though it was mainly tees, greens and bunkers and little else but could be wrong. Craigielaw (Tom MacKenzie) and Craighead (Gil Hanse) are similar, likewise the Carrick (Doug Carrick and Ian Andrews), all of which developed on sloping farmland and all enjoyable courses.

I suspect the most muck shifted on any of these course would be on the two Parsinen courses (Kingbarns and Castle Stuart) followed by the Castle course and the two St Andrews Bay courses. Arguably all four are US design influenced in terms of approach.

Niall

[BCrosby]

TD says:

"I do find it somewhat disturbing that two courses that featured such extensive earth-moving (almost wall to wall) are the standard-bearers for modern design in Scotland, of all places.  There is hardly a single natural feature on either course, other than the rocks along the seashore.  I am proud of the fact that we did NOT try to re-make The Renaissance Club into something it wasn't."

I've played Kingsbarns three times. Each time with Americans and each time it was the favorite course of my playing companions. All liked it much more than TOC and other, older links courses. Scratching my head as to why, no doubt part of it is KB's setting. It has sensational waterscapes and lots of big, bold vistas.

But I think KB also appeals for reasons that are more subtle than that. It has to do with earth-moving. Unlike TOC or Prestwick or Carnoustie, if you hit your ball in the fw at KB, you will almost always have a level lie. That is not a minor thing. Nor, I'd guess, is it accidental. American golfers get to play a spectacular course with all the visual trappings of a traditional links course (albeit on steroids) without the annoying shot-making challenges presented by older, rougher, lumpy links courses.

As a business plan for a course whose lifeblood is American visitors, it is pure genius.

Bob  

[Niall C]

Bob

Totally agree. I'd like to say more but time doesn't allow at the moment.

Cheers

Niall

[John Crowley]

Have played only three:

Castle Stuart is number one by miles. Great site, well routed on topography with significant elevation differences. Enjoyable golf holes. In the links tradition from day one.

Whitekirk is decent effort on land not very friendly to golf. Condition when I played was fairly rough.

The Castle Course is a very distant last. Topography ill-suited to golf  and resultant holes that are awkward. Not much fun to be had other than spectacular views of St. Andrews.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Taking knocks at Kingsbarns is a little disappointing.

It was anything but minimalist but it was a standard bearer for a different kind of golf design (and shaping) in Europe. It dragged us out of the RTJ inspired design that had led the way up until that point. It showed a lot of people what could be done.

By Tom's own admission it wasn't a great site. Another somewhat similar site was the Craighead course at Crail. There the minimalist approach was certainly taken and despite an excellent design by Gil Hanse, I know which course I prefer.

That's not to say that all courses should follow the example Kingsbarns set... But before we damn it as excess, does anyone actually know what the cost of the course was?

[BCrosby]

Ally -

I don't mean to knock KB. I enjoyed playing it and would be pleased to return. Rather my post was an attempt to sort out why my American buddies like it so much more than the courses I prefer, like TOC just down the road.

I too think KB represents a new kind of links course. But by being "new" there are things lost and things gained.

Bob

[David_Tepper]

My guess is there are many, many Scots who enjoy playing Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Taking knocks at Kingsbarns is a little disappointing.

Ally:

Where's the knock you are disappointed over?  I think everyone has been respectful of the golf course; if anything, more than it deserves.  Are we not allowed to point out its weaknesses, the same as all other courses discussed here?

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.

It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.

[Tom_Doak]

It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.

It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.

Don't know where you got the first part.  My problem is the other way around ... that other modern courses ought to move earth around to compete with a place like Kingsbarns for the title of Best Modern Scottish course.  That's the implication from these lists, and I think it pushes architecture in the wrong direction.   If you've got a good piece of land, changing it all to create a bunch of infinity greens would not be good design, even if it might win more awards.

I think we agree on the second part.  I'd rather play the older links that have more unpredictability ... I think Kingsbarns is rated a bit high compared to some of those.  I see why it's rated at the top of "modern Scottish" courses, and certainly, given the site, they had to do what they did to get there.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.

It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.

Don't know where you got the first part.  My problem is the other way around ... that other modern courses ought to move earth around to compete with a place like Kingsbarns for the title of Best Modern Scottish course.  That's the implication from these lists, and I think it pushes architecture in the wrong direction.   If you've got a good piece of land, changing it all to create a bunch of infinity greens would not be good design, even if it might win more awards.

I think we agree on the second part.  I'd rather play the older links that have more unpredictability ... I think Kingsbarns is rated a bit high compared to some of those.  I see why it's rated at the top of "modern Scottish" courses, and certainly, given the site, they had to do what they did to get there.

Tom, now that you put it as you do in your first paragraph, I agree entirely.

As for the second paragraph, I also agree. Although I have it as my top modern, its ranking of circa 15 in most GB&I lists is a few places higher than I might have it.

[David Davis]

I don't think I can finish the 3.

Kingsbarns
Castle Stuart

and probably

Askernish

It's sacrilege to select a parkland course as the 3rd best new course in Scotland. Perhaps there is also something to what Tom has mentioned. I've often described Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart as the Disnyland of golf for American tourists. I enjoy them, but I'm a fan of Disneyland as well. Perhaps Trump should be added to that list. However, in Scotland you could go around and play a lot of great little links courses at a fraction of the price. They are courses you play a couple times in my opinion in between your standard visits to Knotts Berry Farm, SeaWorld and the Sand Diego Zoo.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I really must get to Askernish.

I loved Mach Dunes actually. Although I may not consider it "better" than Kingsbarns, I think the joy of playing there was greater.

[Thomas Dai]

Some of the courses named in this thread, though I'm sure they're absolutely terrific, are, well, just too pricey. If I had a fat wedge of £$£$ burning a hole in my pocket or access to freebee's I'd naturally love to play them all.

In reality, the ones I'd plump for would be Machrihanish Dunes (played in conjunction with Mach' Old and Dunaverty), the Castle at StA, for it's wacky greens, but only then if played in conjunction with some combination of the New/Eden/Jubilee, and a once off cash splash on the travel etc out to play a few rounds at Askernish, as a yee olde special golf experience, probably playing with hickories. The rest? Well to be honest I reckon I'd rather save the cash to spend on playing the likes of Brora and Southerness and lots of the other cracking wee gem courses that lie in between them, plus some special courses like North Berwick and Prestwick.

But if some kind, generous person said to me the magic phrase "free golf" on any of the newies then I reckon I'd plump initially for the likes of Skibo/Carnigie, Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns and Renaissance, plus Covesea!

All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

I am amazed that a Askernish which has been talked about a lot on here is been more or less ignored. I guess it is too low key for many yet it has all the ingredients that most here say they want. Great setting, good golfing holes at a reasonable price.

Thomas,

good call with Covesea.

Jon

[Sean_A]

One of the interesting aspects of the modern Scottish courses is they don't have nearly the same drawing power for me as the classic links do.  I haven't seen many because my perception is that many of the new designs are trying to hard to wow golfers at the expense of good design.  Though I have seen Trump and the Castle Course and neither blew me away.  To put it in perspective, I just played Dormie which I had mixed feelings about, but I thought it better than either of those two mainly because of the diversity of holes and sensible green surrounds.  In other words, Dormie allows for a variety of play which neither Castle or Trump do and I find that very disappointing for so-called links.  

Of the newbies, the ones I really want to see are Renaissance, Mach Dunes and Dundonald (which I think looks very good).  I would like to see Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns as well, but the green fee is beyond my interest.  I don't know if Askernish is considered new or what, but I would like to see it at some point.

Ciao  

[Frank Pont]

Sean,

do you ever just walk a course?

I'm sure you could walk both for free.... and you would learn a heck of a lot

[Sean_A]

Other than for viewing a tournament, in recent years the only courses I have walked are Rye & TOC.  I don't envision not playing while in Scotland in favour of walking a course.  I don't feel much need to learn about design when I can just play.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Though I thought I'd played a reasonable amount of golf in Scotland, I've not played many of the newer courses, well just 3 in fact. As others have said,  I'd generally rather play some of the older, classic, traditional, hidden gems when north of the border. They do tend to be cheaper as well!

Those I've played:

1. Castle Stuart, they may have moved plenty of earth, but I really enjoy the course and love that it's playable for corporate hackers but can also challenge the pros. If it was cheaper, I'm sure people would be flooding to the course?

2. Askernish, as if a trip to the Outer Hebrides wasn't magical enough, they go and bring this course to life from the machair.

3. Spey Valley, great setting and a decent course. Repetitive bunkering was a bit annoying, as was the fountain! Worth seeing but not at the expense of Boat of Garten nearby.

Cheers,

James

[Niall C]

Bob

Re post #26, I think you hit the nail on the head re level lies and is why I find some of these modern designs a bit insipid. Without wishing to get all Melvyn on you, I do think the game of golf is about the challenge and that in some respects a golf course is an obstacle course with the object of getting round/over or through the obstacles and holing out in the fewest strokes. Removing part of the challenge is just dumbing down the game, IMHO of course.

I would say however as much as I might prefer a traditional older links its not to say I don't enjoy playing Kingsbarns or even Castle Stuart, as do my Scottish pals.

Niall  

[Niall C]

Thomas/Jon

Re Covesea, not sure how modern it is as it was a 12 holer consisting of all, or nearly all par 3's. It was only recently that the new owner took over and knocked some of the par 3's together and turned them into par 4's, so it ahs been going for quite a while.

If we are going to include nine holers, and why not, then Ballindalloch Castle, another Tom MacKenzie design, should be included. Good fun with greens very much in the Craigielaw style. Has one of the prettiest par 3's in Scotland.

Niall

[Niall C]

It's more the insinuation that because it involved a lot of earth moving, it can't be considered in the same league as a course that didn't.

It's clearly not as natural and irregular as many of the old classics and I prefer my golf with that element of unpredictability. But I think in many ways it's Scotland's best modern because of the earth moving, not despite it. If we are calling that as its main weakness then I believe that's a pretty good reflection on the course. More than willing to listen to other reasons it may be less than excellent however.

Don't know where you got the first part.  My problem is the other way around ... that other modern courses ought to move earth around to compete with a place like Kingsbarns for the title of Best Modern Scottish course.  That's the implication from these lists, and I think it pushes architecture in the wrong direction.   If you've got a good piece of land, changing it all to create a bunch of infinity greens would not be good design, even if it might win more awards.

Tom

I don't know that there is a recognised list for Best Scottish Modern. What I was suggesting was that people give me their Top 3 on whatever basis they choose. Most went for best and a few went for favourite. KB and to a lesser extent CS (which is relatively newer) have not surprisingly come out towards the top of the lists because I suspect firstly the design work is good, comparative to a lot of the others listed they are in much better condition and lastly the folk on this site aren't going to cross an ocean/travel the length of the country to play a Dave Thomas design. Thats why I think that best of lists become a bit self perpetuating.

Having set the task for others, I sat down last night to come up with my own Top 3's. I picked a "Top 3 - Missed Opportunity/Could've done better" which was quite easy, I picked a "Top 3 of played it once, like to play again" (Renaissance joint first with Loch Lomond) and even a bucket list of courses yet to play. What I found disturbingly hard to do however was to come up with a "Top 3 - Favourites". That probably speaks more for my love of the older traditional golf courses.  

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

for me Covesea is more or less a new course as very little of the old course still exists. I certainly hope you would include 9 hole courses as they are GOLF courses and I cannot stand the '18 holes are true golf courses' snobbery. You are right that Ballindalloch Castle is a cracking course. I didn't mention my own course as I think my motives for doing so could/should be questioned.

It is interesting that you chose Loch Lomond as though I was really impressed with the course and the setting I just felt it was too brutal when played in a stiff breeze. It destroyed me on several holes and that was back when I could still play half decent back in the mid to late 90s.

I thought Dundonald might have gotten a few more mentions.

Jon

[Gary Slatter]

Niall:  enjoying the comments!  How can Askernish be a best modern considering the designer?  

The Devlin could have been a greater course with the ability to add more sand!  I understand they were not allowed to bring sand to the site on existing roads.  The Devlin was improved when the best hole from the Torrance became it's 17th.   When Sam saw what had happened to "his" course, his first comment was "Gary, what the F*** have they done?"  And that was only the beginning of the conversation.
The "uphill slog" at the Dukes:  cart golf is available!     Many well-heeled American "golfers" can visit Scotland, see the courses, and play the Dukes and Kittocks in buggies.  I did notice Fairmont did get many UK golfers enjoying buggies.  There is a place for them, modern golf can be played on carts when necessary!

I heard an older designer once say "you have to move a lot of dirt to make it look like you didn't move any".

[Mark Chaplin]

Frank why walk courses in the land that is the home of golf when there are hundreds of reasonably priced courses to play? You'd learn a lot about top level links golf at North Berwick or Royal Dornoch for half the price of the new American links courses.

Sean didn't you play Trump or was that on a deal?

David Tepper I'd be interested to know how many Scots play the courses at full whack now the local's discounts.

Are the fairways at Kingsbarns like the back nine at Hillside, motorways through the dunes?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()