[Niall C]

Sean


You are still hitting a couple of shorter clubs in onto a wide open fairway just to get into position for a chip. Sorry, that's not fun, that's dull.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall


I think many who cannot carry the water can get right of the bridge in two into the wind.  I don't see how a fronting hazard could be made any more strategic than this.  In any case, I am not one to believe that all golfers have the right to reach every hole in regulation.  In any case two, the hole should usually play downishwind in season so the idea of two layups is really only after a very poor drive or for very poor golfers....in which case all I can say is all holes can't be for all golfers.


Ciao

[Michael Graham]

Niall,


Out of interest, what sort of yardage have you had for your 2nd shot into 18? If you were tempted to go for the green what club would you likely be hitting?


Michael

[Niall C]

Michael,

I don’t mean to be evasive but I don’t really have an answer as firstly it’s been a while since I played KB and my memory isn’t that good, and secondly I tend to think in terms of what club I’m hitting.

Sean

The issue isn’t whether you can get over the burn/gulley or not but whether you can stop the ball when you do bearing in mind the course is supposed to play fast and firm. Having hit a reasonable drive, who wants to lay up with a shortish iron ?

Niall

edit; can't spell !

[Michael Graham]

Niall,


That's perfectly reasonable. I recall I hit a 6 iron for my 2nd shot onto the 18th green the last time I played but can't think what it would have been the previous times I've played.


I was wondering if your tee shot would likely put you in position to go for the green in two or if the threat of the burn means you would almost automatically think about laying up?

[Jon Wiggett]

I understand where Niall is coming from entirely. Sean, during the season with a usual westerly or southwesterly wind the tee shot will play slightly into and from the right. I think 6 iron for the second shot sounds about right. The problem is that you only have one option which is high flighted with the hope of stopping the ball below the pin. Anything else is just about dead. Boring golf typified!!!


Funnily enough the only hole at CS that I do not rate is the 11th which is another one dimensional affair.


Jon

[Sean_A]

In season 18 drive should play mostly downwind much of the time.  I suspect a good downwind drive would leave less than a 6 iron for me.   


We can agree to disagree about 18.  I don't hold the line that all holes must be all things to all golfers all the time.  There must be some room in design which separates good golfers from duffers.  Its not my favourite hole on the course, but 18 is far from a stinker. Same for 11...I don't know what you mean about being one dimensional.  One can play left of the bunker (in the air or on the ground) or fly the bunker. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

One dimensional in as much as it only has one solution which is to fly to the green. I am not saying this is bad but it does lack imagination and for a player who cannot fly it the required distance they have no chance of getting the green. Oh, yes and you can play left of the bunker on the 11th at Castle Stuart but you end up in a steep bank in deep rough which is not really an option Sean.


Jon

[Niall C]

“I don't hold the line that all holes must be all things to all golfers all the time.”
 
Sean
 
I don’t disagree and is that not the point of strategic design, different ways for different players ? My point however, was that for the weaker golfer it’s not much of a hole. For the weaker golfer who is a repeat player at Kingsbarns, the hole becomes a punt off the tee and a short/mid iron to a position where you can chip onto the green, and let’s be honest as long as you don’t go too far with your second and trundle the ball into the water any line will do as it leaves you a straightforward chip.


That’s my issue with KB and CS. There are far too many meaningless shots for the average player. If they weren’t one off pay and plays with visitors being wowed by the conditioning, the views, the beauty of the place and indeed the whole set up, they would be seen as the beautiful dumb blondes that they are. IMO of course 


Niall     

[Sean_A]

Jon

Sorry...thought we were still on Kingsbarns...my comments were about its 11th.

Niall

Well, thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. But if are talking about hacks...tons of shots on every course are meaningless except in so far as they can be found 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

On my one play, 18 was probably my least favourite hole, but it played into the wind on the day I played there.  Driver (not my best contact), utility lay up, wedge.  Blah.  Looks great, though.  Downwind and with a decent drive it would be playable, though I wonder with the greens as firm as when I played there whether I could hold anything much more than a wedge downwind and be sure of carrying the water, so I suspect I'd be likely to be chipping back from behind the green.

[Thomas Dai]

Would Kingsbarns be up to holding The Open?


The pro's scores in the Dunhill seem to be usually pretty low, but then again maybe that's due to the pro-am set-up, time of year, pin positioning, pro-tees used etc.


I wonder how the upcoming Women's Open will work out when played there in 2017.


Atb

[Sean_A]

Lets hope The Open never goes to Kingsbarns.  We have seen how the R&A have mucked up TOC with rough (the 16th is the one of the worst 20th century travesties there is in gca)...they would do the same at Kingsbarns.


Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

the R&A have mucked up TOC with rough (the 16th is the one of the worst 20th century travesties there is in gca)

So true.  Far worse than any of the recent changes at TOC and so, so easily remedied.

[Niall C]

Sean,


I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

This is part of the problem in discussing these matters...nothing can be taken out of context and make total sense.  I agree that width alone doesn't make for strategic or interesting golf.  However, that ain't saying much is it?  I believe that in most cases, to create high level strategic golf, a level of width greater than is the current norm must be present or strategic value is reduced.  If for any reason at all...it is so the ball can found and played...and that has to be a primary (if not the primary) concern if strategy is to be discussed at all. That said, there is nothing wrong, indeed I think there is everything right with some penal elements to design. Some of these concepts will be met with dismay and others with joy.  Either way it makes no difference because these are subjective PoV.  In truth, I think courses need shots/holes which makes golfers uncomfortable or may even be disliked....controversy is good for architecture.  Architecture needs all forms design.  If something turns you off that much...don't play the course.  I realize you disagree with what you consider excessive width, but in my experience, I have rarely met that animal....and  certainly wouldn't consider Kingsbarns too wide.  The far bigger is concern, in my experience, is lack of width. 


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Sean,

I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.

Niall

Wide fairways do not produce strategy, but they are necessary for it. Without width the golfer's options are limited to biff it down the middle. It is cleverly positioned hazards within the context of width that produces strategy.

[Niall C]

Sean

So, you agree that width alone doesn’t make for strategic or interesting golf. Well my friend, contrary to you I think that’s actually saying quite a lot and is in essence the weakness of a lot of the wide fairways and defend at the green type design. Line of charm doesn’t come into it.


Let me ask you this, what would Golden Age archies like Simpson and MacKenzie do with the wide open prairies at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart if asked to redesign ? I very much doubt you’d get Simpson treating them the same way he did Ballybunnion.
 
Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall


I don't know what either would have done with the properties as these are modern courses, moving modern amounts of dirt to make them a realization...something Dr Mac and Simpson weren't really able to do in their time. 


As I said before, I don't believe Kingsbarns fairways to be excessively wide.  Instead, I think more courses on sloping land or with reasonable wind should take a page from this design.  I find there to be plenty of interest in driving the ball around Kingsbarns. I can only think of two holes where the line of the drive doesn't doesn't make a difference. 


1...for sure...found out to my cost
3...for sure...can play safely left or try to go deep up the right
4....huge difference if one tries to go over the bunker or play right
5...temptation is to go right, but far left opens up the green
6...short left or long middle/right is a huge difference
7...little difference ball buster par 4
9...big difference right or left depending on the day
10...big difference right or left depending on the day
11...big difference depending on the day
12...big difference right or left
14...big difference right or left with right being the dangerous drive which leaves an easy pitch
16...big difference if one wants to go for the green in 2...if not anywhere works
17...big difference...stay left to open the green
18...big difference...stay right to open the green


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


Actually I think I have a very good idea what MacKenzie and Simpson would have done, and that is put in some judiciously placed bunkers. Not flanking bunkers obviously, as they would have to be 30 yards wide to have any impact. Some strategically placed centre line bunkers would be more in order. What's more they would/could do a fantastic job without using machinery and shifting a fair chunk of Scotland to do so.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Maybe you are right Niall, but we shall never know because these designs are from a time which has made it possible to go miles beyond what Dr Mac and Simpson did in terms of turning sites not suitable for golf into golf courses.  Dr Mac may have put in 200 bunkers or 30...depends on when any sort of job like this may have come up during career. I instinctively feel like Simpson would have produced a course I would be more at ease with, but so what?  What we have now is excellent design...better than 99% of the courses out there so the complaining is really a 1st World problem.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Is Kingsbarns worth the £234 main season regular greenfee? I can appreciate some folks paying the money as a once-off experience, and understand some can pay less, but this seems to be quite a high price point in comparison to other highly regarded GB courses.
Atb

[Sean_A]

ATB


There is an awful lot of good golf within an hour or so of St Andrews to feel like £234 is good value.  For instance, I think Kingsbarns is better than St Andrews New, but I would rather play TNC...its plenty good enough.  To be fair though, I am struggling to think of many £234 courses which I would dish out for more than once or in most cases...even once.  That said, Kingsbarns does give off a good vibe as a casual venue without lots of rules...which are increasingly becoming a hassle for touristas.


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.

Niall

Wide fairways do not produce strategy, but they are necessary for it. Without width the golfer's options are limited to biff it down the middle. It is cleverly positioned hazards within the context of width that produces strategy.

Adam,


that means that NO par 3s can be strategic. Sorry but though what you say about width is on average true you overstate its importance. As you say, width alone does not guarantee strategy but a lack of width certainly does not exclude it.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon


Its not about a switch where strategy is turned off or on.  There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices.  That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so.  Maybe you and Niall are not fans of choice...no worries...you are of that age where penal golf was king     Things are moving on by looking back in time.


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()