Ardfin Golf Course profile is posted under Courses by Country

[Adam Lawrence]

Ran thanks for the comprehensive review and I know you think about these things carefully. It looks like a great place to golf.
 
Picking at this I note, there are 3 par 3’s all playing as pretty heroic, effectively knob to knob?  This type of hole plays very hard on windy days. Second tee shot of the day 205 yards, do or die!
 

Two of them are. The twelfth has a carry over the foreshore but it's basically at beach level and there's quite a lot of short grass around the green.


Second hole is only 205 from the backs, there are four sets of tees.


I do think it is a hard golf course for all that.

[David McIntosh]

Hi David,

I don't want to thread jack but I didn't say it drop to the bottom of my list, only to the bottom of the list of courses mentioned.

The 17th is one of the most spectacular and perhaps even best holes at Shanqin Bay. Now it's planted full with trees. There is a makeshift alternative hole which I have never played because all the holes were in play when I visited but let's face it we are talking about picking hairs of the best 100 courses in the world and if courses start losing holes this has a great affect to the routing and the course in many ways. Diamante Dunes another example lost their 18th hole due to real estate. They had to change it, these things can make a huge difference.

David,

I didn’t mean for it to sound like I thought you were talking about your overall list....I could tell from your original post that your ratings were only in respect of the list of the top 100 cliff top courses mentioned. That’s also what I meant when I referred to your “personal list”.

I suspected the reason for the course moving to the bottom of this hypothetical list was borne from the illustrious company we’re discussing here although I’m sure the same could be said for most of the other courses in this particular group were we to remove one of their stand out holes.

[Niall C]

Sometimes the dust needs to settle and over time one grows to appreciate the quality of things for their ‘quiet’ moments and the balance that can bring. Might repeat plays highlight their difficulty and perhaps the choice of forsaking more variety be lamented? But then this doesn’t seem like a course for repeat plays and they certainly do all look most appealing.
 

Champion Golfer 2017


You hit upon one of the weaknesses about rankings that I highlighted on another thread not so long ago, and that's making judgement after one play. By their very nature rankings tend to be based on a lot of one time only plays and therefore courses with bling and great aesthetics are bound to do best. Knowing that, do GCA's either consciously or subconsciously design courses on that basis ?


That said, it does look a terrific course.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Sometimes the dust needs to settle and over time one grows to appreciate the quality of things for their ‘quiet’ moments and the balance that can bring. Might repeat plays highlight their difficulty and perhaps the choice of forsaking more variety be lamented? But then this doesn’t seem like a course for repeat plays and they certainly do all look most appealing.
 

Champion Golfer 2017


You hit upon one of the weaknesses about rankings that I highlighted on another thread not so long ago, and that's making judgement after one play. By their very nature rankings tend to be based on a lot of one time only plays and therefore courses with bling and great aesthetics are bound to do best. Knowing that, do GCA's either consciously or subconsciously design courses on that basis ?


That said, it does look a terrific course.


Niall

Design incorporates aesthetics....therefore aesthetics are not mutally exclusive from good design.  The importance of aesthetics is a personal call and that may be what you are tripping over....people placing a higher value on aesthetics than you might.  I don't see much of an issue with this once we are in rarified company of greatness, or perhaps even good courses.  There are times when decent courses with a special hole or two and a lovely setting get over hyped.  Usually time weeds out the pretenders.  Rankings, at least in GB&I, is getting more savvy as the old guard mags lose their stranglehold on the process.  You are never going to completely solve all the faults with rankings because humans are not divine, but to attempt to downplay the importance of aesthetics is futile.  Even archies who get upset about bling winning out do their utmost to provide bling.  With a budget, location and knowledge, who is going to purposefully ignore aesthetics?   Thats a concept which doesn't hold water.

I too think Ardfin looks a cracking course with exceptional variety.  Although, it also looks awfully tough.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean, I fully agree with what you say yet I still veer much towards Tony and Niall's side of the argument. Tony worded it beautifully in the paragraph that Niall quoted.


The trouble is that design has veered too much towards aesthetics at the expense of all other elements. They are not mutually exclusive but good design can be compromised by the desire to have bling.


The best designers know how to incorporate both but I still believe even they succumb to choices driven firstly by aesthetics and only secondly by good golf / strategy. On top of that, too many features are often being built in to golf holes - see my subtlety vs eye candy thread which I often reference.


Ardfin looks fantastic, really stunning. But I bet after 10 plays, I'd prefer my repeat plays over Baltray. For the quiet moments and the balance it brings to requote Tony.

[Sean_A]

Ally

Sure, I agree that bling can compromise architecture at times, but I am trying to figure out when or where.  I can't think of any firm examples which are definitely not associated with a design style...meaning the architecture exists as a certain style regardless of the aesthetics.  However, I believe that usually what is really at the heart of the matter is the bling itself rather than the relationship between architecture and aesthetics.  In my lifetime there has been a radical shift of aesthetics from garden-like to more natural/rugged visuals.  For the sake of argument, say from the Augusta look to the Pacific Dunes look...which is really a throwback to much a much earlier era.  You might be right that aesthetics are driving the calls on some projects, but I am struggling to think of many cases where that has definitely (again, trying to sort out the archtecture and the aesthetics is very difficult) been detrimental to the projects.  It is my opinion that Trump Aberdeen was negatively impacted by the walks to get raised tees, but this is only one example and mabe not a good one because it is a very highly respected course.  Who is to say that the extra bling isn't worth the walk?  People argue this is the case for some classic courses; adding to or creating a more memorable experience.  There is something to be said for the experience, especially as green fees continue to rise and the cost in terms of environmental sustainability and travel continue to rise. 

You know how I feel about all this, the day out is just as important as the architecture because I truly believe we are splitting hairs when talking about architecture.  To back up your point, I find that often what is really missing with 2nd tier courses is a bit of architecture (often not much!) and a grand setting of some sort...something to enhance the experience of the day...whatever that may be.

Bottom line, imo, the current bling trend is far better and more appeling than the bling trends of the 70s-90s....yes, bling has been around the block more than a few times.  But it won't matter much if the architecure isn't there....yet, I think for the most part these big footprint natural designs in the corners of the world have delivered very well. 

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Ally

Sure, I agree that bling can compromise architecture at times, but I am trying to figure out when or where.  I can't think of any firm examples which are definitely not associated with a design style...meaning the architecture exists as a certain style regardless of the aesthetics.  However, I believe that usually what is really at the heart of the matter is the bling itself rather than the relationship between architecture and aesthetics.  In my lifetime there has been a radical shift of aesthetics from garden-like to more natural/rugged visuals.  For the sake of argument, say from the Augusta look to the Pacific Dunes look...which is really a throwback to much a much earlier era.  You might be right that aesthetics are driving the calls on some projects, but I am struggling to think of many cases where that has definitely (again, trying to sort out the archtecture and the aesthetics is very difficult) been detrimental to the projects.  It is my opinion that Trump Aberdeen was negatively impacted by the walks to get raised tees, but this is only one example and mabe not a good one because it is a very highly respected course.

I don't know anyone whose opinion I respect who has seen the course and _doesn't_ think that about Trump Aberdeen.

[Niall C]

Sean
 
I think we basically agree that aesthetics has a huge bearing on rankings, and yes I agree to an extent that aesthetics can enhance a course in terms of style of bunkering, presentation etc. However I’m not really referring to those internal aesthetic considerations but the fairly obvious “room with a view” mentality that seems to have taken over.
 
You just need to check out Ran’s review and how often he refers to the views/landscape and the way he strains with every photograph to get a great background to the shot. Indeed, much of the time I suspect he didn’t need to strain too much which brings me back to my point. Would this course have been built if it weren’t for the views ? After all, it’s about as remote as it comes in Scotland and is built on rocks and peat. Not what you’d normally call a winning combination.
 
Niall
 
Ps. I tend to think Castle Stuart is a much better example than Balmedie of aesthetics compromising or at least influencing design. From the containment mounding to provide individual hole corridors and to frame views on the top part of the course to the lung bursting climb from the 12^th green to the 13^th tee, I’d say aesthetics has been near the top of the list as far as design criteria is concerned. Bear in mind also that the developer/co-designer has been known to reject sites with no external views.

[Sean_A]

Niall


You kind of lost me.  If there are significant external views available, doesn't it make sense to showcase those views?  Additionally, when we are talking about the Castle Stuarts and Trump Aberdeens of the world, it is really a conversation about the best 2-300 hundredish golf courses on the planet. In other words, splitting hairs comes to mind.  The added focus on aesthetics should be expected at this quality level and with the high green fees charged.  It may not be your bag, but it is a bag which sells and can contain top quality designs.  As I stated previously, these new designs knock the hell out of what was coming off the drawing boards in the 70s-90s so I am not going to complan too loudly or seek out the elusive perfection in design. 


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean
 
What I’m saying, what I think Tony and Ally are saying also, is that aesthetics is a bigger part of the equation than it used to be and that it can either compromise other design criteria as I’ve suggested at CS, or simply masks deficiencies in other parts of the design.
 
And then what I’m suggesting about the rankings is that when the ranking is based mainly on raters who play the course maybe only once then you are going to get the rankings skewed in favour of those courses with plenty of bling, even though repeat plays might lead to a more sober assessment. 
 
Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Would it be reasonable to say that once-upon-a-time natural aesthesics were easier to find but that now that populations and urban areas have expanded this is not the case so it's necessary to travel further to find such locations?
atb

[David Davis]

I'd fall not Sean's camp on these past comments no doubt. I don't believe many of these new spectacular courses apply to what Ally and Niall and to a lesser extent Tony are saying.


Here are some examples: Old Head, if it were all about aesthetics this would most certainly be Top 100 in the World. However, I don't want to take away from it, it's a great day out and a wonderful experience. Trump Aberdeen, now there is an example in my mind of a course that was overdone to make things spectacular and that at the cost of architecture. However, it's so visually spectacular that most will love it. 12 raised tees and 12 raised greens as I've mentioned in the past over do the emphasis for me and were not necessarily. In fact, they cost the course in the area of variety and having 18 unique and memorable holes. Just my opinion yet indeed as Sean states we are picking at straws on courses built on great pieces of land.


Many modern examples go far beyond what you gents are talking about in my book. Take Tara Iti, Barnboogle, Cape Wickham, Pacific Dunes, Shanqin Bay and most certainly Ardfin. Great sites, in fact dream sites (note not all easy or ideal sites to build on) to be able to build something for any architect, reasonable to huge budgets and they tick all the boxes and that is exactly why they deserve high praise.


Note again that not all dramatic and amazing scenic properties receive the same glory but that is because of less than ideal architecture, the combination in 99% of the cases must be very strong unless it's being influenced by other factors, thing external non-golf related like monetary influence.


There are tons of examples other than those previously mentioned, think Quivera in Mexico, Thracian Cliffs in Bulgaria etc etc, courses built for spectacular but lacking great architecture.

[Sean_A]

Sean
 
What I’m saying, what I think Tony and Ally are saying also, is that aesthetics is a bigger part of the equation than it used to be and that it can either compromise other design criteria as I’ve suggested at CS, or simply masks deficiencies in other parts of the design.
 
And then what I’m suggesting about the rankings is that when the ranking is based mainly on raters who play the course maybe only once then you are going to get the rankings skewed in favour of those courses with plenty of bling, even though repeat plays might lead to a more sober assessment. 
 
Niall

Niall


I think you are right in that as archies become better educated and work with more sufficated tools and better shapers etc, that achieving degrees of aesthetic value have become more important.  What I am saying is that it is very difficult to definitely say the architecture was compromised by aesthetics unless we are questioning the sites used...which opens a huge can of worms.  Not to pick on Trump International, but...because I think raised tees (and too many bunkers for that matter) is an issue with the design doesn't necessarily make it so, esepcially when punters like views.  How many views are too many?  Architecture is a subjective field.  There is only right or wrong on a personal level.  Which is why I say the easy solution is to vote with your wallet. 


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I also think quieter aesthetics are sometimes better than loud ones, regardless of the quality of architecture. But it doesn't sell so easily. Architects never used to think about that. Now they do.


I've said from the beginning that I hope C&C bring about a much quieter, more traditional approach to Coul Links. If it looks like a C&C course, then on one level it will be a fail.


Sean, I can name quite a few courses where a desire for drama and views has taken away from the golf. I'm sure Ardfin isn't one but they are there.

[Niall C]

To be honest Balmedie wasn’t the course that came to mind when I was thinking of courses where the aesthetics “trumped” other design issues. For all that Balmedie was built on sand, I still think of it as being less than ideal given the design constraints imposed by the huge steep dune systems and the wetland areas between. The general routing and the siting of greens nestled into the bottom of dunes seem to me to be purely a consequence of the site constraints. While there are a few raised tees, again in general they are a consequence of the site constraints. The further back you go to position a tee the more likely you are to back up into a dune system. I don’t see that element of the design being about aesthetics.
 
One thing I also noted was that the vast majority of views were internal to the course with few looking outwith the course boundaries. Then you have Hawtree’s penchant for perfectly circular pot bunkers, and his clients insistence on perfect regulation width footpaths and you could argue that both those characteristics are the antithesis of bling or at least the “natural” look we often get.
 
No, the course I was thinking of where arguably the design suffered in the pursuit of nice aesthetics is Castle Stuart. Many on here will remember the fun we used to have arguing over faux bunkers or was it faux sleepers ? Can’t recall which. Then there’s the twee looking eyebrows to the left of the green on 3 (?). I mean to say, bits of wood to stop the run up shot…….in Scotland 
 
But that’s just window dressing. The real compromise came in the routing IMO. I’d suggest that the main issue in the design was how to transition in and out of the lower level along the water ? Bear in mind they didn’t have the same issues as at Balmedie so were fairly free to route the course in such a way as to achieve an easy in and easy(ish) out. Instead they decided to go with a routing that, despite the extensive mitigation work they did, left them with the mother of all climbs from the 12^th green to the 13^th tee. Common sense would suggest it would better to route the course the other way at that point, would it not ?
 
Why did they do that ? Don’t know for sure but I do know that they went to a lot of effort to create and frame views of the Bridge, Castle Stuart etc. It seems to me that they were that keen to create outward views all around, what you might call aesthetics, they were willing to compromise on the flow of the course or what I’d call good design.
 
David
 
Surely the soil and general landscape is the major factor in determining how good a site is ? By all accounts, the Ardfin site comprised peat and rocky outcrops and yet you refer to it being great. Even though, or maybe because that you acknowledge these “great” sites weren’t necessarily the easiest to build, it seems to suggest that aesthetics is much more of a determining factor in course design.
 
Niall 

[Sean_A]

Castle Stuart...I am not sure what you mean by reversing the design...and I certainly don't know what the knock on effect would be 10 & 11.  I am not anywhere near qualified to question the design process in terms of what may have been a better option for the golf or aesthetics.  By all accounts except for yourself, CS is an exceptional design as is.  Maybe there was another way to get a better result...I don't know.  What I do know is when a design is as good as CS, I don't fuss too much over the decision-making in terms of providing focused exterior views.  A lot of factors come into the design of a course and few people actually know enough about specific projects to offer meaning input regarding routing etc.

Trump Abderdeen had other design issues other than providing a tough challenge in a lovely setting.  The course also had to accommodate the movement of people for bigger events.  Some may say that compromises the architecture, but maybe the course doesn't exist at all without the idea of hosting big events.  As a package, it doesn't work very well for me, but so what?

Ciao

[Niall C]

C’mon Sean, stop being obtuse. Even if you’ve never done a routing yourself, you surely know the issues.
 
So what I’m saying is that at the NE corner of the site ie. area of 12^th green, you have by far the greatest difference in levels between the top level of the site and bottom level of the site. Reversing the routing at that point would basically mean holes 9 to 12 would play the other way. That way you would be walking down from the top level rather than walking up to the top level at that point. You don’t need to be a member of ASGCA to work that one out.
 
Once you get to the point below the position of the clubhouse you could either go back up to the top level or continue the routing along the shore line to the 3^rd green, then you’d have a relatively easy climb. Again, not rocket science. So why sacrifice an easier walk for a much tougher one, bearing in mind it’s supposed to be a walking course as I understand it ?
 
And for the record (again) I think CS has some good golf but is nowhere near as good as it’s cracked up to be and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one on here that thinks that.
 
Niall

[John Ezekowitz]

Ran thanks for the comprehensive review and I know you think about these things carefully. It looks like a great place to golf.
 
Picking at this I note, there are 3 par 3’s all playing as pretty heroic, effectively knob to knob?  This type of hole plays very hard on windy days. Second tee shot of the day 205 yards, do or die!
 

Two of them are. The twelfth has a carry over the foreshore but it's basically at beach level and there's quite a lot of short grass around the green.


Second hole is only 205 from the backs, there are four sets of tees.


I do think it is a hard golf course for all that.

Do they play in different directions? It was unclear to me from reading the profile.

[Adam Lawrence]

Yes, the second and tenth are basically directly opposite directions along the coast, and the twelfth heads inland.

[Chris Sorenson]

Love the review of Ardfin Ran!!!!!  Awesome description and wonderful photographs.  And love the fact that you went to Askernish with your bride.  Congratulations on both.
The most west I have made it is Machrihanish and Dunaverty with my wife of 35 years and she loved every minute of the journey that included Nairn, and Royal Dornich. It was late March and I went 36 in a cold driving rain at Machrihanish proving to me that she was a real trooper.
I have followed the rebirth of Askernish since it was rediscovered and brought back to life. I will make that journey soon and will spend a lot of my time on those beautiful Islands.  Thank you so much for the inspiration not just for the golf but entire Islands themselves. 

[Dave McCollum]

I pretty much skimmed through Ran's profile and the discussion here.  My first impression was the incredible beauty of the landscape.  My second was a geezer like me couldn't play it except on fine day with little wind (are there ever such days?) and maybe a bucket of range balls I didn't mind leaving behind.  As I've gotten older and more shit breaks or doesn't work the same, my desire to play really challenging courses has diminished.  Most of my golf buddies are more crippled than I am.  Now I just want to have some fun.  (I haven't played in four months recovering from my latest.) 

Oh, maybe I've seen and played maybe 15-20% of the best courses.  So, in this crowd, I'm not qualified to serve as an usher showing you your seats at the table.  The courses I liked the best were more or less playable by anyone, depending on conditions that day.  You all know the courses.  That to me is a very important component of what makes for great architecture.  As for ratings, they seem inevitable, however silly they seem to me personally.  You won't hear me yakking on such threads.