Against the Grain of Consensus: Royal Dornoch

[Michael Chadwick]

A few years ago, there was a brief effort started by Tom Doak to generate “serious criticism” among the board on a particular course (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69521.0.html). I’ll volunteer an opinion of Royal Dornoch that I imagine is in the minority of perspectives, as an invitation to hear others’ defense of it.

Royal Dornoch is without question an exceptional links, having never appeared outside the top 20 in the world since GOLF Magazine began publishing rankings in 1983. An escarpment provides a secluded amphitheater throughout its routing, beginning on an upland plateau, transitioning through hillsides that traverse elevations, down to low-lying coastal links just wide enough for parallel holes. The greens are superb, predominately tabletop plateaus with steep fall offs. The 2nd and 14th are two pronounced examples, stern complexes with treacherous recoveries from any miss. Thickets of gorse cover the slopes of the surrounding wall, offering a brilliant yellow backdrop when in bloom. In 1886, after the club’s founding in 1877, Old Tom Morris extended a preliminary 9 holes to 18. The design today is a melding of what Morris routed along with George Duncan, who, after WWII destroyed a handful of holes, created the present 6th through 11th.

I admire the course for its unspoiled contour and wondrous setting, the distinctive fingers jutting into Foxy’s 14th, but its architecture didn’t capture my imagination as much as I had anticipated it would. Apart from the opening hole, teeing strategy isn’t as directed by fairway hazards as it is from mowing lines. While the double-wide hole corridors are generous, rough is maintained on each side of fairway, partitioning the links into what feels like a narrower landing area than what’s available. The theme of the demanding par 3s extends to the 2nd shot of most other holes—hit the green or face the consequences. The cohesiveness of its design, I think, comes at the detriment of variety. For me, nearly half of the course can be organized into pairs that resemble each other in look and shots: holes 2&6, 3&4, 8&17, 10&13.

I’ve continued thinking over the course, looking over the yardage book, and I can’t persuade myself away from believing that the course asks less questions of strategy than it does of execution. As a result, I feel like I’ve encountered more design variety, and faced more decisions, at Carnoustie or North Berwick—two Scottish courses I’d argue that are on the same tier as Dornoch, though I admit I’d rank both of them over it.

I’ll make it clear that I still deeply respect the course, loved the town and its proximity to the course, and obviously want to return to it again. But it’s one of the first examples of me falling notably below consensus opinion. For a course with a Doak Score of 10, 9, 10, 10, I’m coming in at 8, and I welcome your input as I continue noodling over why I’m lower than most for such beloved course.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Michael well said, you've made a good argument.  It's easy to see why people get blown away on their first visit.  Ifteh late lamented Rich Goodale were still around, I feel sure he'd welcome you're counter argument before making his own case.


Last year I revisted after a 16 year gap. I was asking myself similar questions to yours. Obviously its a great course, but does every approach need to be be aerial?  Hopefully later this month I'll have more to add, but until then let the debate continue....

[David_Tepper]

"but does every approach need to be be aerial?"

Tony -

This is absolutely not the case. A run-up shot can be played into and onto the greens of #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17 & #18. Believe me, as I have been playing run-up shots into/onto those greens almost every day for the past 3 weeks!

DT   
 

[Dan_Callahan]

That was my thought as well. I recall bouncing the ball into quite a few holes. When it comes to picking a "best" of anything, obviously everyone has their own preference. But of all the courses I've played, Dornoch is my favorite. Which is odd because I love quirk, and Dornoch doesn't have much quirk. I love rolling terrain, but other than those transition points around 8 and 16/17, Dornoch is fairly flat. There's just something about it that, for me, makes it the perfect golf course.

[Richard Muldoon]

This is absolutely not the case. A run-up shot can be played into and onto the greens of #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17 & #18. Believe me, as I have been playing run-up shots into/onto those greens almost every day for the past 3 weeks!
[/size][/color]
[/size]David, [/color]
[/size]of course if the course is running firm then you can run the ball in, but a lot of these greens are so big that I would have thought the aerial approach would be the best(easiest) shot. I've only played Dornoch 6 times and I know you will have played it a hell of a lot more, but my overall feeling is to carry the greens on most occasions.[/color]
[/size]17? is there rally a lot of times you can run a shot in there?[/color]

[Ian Mackenzie]

I’ll make it clear that I still deeply respect the course, loved the town and its proximity to the course, and obviously want to return to it again. But it’s one of the first examples of me falling notably below consensus opinion. For a course with a Doak Score of 10, 9, 10, 10, I’m coming in at 8, and I welcome your input as I continue noodling over why I’m lower than most for such beloved course.

Michael - very well-articulated, but I believe your comments stand (to you) on their own merit and can be left alone.
"Horses for courses" as they say....;-)


I have similar sentiments about:


1. The Road Hole at TOC
2. The 17th at Cypress
3. Cohiba Reserve cigars
4. $500 cabernets
5. Chicago Golf Club and Shoreacres (both which I believe are overrated...;-)


I get your sentiment and am glad it's out there.


But, what do you actually seek? Confirmation or a spirited debate?


I played RDGC with David Tepper last year and, while our games may be different, we both have multiple ways to play each hole.

[Tony_Muldoon]

"but does every approach need to be be aerial?"

Tony -

This is absolutely not the case. A run-up shot can be played ...

   David sadly we've broken bread, but never actually played togethe so I don't know your game.


 "can be played"  is that true for most golfers?   Just asking because I was a bit surprised by the no of seriously elevated greens.
This doesn't diss the course, it just defines it for me.


I consider Deal a course where most greens are also best flown, but compared ot Dornoch the rises are not so great and the recoveries are therefore more varied. 


As I say this is just my impression, played 3X when it was one of the first great courses I saw. Then a long gap and I was trully surprised how many greens were seriously raised.   


I look forward to the chance to revise my opinion....again. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

This is absolutely not the case. A run-up shot can be played into and onto the greens of #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17 & #18. Believe me, as I have been playing run-up shots into/onto those greens almost every day for the past 3 weeks!

]David,
of course if the course is running firm then you can run the ball in, but a lot of these greens are so big that I would have thought the aerial approach would be the best(easiest) shot. I've only played Dornoch 6 times and I know you will have played it a hell of a lot more, but my overall feeling is to carry the greens on most occasions.
17? is there really a lot of times you can run a shot in there?

always good to help a brother

(posted simultaneously to mine)

(Use the last button on the second row above - the one where a red arrow appears between two square brackets - if you need to edit.)

[Richard Muldoon]

This is absolutely not the case. A run-up shot can be played into and onto the greens of #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17 & #18. Believe me, as I have been playing run-up shots into/onto those greens almost every day for the past 3 weeks!
[/size][/color]
[/size]David, [/color]
[/size]of course if the course is running firm then you can run the ball in, but a lot of these greens are so big that I would have thought the aerial approach would be the best(easiest) shot. I've only played Dornoch 6 times and I know you will have played it a hell of a lot more, but my overall feeling is to carry the greens on most occasions.[/color]
[/size]17? is there rally a lot of times you can run a shot in there?[/color]

[Michael Chadwick]

"Horses for courses" as they say....;-)



But, what do you actually seek? Confirmation or a spirited debate?

Thanks, Ian. I just like people chatting about great golf courses. It doesn't seem to happen much on this site anymore!

[Michael Chadwick]

There's just something about it that, for me, makes it the perfect golf course.

You're not alone in that idea, Dan, and I think the course's greater than the sum of its parts element should be highlighted and more fully considered.


In my view, I've probably heard Dornoch described in ethereal/spiritual terms more than perhaps any other course (apart from Nantz referring to Cypress Point as golf's Sistine Chapel). Maybe Reverend Brown's passages in Dornoch's yardage book are to blame for such effective evangelizing for the course!  


But what is it? Does it have anything--or too much?--to do with the fact that it's the birthplace of Ross? That the course becomes a kind of pilgrimage place as a result of that? Would the course have the same renown had Ross not hailed from there? 

[mike_malone]

I played it 5 times in four days a few years ago and couldn’t get over that nagging feeling that it was very good but not great.


  Foxy stands out as a world class hole but I can’t remember any reaching that level of appeal after that. I think 2 is goofy and I birdied it once. The back and forth with such severe slopes and short grass is silly. There are a few drab holes and a weak ending that lessen my view of it.


I find North Berwick to be much more engaging. Deal and Rye are more enjoyable. Royal St. George’s and Royal Porthcawl seem to have more championship quality.


 The remote location may account for some of the love.


Each time the course is mentioned here there are detractors much like Pebble, Pinehurst, and Oakland Hills.


It leads to the question “ should top 20 courses be universally agreed to?” 

[David_Tepper]

Brothers Muldoon -

Yes, on #17 you do need to hit an elevated shot to carry the slope of rough/bunkers fronting the green. That being said, if you hit your (elevated) shot well left on the flagstick it is a much shorter carry over the slope and your ball will land on fairway cut grass that will run your ball right & forward/downward on to the green. You do not need to land your ball on the green itself on the fly.

As we all know, choosing what shot to play on a links into a green depends on the wind, the pin position, the firmness of the green, etc.  I have never been more than a mid-teen handicap. There are at least five par-4's at Dornoch I am almost never going to reach in two shots. I don't have enough clubhead speed to put a lot of backspin on my short irons and wedges. Pitching off of tight lies is not exactly the strength of my game. More often than not I reach for a 7-iron or putter to roll the ball on to the green, hopefully close enough to sink a putt to save par or bogey.

Yes, the slopes fronting #4, #11 and #14 are severe. But any time I am within 30-40 yards of those greens I will likely choose to chip or putt.

Tuesday afternoon I saw a caddie instruct an older golfer (like me!) to use his hybrid to run his shot up the slope on to the 14th green from about 70 yards away. The fellow pulled the shot off quite well. It can be done.

One thing that has not been mentioned so far are the false fronts on several of the greens that will deflect a weakly hit shot sideways into a greenside bunker. The greens on #3, #7 and #12 are good examples. Shots hit poorly into #4 have a habit of rolling right into those two very nasty bunkers fronting the right side of the green.

DT       


p.s. Regarding the connection to Donald Ross, other than a one sentence mention on the RDGC website that he was a greenkeeper and professional there, I find there is surprisingly little reference to him anywhere else, either in the clubhouse or course guide. The connection to Old Tom Morris is far more apparent.         

[Marty Bonnar]

There is the plaque on the house at least:

Cheers,
F.

[David_Tepper]

Speaking of Royal Dornoch:

https://royaldornoch.com/2024/06/06/herb-warren-wind-sixty-years/

[Niall C]

Just asking because I was a bit surprised by the no of seriously elevated greens.

Tony


They're not elevated, they're at grade. It's just that Donald Ross got a bit heavy handed with the top dressing which is why the club punted him off to America.


Niall

[Ira Fishman]

There's just something about it that, for me, makes it the perfect golf course.

You're not alone in that idea, Dan, and I think the course's greater than the sum of its parts element should be highlighted and more fully considered.


In my view, I've probably heard Dornoch described in ethereal/spiritual terms more than perhaps any other course (apart from Nantz referring to Cypress Point as golf's Sistine Chapel). Maybe Reverend Brown's passages in Dornoch's yardage book are to blame for such effective evangelizing for the course!  


But what is it? Does it have anything--or too much?--to do with the fact that it's the birthplace of Ross? That the course becomes a kind of pilgrimage place as a result of that? Would the course have the same renown had Ross not hailed from there?

Michael,


I have played RD only once, but I had a very similar reaction as yours. I particularly echo that some of the holes felt repetitive. I also thought that after 14, the finishing stretch was not that great, especially the tee shot at 16.


But like for you, I think my expectations were skewed by the mystical attributes of RD. For over 50 years, I was convinced that RD is the course in Golf in the Kingdom. I have no idea how that got in my head as a teenager, but it did.


Ira

[jeffwarne]

Interesting discussion.
I thought I was the only one.
It's not that Dornoch isn't a great course and place-it is-as so many people I respect constantly tell me.
The old "it's not you, it's me" dilemma.


I have a hard time getting past the expectations,value and bustle equation, despite being comped and or playing with a member(30 pounds) in my three visits.
I'm aware that is a pretty absurd statement, especially given I was provided great value myself.
I made time to return the last two times because the others in my group had not played it.
It's not that i didn't want to return to a great course, there's just so much I'd like to see in the area, and in the country.
Perhaps it has do with expectations, perhaps it just doesn't feel remote, rustic or like a hidden gem to me, with a bit of the hustle and bustle of the operation. Nevertheless, Dornoch has many, many great holes and is an outstanding place that everyone should visit.


But as far as actual(negative) comments about the course,some of the par 3s feel repetitive  as do the penultimate holes on each nine.



If pushed to pick a favorite in the area, I'd have to say Golspie, with its humble culture, variety and unique texture, which I have gladly made time for each trip.
That doesn't make Dornoch not great, nor make me a bad person:).

[Sean_A]

I don't really operate on the Doak score mainly because its Doak's system. My way of looking at courses doesn't quite match up to Doak's because I care about the experience of the day. I am not paying money to simply look at courses....that can mainly be done for free. What I can say is that Dornoch is without question top 15 best courses in GB&I. I could entertain arguments that Dornoch is as high as #2. I personally have it at #5. No, Dornoch isn't perfect and there are aspects I don't like. Whatever Dornoch's faults, the course is plenty good enough. That is all that really matters.  Well that and would I pay to go back...maybe, but not terribly often. 

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

Dornoch has some repetitive concepts - 2 and 6 aren't wildly dissimilar holes. 8 and 17 have a lot in common. And yes, you can argue that it features a lot of elevated greens that have some similarity, visually.


I just can't help noticing the variety of shots that I found myself hitting around those greens. The general concept of "elevated green surrounded by swales and bunkers" leaves a lot of room for variety in the shots themselves. With only one play under my belt, I'll remember for a long time:

• Hitting a conventional pitch from short grass right of two that actually stayed on the green
• Finding a pot bunker directly between my ball and the hole on 11, and hitting a perfect little chip that bounced off the left downslope feeding into the bunker to bank the ball back online toward the hole as it released... just wish I'd made the 7 footer I had left to cash the check on that one because it's otherwise one of my favorite short shots I've ever hit.
• A blast on 13 from right next to the face of a front right pot bunker that came out almost straight vertically, landed on the green on the downslope, and released to 2.5 feet.

These are vividly memorable shots in dramatically different situations, despite all three of them being created by a combination of "elevated green surrounded by swales and bunkers." It's arguably repetitious when zoomed out, but creates a lot of variety situationally.

[David_Tepper]

"These are vividly memorable shots in dramatically different situations, despite all three of them being created by a combination of "elevated green surrounded by swales and bunkers." It's arguably repetitious when zoomed out, but creates a lot of variety situationally."

It is hard to imagine a course that is more testing of one's short game than Dornoch, whether you are pitching, chipping, hitting bunker shots or putting on to the greens. You can hit all of those shots in one round. And holing putts on the greens is no easy task either.

[Kalen Braley]

I have no dog in this fight and have only seen the course in videos and pictures.

As noted, the course has been in the world top 20 the last 4 decades, which is no small task with nearly 40,000 courses world wide. At this point, perhaps the question is not "is it great?", but better posed as "is it elite?" given its very lofty status as being one of the best of the best for so long now?

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:


Kudos for starting an actual discussion about a golf course.


As someone who rated the golf course a 10 -- one of a dozen in the world at the time -- I feel at least a little bit responsible for how highly the course is ranked, and I have some sympathy for many of the points you've raised.  When I first visited the course forty years ago, it was a true pilgrimage -- the well-traveled greenskeeper at St. Andrews, Walter Woods, had never been to Dornoch because it was "too far" -- and most courses that are pilgrimages tend to become overrated, because people want to justify the trip they made, and to hold themselves over others for having made the pilgrimage.


[For contrast, I've been there 8-9 times now and I've driven up there each of the last three years to show someone from my crew around the course, so for me, certainly, some of the awe has worn off.]


Nowadays, it's quite a bit easier to get there [people actually fly to Inverness!] but the course is a bit of a sacred cow -- there are very few people willing to argue its weak points.  And there are certainly some to argue.  The finishing holes are far from ideal, and the 16th might well be the worst hole on any top 25 course, although I think the 15th and 17th are interesting and more than a little quirky.  The walk from 12 to 13 to 14 [caused by 13's insertion into the postwar routing] is very odd.


There are certainly some great holes at Royal Dornoch -- it helps that a bunch of them come right in a row early in the round -- and the course is certainly quite exacting toward approach play, which is always worth our respect.  And as David T. points out, the greens contouring is beautifully done, which puts it a step ahead of the vast majority of UK courses for anyone who appreciates short game variety, which is a big plank in my estimation of golf courses.


The thing I liked about it from the beginning was the trek aspect of the routing . . . the reveal at the 3rd tee, going back up and over the hill after the 6th, coming around the narrow stretch of dunes from 9 through 11, and the little loop of 17 and 18 at the end.  Even the gorse is pretty at Dornoch!  I've written more about Cruden Bay in this regard but Dornoch has it, too, although the reveal after the 2nd is not so spectacular now that they've got to lead you by the hand to the next tee so you don't hit the new houses along the left!


But I fear the thing that most Americans like about Dornoch [particularly Mike Keiser] is that it suits the American ideal of links golf . . . a links where you can see the water from most of the holes.  Dornoch is not the only UK links which benefits from this in the rankings [no one wants to mention that it was always a factor at Murifield, or that it plays a part in North Berwick's miraculous renaissance], but it seems to me that Dornoch is now pandering to that, by rebuilding the 7th hole in a location that reinforces the view.  They even built a close approximation of the hole they were moving, to reinforce that the work was all about the view!!


UK sources were always a bit lower on Dornoch [and Ballybunion] because they don't care as much about the views as they do about the golf, but I don't know if that is still true, as I don't pay so much attention anymore to the differences between the various rankings and what might be driving them.


Would I knock my rating back a notch if I had to do it over again?  I guess we'll never know as long as I don't update The Confidential Guide online.

[Roman Schwarz]

I can see both sides of the argument, but I land on the side of "it's great."  Sometimes I do question it because it doesn't have any particular thing that blows you away, but I never convince myself otherwise.

I think the greatness has a lot of it has to do with pace and scale.  That makes it add up to way more than the sum of its parts.  I played it twice on consecutive days (one of those the afternoon after a morning at Castle Stuart), and would have readily gone for a 3rd if time allowed.

I loved TOC as well, so if we leave that out and compare against other top courses on the trip (and I realize I'm being really critical about really great courses):
-I did a 36 day at Cruden Bay, and while I absolutely loved it....that's a really tough day even without any poor weather.  I was not ready for more golf at the end of that.  As an exploration of the land, it's cool how it uses the dunes to the north and the dunes to the south, but there's something that feels strange about the layout on the property.  I can't think of another great course that cocoons the lesser course, which is the one you're looking at from the clubhouse.  The flatter points of the round do come at perfect times as respite from the uphill climbs.
-I enjoyed the inward 9 at Aberdeen more than most, but it's the pacing of the holes that was more problematic for me than the actual content.  If courses were like albums where you could custom shuffle the order of the tracks and mix the inward and outward holes in a different order, that course would feel a lot different.  No artist would put all the bangers first and finish with all the ballads.
-North Berwick would be the closest comp for pace and scale with quality, but the difference in quality between the outward and inward 9's is so stark.  There also isn't nearly as much interesting elevation change.
-I really liked Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns start to finish, but they both lean toward the "too big in scale" side and don't beat Dornoch in terms of hole quality.  I had a few other quibbles with Kingsbarns, but that's not the point here.  I personally always deduct points for returning 9's as well because it feels like every other formulaic course built in the US, particularly if it's 2 5's and 2 3's on each 9 for par 72.  That formula feels like a straight IV of aspartame.
-The closest comp to Dornoch from my trip would be Elie, but hole by hole Elie doesn't come close to stacking up.  I can't speak for the real ringers out there, but I'd imagine Elie at 6200 yards from the tips couldn't hold their interest nearly as well.  Elie also has only 1 hole over 450 yards, so it's not testing the whole bag of shots nearly as much.  On the other hand, Dornoch is just fine for a weaker player as well.  A lot of Dornoch's meaty holes are bunched up between 7-14, but it gets teed up by a short 4 and a 3 and then has 2 3's sprinkled in between.

Finding comps elsewhere, I'd compare to #2, Bandon Trails, and Jasper Park.  All are intriguing 1-18 yet don't have to resort to crazy scale (other than Jasper's mountain scenery that isn't in play) for intrigue.  If the complaint about #2 is a lack of green variety (I'd kill for a funnel pin SOMEWHERE in the round..can we import the 8th at Pacific Dunes or 18th at Old Mac?), Dornoch has some green features that can be used to help you rather than repel the ball.  The left sides of 3-8 at Dornoch are helping slopes with 8 being a downright funnel.  10 has 2 ridges to help you stop the ball if it's down wind.  13 and 18 also funnel toward the center.  Maybe the greens themselves are elevated, but all those other slopes result in approach and recovery variety.

For being an out-and-back routing, the slight S shape plus the reverse direction on 17 prevents playing too many consecutive holes into the same wind.

Depending on how I scale my Doak scale, it feels like 9 has to be the floor if I'd take Dornoch head to head against all of those courses.  Let's ask the reverse question...what would improve Dornoch, no matter how much of a fantasy land idea it is (like mixing the order at Aberdeen)?  What would make it better?  What is it missing?  It has variety, scale, pace, setting, 1 of the best holes in the world, plus every single hole is at least "very good".  That all adds up to a great course to me.

(came back and edited here because the font sizes got jacked up)

[Thomas Dai]

Let’s not forget that 6 holes on the current course weren’t built until after WW2.
See - https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/the-architectural-evolution-of-royal-dornoch-golf-club/


Atb