Castle Course at St Andrews versus Kingsbarns

[Jerry Kluger]

I usually try to stay away from newer courses which were built by moving large amounts of dirt when traveling to Scotland but a friend who lives in St Andrews invited me to play the Castle Course which he said was a basically featureless piece of property before being built and I said why not.  The course was visually outstanding and certainly had a great deal of variety and challenge in playing it.  I have never played Kingsbarns and I asked him how they two courses compared to each other and why was Kingsbarns so sought after to play and so much more expensive.  His opinion was that Kingsbarns is more meticulously maintained and is an easier course which make more golfers like the course and want to come back and play it again.


What are the thoughts of member fellow GCAers?

[Daryl David]

Sorry, I think your friend is mistaken in his opinion. But that’s OK. If you and he had fun, then great!

[Niall C]

Jerry


I've not played the Castle but did walk half a dozen holes in the early days but since then I believe they have softened a number of the greens and taken away the spill-offs that Mick McShane, the shaper, was rather fond of. A pal of mine tells the story of having a 45 yard chip which he put to about 5 feet and then watched as it rolled back off the green and 20 yards by him. I'm not sure how much they have managed to take that kind of thing out of the course as it was quite a severe sloping site to start with.


Kingsbarns on the other hand was built on basically two levels so doesn't have that issue. The course is basically less extreme although they did have to soften the ninth green quite a bit. I can't say why Kingsbarns would be in better nick as neither are true links turf. Perhaps they just have more resources ?


In terms of popularity maybe the reason why Kingsbarns is more popular (judging by greenfee0 is that it is a singular experience while the Castle is part of a larger stable of courses where TOC and the adjacent courses are always going to take centre stage (apologies for the mixed metaphors). The other reason might be that the Castle isn't that good. After all I believe Tom D gave it a zero in the Confidential Guide. I must admit that score makes me want to play it more.


Niall

[Brian Moran]

They're similar - both are built on pretty extreme, nonlinks hillsides that wouldn't have originally been suitable for golf. The way Castle goes about this seems overly forced with random levels in fairway and features that are too bold even for a nerd like me. Overall, the routing just doesn't seem to fit, but there are a few really cool holes with spectacular views


Kingsbarns land is somewhat softer - I think their solution was to simply divide the property in half by building a ridge which is actually quite nice. There are some really well designed holes and great shots, overall even though it still is noticeably a very American-style course it still is worth playing.


Would strongly recommend Kingsbarns over Castle - probably 9 rounds to 1 if I had to pick where to play 10. In my opinion it's the best modern course in Scotland, although I have yet to see Dumbarnie in Fife and Tom Doak/Clyde Johnson's Cabot Highlands course looks like it could be pretty special.

[Tom_Doak]

Kingsbarns land is somewhat softer - I think their solution was to simply divide the property in half by building a ridge which is actually quite nice.

I am pretty sure the two levels at Kingsbarns were basically there to begin with - I saw it with Mark Parsinen quite early in construction, as he wanted me to consult on the design.  (He envisioned himself like George Crump overseeing PV and getting help from all of his architect friends.)  There was some upper farmland and then a fairly narrow, lower level near the sea, where the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 12th, and 15th-17th holes sit today.  There was quite a bit of earthmoving on the rest to make them feel like the upper holes at Royal Dornoch.


I also saw The Castle Course early in construction, the year I played in the Dunhill - one of the fellows from the Links Trust offered me a tour.  That’s probably why I’m so biased against it, although if you read my actual review of it in The Confidential Guide, that story is entirely true.  David Kidd was out of town, but all of the crew were openly dissing Kingsbarns and saying how much better the new course was going to be - even Mick, who had been the lead shaper for Kingsbarns.  It was obvious it was going to be really hard; a lot of the landing areas had islands of rough mounds right in the middle of the fairway.  When I got home I did reach out to David and asked if he was sure he really wanted to go that way?

[Sean_A]

I believe the lower part of Kingsbarns was an abandoned course. I don’t know if it was links, but now all the sections of the course seem like they have similar turf playing characteristics.

Kingsbarns is a much more player friendly course than Castle, especially with approaches to greens. That said, I don’t believe best of Kingsbarns matches the best of Castle. Still, I think Kingsbarns is the better course, but not by a wide margin. I think since my last visit Castle was softened again, so I expect it has been improved.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


The land before at Kingsbarns was basically as Tom described it, and yes the lower level was links where the old nine hole Kingsbarns course used to be. During construction the shifted a hell of a lot of dirt, particularly for a UK course, not only to create the landforms but also in terms of mixing the soils from the top with the dirt from below and then using it throughout in an attempt to get a consistency in the soil/turf. You can just about peek over the boundary when standing on the 4th tee to see the surrounding land and it gives you an idea of what it was like before.


Re the Castle course, I spoke to Mick McShane about it after it was built and he more or less acknowledged that (in his opinion) they had maybe pushed the envelope a bit too much. I'd still like to experience it though just to see for myself.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

I can't imagine that many would not conclude that Kingsbarns is the better course, for all that it is _very_ 'knowing' and American-oriented. Mark thought really, really hard about what he wanted from his courses, and they are absolutely designed to deliver that. Now that said, I do think the Castle has some spectacular holes and is a remarkable piece of construction (and especially shaping -- Mick was a true artist) work. But it is poor, poor soil, and that is a big hurdle to overcome without a huge budget in a country dominated by sandy links.

Brian -- of the Parsinen courses, you prefer Kingsbarns to Castle Stuart? I don't agree with you, but it is after all only an opinion.

[Marty Bonnar]

Funnily enough, I happened to play the Castle again yesterday. For years, I’ve been critical of it, but I so enjoyed it, I’m desperate to go back again. It’s just such a FUN golf course. Honestly, we smiled and laughed the whole way round.
They’re doing a fabulous job developing great wildlife habitat with the out-of-play areas, too.
The 17th. One of the great views in Scottish golf, IMNSHO.

F.
PS Jerry, you never got back to me!  :'(

[Tom_Doak]

I have never played Kingsbarns and I asked him how they two courses compared to each other and why was Kingsbarns so sought after to play and so much more expensive.  His opinion was that Kingsbarns is more meticulously maintained and is an easier course which make more golfers like the course and want to come back and play it again.

The most obvious point of difference [which is mostly overlooked because it makes one sound like a simpleton] is that Kingsbarns is much more in touch with the sea, and that's what people and especially Americans like about it, never mind those are the holes which feel the least like a true Scottish links.  Being up on top of the cliffs is not quite the same feeling.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The main differences:


- Mick McShane was a bit more restrained at Kingsbarns. He went in to overdrive at Castle.


- Kingsbarns was a more natural site - there was some sand on the lower level. Castle course was very heavy farmland


- Kingsbarns is more connected to the sea (as Tom says)


- The Castle Course shaping is quite uniform in size and scale, stopping abruptly. Would have been better having some macro-shaping dune ridges, smoothing out towards the road / fields.


I like - but don’t love - them both. Castle Course gets a raw deal. There are some really good fun holes. I’m with Marty.

[Michael Felton]

I have never played Kingsbarns and I asked him how they two courses compared to each other and why was Kingsbarns so sought after to play and so much more expensive.  His opinion was that Kingsbarns is more meticulously maintained and is an easier course which make more golfers like the course and want to come back and play it again.

I have a feeling it might also be that Kingsbarns has been on TV and, at least as far as I am aware, the Castle has not. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if that drives at least a portion of the popularity.


I also think that golf courses are one of those things where if you had two courses next to each other that were identical, but one cost GBP20 a round and the other GBP100 that a lot of people (especially if they're on a trip) would choose to play the more expensive one because they would assume it was better. The locals would all play the cheaper one and keep schtum about it...

The most obvious point of difference [which is mostly overlooked because it makes one sound like a simpleton] is that Kingsbarns is much more in touch with the sea, and that's what people and especially Americans like about it, never mind those are the holes which feel the least like a true Scottish links.  Being up on top of the cliffs is not quite the same feeling.

[Adam Lawrence]

I have never played Kingsbarns and I asked him how they two courses compared to each other and why was Kingsbarns so sought after to play and so much more expensive.  His opinion was that Kingsbarns is more meticulously maintained and is an easier course which make more golfers like the course and want to come back and play it again.

I have a feeling it might also be that Kingsbarns has been on TV and, at least as far as I am aware, the Castle has not. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if that drives at least a portion of the popularity.


I also think that golf courses are one of those things where if you had two courses next to each other that were identical, but one cost GBP20 a round and the other GBP100 that a lot of people (especially if they're on a trip) would choose to play the more expensive one because they would assume it was better. The locals would all play the cheaper one and keep schtum about it...

The most obvious point of difference [which is mostly overlooked because it makes one sound like a simpleton] is that Kingsbarns is much more in touch with the sea, and that's what people and especially Americans like about it, never mind those are the holes which feel the least like a true Scottish links.  Being up on top of the cliffs is not quite the same feeling.

I think the important thing to realise is that neither is a true links. Kingsbarns is probably closer, but they are both absolutely constructed courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the important thing to realise is that neither is a true links. Kingsbarns is probably closer, but they are both absolutely constructed courses.

That's the sad thing, for me, that all of the newer courses in Scotland are very heavily constructed and just the opposite of their forebears.  At St. Patrick's and in Bandon and Tasmania we were able to build something much more similar to true links courses than anyone has been able to do in Scotland.


I guess over there all the good land really IS taken, either by existing courses or by the government and the environmental groups.

[Marty Bonnar]

I think the important thing to realise is that neither is a true links. Kingsbarns is probably closer, but they are both absolutely constructed courses.

That's the sad thing, for me, that all of the newer courses in Scotland are very heavily constructed and just the opposite of their forebears.  At St. Patrick's and in Bandon and Tasmania we were able to build something much more similar to true links courses than anyone has been able to do in Scotland.


I guess over there all the good land really IS taken, either by existing courses or by the government and the environmental groups.

I tend to agree, Tom. In the St A area alone, The Castle, both courses at the Fairmont, Kingsbarns, Crail Craighead, Dumbarnie - all major earthmoving exercises. Mach Dunes is possibly the only current outlier to the theory and, I guess, Coul - if it ever happens - might be similar. Both due to trying hard to conform to the Environmental limitations, obviously.

[Jerry Kluger]

Here's where it gets interesting - greens fees at Kingsbarns is 418 Pounds while Castle is 170 Pounds.  The New is 140 Pounds so you could play the Castle and the New and have a very nice dinner for the price you would pay to play Kingsbarns.  We had a discussion about playing private courses, etc. and while not private, Kingsbarns is charging an obscene amount to play a course where I would bet the vast majority of visitors from the US belong to private clubs. BTW: Instead of a dinner you could also play the Eden course.  Would it be fair to say that it is hard to justify playing one course instead of the other 3 other than to come back home and tell your golfing buddies that you played it and that money is no object?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I somewhat disagree. Trump Balmedie was a completely natural site. As was Mach Dunes.


Still much easier to build on an SSSI than on a European SAC.


Can’t talk for the States.

[Tom_Doak]

I somewhat disagree. Trump Balmedie was a completely natural site. As was Mach Dunes.

Still much easier to build on an SSSI than on a European SAC.

Ally:  I agree, the chances of building on an SAC are zero percent, whereas I did build three holes on SSSI at The Renaissance Club. 


Yet almost none of the courses being built in the UK are actually on linksland or even dunes land.  They're mostly like Dumbarnie, overlooking the dunes from agricultural land, and reshaped in the image of dunes land.


You are right that Trump's property was different.  Unfortunately, they didn't treat it like that.  Machrihanish Dunes was certainly true links ground, but the restrictions placed on it were onerous.  I am going to go out there next month while I'm in the UK, but nothing I have heard about Mach Dunes makes me think I want to go play it instead of a fourth round at Machrihanish.

[Niall C]

Tom


Mach Dunes is well worth a play. I wouldn't say it is better than Machrihanish but even if you only walk Mach Dunes, take your putter with you and have a bit of fun on the greens.


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes, I like Mach Dunes a lot and it is most certainly worth playing. It’s not the greens or necessarily the routing / holes that makes me like it so much, it’s the very fact that I am playing golf through great dune-land where there has been little to no fairway shaping. It therefore feels incredibly natural.


On the flip-side, Trump’s fairways and green-sites were very deliberately shaped. And I can’t get my head around why that approach was taken. My rating of the course is always clouded by that air of artificiality from the construction methodology.


Trump’s second course at Balmedie will be an interesting case study. The architecture in the six dune holes will again be “saved” by the spectacular surroundings and terrain. But the other twelve holes will be on much flatter and wetter farmland. So it will take a really deft design / build hand to make the course blend seamlessly.


Funnily enough, it is that kind of landscape that I’d be most interested in seeing the Renaissance crew working in as not many could pull that transition off to a suitably skilled level. I fear for the end result at Trump 2 but I guess I should wait to see the finished product before passing judgement.

[Ben Stephens]

I think the important thing to realise is that neither is a true links. Kingsbarns is probably closer, but they are both absolutely constructed courses.

That's the sad thing, for me, that all of the newer courses in Scotland are very heavily constructed and just the opposite of their forebears.  At St. Patrick's and in Bandon and Tasmania we were able to build something much more similar to true links courses than anyone has been able to do in Scotland.


I guess over there all the good land really IS taken, either by existing courses or by the government and the environmental groups.

Umm isn't your new course at Cabot Highlands quite constructed as it was basically flat farmland prior to Clyde working on it. The CGI's show a lot of contours which can be easily interpreted as being heavily constructed - just saying.

[Ben Stephens]

Yes, I like Mach Dunes a lot and it is most certainly worth playing. It’s not the greens or necessarily the routing / holes that makes me like it so much, it’s the very fact that I am playing golf through great dune-land where there has been little to no fairway shaping. It therefore feels incredibly natural.


On the flip-side, Trump’s fairways and green-sites were very deliberately shaped. And I can’t get my head around why that approach was taken. My rating of the course is always clouded by that air of artificiality from the construction methodology.


Trump’s second course at Balmedie will be an interesting case study. The architecture in the six dune holes will again be “saved” by the spectacular surroundings and terrain. But the other twelve holes will be on much flatter and wetter farmland. So it will take a really deft design / build hand to make the course blend seamlessly.


Funnily enough, it is that kind of landscape that I’d be most interested in seeing the Renaissance crew working in as not many could pull that transition off to a suitably skilled level. I fear for the end result at Trump 2 but I guess I should wait to see the finished product before passing judgement.

Ally I spoke to the GCA who is now working on Trump 2nd course at Balmedie it does sound quite exciting from GCA standpoint

[Ben Stephens]

I probably have mentioned 'The Seventh Course at St Andrews' book which I would recommend - as it is a good read telling the story from an outsider's point of view how the design and construction work was done from inception to completion.


Caught up with Paul Kimber earlier this week he is a bit of a bandit now - Paul not only worked at Castle Course but also Dumbarnie with Clive Clark as well under the KimberGlen banner.

[Niall C]

Ben


Who is the GCA for Balmedie 2 ?


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Umm isn't your new course at Cabot Highlands quite constructed as it was basically flat farmland prior to Clyde working on it. The CGI's show a lot of contours which can be easily interpreted as being heavily constructed - just saying.

Ben:


Yes, it is mostly constructed, and I very nearly turned the job down for precisely that reason, but Ben Cowan-Dewar persisted in wanting to work with me, and one of Mark Parsinen's friends [who had the most $ in the project] also encouraged me to take it up.  It's also a great opportunity for Clyde to work somewhere near home and he deserved that after years on the road for me.


Don't pay much attention to the CGI; we have moved quite a lot of dirt to get the fairways on free-draining soil, but it was never our intention to sell the most inland holes as "links" and that's the part that probably bothers me most about Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart and the others, that they feel they have to do that.  There are lots of great seaside courses with some holes off the links ground . . . Ballybunion, Royal Dornoch, St. Enodoc, Westward Ho!, even Cruden Bay has one or two.


I also agree that there is some great land for the second Trump course [or at least, a few holes of it].  When I had the topo maps to look at it years ago, I thought the best part was the dunes just south of the existing course.  If the Scottish government had told Trump he couldn't go into the shifting dunes, and had to settle for one course, I think it would have been better.  And I think he expected them to push back on that, but they never negotiated with him about it!