Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Brian Phillips on July 23, 2009, 03:47:53 PM
-
I realise there is another thread with photos but I have a few more of other details here. Pictures taken on Monday.
-
More..
-
Brian -
The more pics the merrier. Keep them coming!
DT
-
Hole 3 - The picture of the ball before the green was my drive which is where you should be if you are stupid enough to try to sneak past the two fairway bunkers.
-
Hole 4...my pics do not do it justice. The Castle looked like it was right behind the green and when u get up there it was miles away!! I don't have many as I was struggling to get back on the green...
-
Serpentine sodded bunkers!! That looks awesome. Some of those holes are right on the water. Can't wait to go.
Anthony
-
Hole 5
-
Hole 6 - Superb Par 5 back towards the water with a typical Parsinen green that looks like it is hanging on a cliff. Sorry Gil if it was your idea... ;) First pic is looking towards a graveyard parallel to the 5th.
-
Hole 7 - double dogleg with the clubhouse in the background...I didn't like that but who cares what I think...?
-
Hole 8 - tough long par 3
-
It looks like that course has been there forever.
Anthony
-
Hole 9 - Awesome, awesome short par 4
-
We got back to the starters hut and had a chat. The starter plays of 4 and says to us..."I like the back nine more than the front...." ;D
Hole 10
-
Hole 11 - Sand Hills....?
-
Hole 12 - A rip it Par 5. No bunkering for the drive and green raised well above the fairway to finish.
-
Hole 13 - heartbreak hill and some nice touches along the way...
-
Hole 14
-
Hole 15 - Do NOT go in this bunker... :o
-
Hole 16 - driveable par 4 in about a 2 - 4 club wind
-
Hole 17 - Par 3 Stay left and the ball will feed down to the green....I had to hit driver to make par. The other two thumped 3 woods but came up short.
-
Brian,
Looks great...couple of questions that are not really design related....the timbers..are they cross ties..it seems so many are like 4 inches thick..is this another type of old wood commodity over there or were they split? And I assume the bunker sand is local..is it in a native state or is it screened? Hope to see it next spring...
Mike Y
-
Brian,
Brilliant shots. It must be the best new course in the UK, by far.
Can't wait to get up there, which I will be doing soon.
-
Mike,
They are railroad ties and it must have cost a fortune to buy them in unless they got them free from somewhere. The sand is native and screened for the bunkers. The whole site was sand...
Try to get there when the gorse is blooming....some of the banks will look better than Dornoch!
-
Hole 18 - this was the only hole where i felt very uncomfortable with the width at the 2nd landing area. Don't be fooled, it is more than wide enough.
-
Some photos around and in the clubhouse..and last but not least Stuart McColm the General Manager (previously Kingsbarns Super.) had the first hole in one on the 11th. If you meet him, ask him about it as it is a great yarn.
-
I'm a little surprised the bunkering is so elaborate (fanciful?, out there?, I'm not sure what the right term is) given what looks to be a fantastic site. Based only on these photos, it looks a little busy at times, not too dissimilar from what I've seen of the Castle course and Tetherow, for example. I wonder if there was a conscious effort to distinguish it from Kingsbarns.
-
Tim,
It is not busy at all when compared to The Castle. I love The Castle but this is maybe in a different league again. We never felt that the "framing" was abused although some might feel that it has been used too often. The bunkering looks fanciful in the photos because I got close up to many of them but off the tee they look perfect.
-
Brian P. & Mike Y. -
When visiting the course in May, I was told that the railway ties/sleepers were acquired for a very nominal amount.
I believe that they found a very large deposit of sand in one spot on the course and quarried most of the sand used on the course from that pit, which is now the water retention pond for the irrigation system.
DT
-
Brian
Thank you for the time and effort to post these images. I last saw the site at the end of 2007 so it is great to see how it has matured and how well the grow in has gone.
I would be interested to hear which holes/ideas you feel stand out in what is a fantastic golf course.
Also, being very familiar with this site, I tend to think that photos dont quite fully communicate the scale and grandeur of the place. This isnt a knock on your photography skills but an observation that seeing the place in person is the best way to appreciate it. I guess the same is true of many courses.
I am really looking forward to the day I get back to Scotland so I can play this course.
-
Tim Pitner -
There is an excellent 4-minute video on youtube.com with Gil Hanse discussing (and showing) the various styles of bunkering used at Castle Stuart. It is well worth watching.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8q8MsF1e8
DT
-
This is one of the most creative, artistic, well thought-out bunker plans in recent memory. Sleepers, stacked sod, cool shapes, chunked and crumbling edges in a state of benign neglect, moss and vegetation creeping in here and there...it's a master class. These hazards are so loaded with character it's almost a joke. In my opinion, it would take a seriously jaded, anesthetized soul not to flip out at Brian's photos.
I've actually stood up for the Castle Course on occasion, but in terms of the detail work it's really not even in the same dimension as Castle Stuart.
-
Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.
It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.
What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.
I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.
cheers,
FBD.
-
Thanks Brian for the up close view of the details - had been hoping someone would post these.
I expect it was a great day.
Cheers - Lyne
-
Marty B. -
Yours is an interesting and provocative post. Clearly the minimalist, retro, neo-classical school of design is the current flavor.
My question to you is this: how would a golf course designed in the "post modern" style be received in Scotland? The reality is that building a new golf course requires a sizable investment. Recovering that investment requires patronage from golf tourists visiting Scotland. Would those tourists really be interested in playing a golf course in the post-modern style, especially if it was something along the lines of the courses they might play in their home countries? What course developer will be interested in taking that risk?
My guess is such a course my very well be better received by the Scots rather than the tourists.
It would be great to see such a course designed and built.
DT
-
Tim Pitner -
There is an excellent 4-minute video on youtube.com with Gil Hanse discussing (and showing) the various styles of bunkering used at Castle Stuart. It is well worth watching.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8q8MsF1e8
DT
David, thank you. It is an interesting video, particularly Hanse's reference to the Hutchinson book and the more ragged look of links bunkering in the past, and obviously Hanse and his team put a lot of thought and work into the bunkering. I'm just not sure the combination of styles works all that well--again from photos only. And, as Marty put it, the "revetted faces between grass surface levels" was what really lost me. Sometimes, grass is all that is needed.
-
Thanks for the great photos.
CS looks INTENSE - there is a lot going on there which I absolutely love. Slagbert must totally be digging those bunkers they are super gnarly. There is a also a bit of a raw aspect in the photos which will help the course age nicely.
It does not looked as "tricked" up as Tetherow or the Castle (based on photos) - I think the team was more thoughtful in their design although they clearly incorporated many "Distinct Elements" of links golf in the bunker mix, rumpled ground, etc.
MB does have a fair point - the attention to detail at CS was very thorough, and something they discussed on the website about the course, is it possible to be TOO thorough in terms of attention to detail?
I would argue that many designers do not go deep enough, but it may be possible to go too deep.
Definitely hope to get there someday, please keep the great reports coming lads - I need an IV of CS.
-
Tim Pitner and Martin Bonnar,
you gotta admit these pics make you want to see the course. I mean really, the fetishes are highlighted here, but they must fade into the spectacular background while on site, wouldn't you think?
My only thought after seeing these pics is and wanting to play it is.... 150 GBP per person rack rate :'(
-
Eric,
I don't disagree at all. When I'm in the highlands (time TBD), I'll seek out Castle Stuart. In photos--and I agree that the same may not hold true when playing--the bunkering really stands out and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
-
To All,
There is not one photo that has been posted by myself or anyone else that does the course justice.
Martin,
Just go and play it first before judging it. I know where you are coming from but I disagree. As I said before The Castle (St.Andrews) is probably over the top (okay it is over the top) but I still love it and I just accept it as it is. We don't accept golf courses for what they are enough anymore.
One of the guys I played with loved it but his ball landed in a bunker with a rough tongue coming into the bunker so he wasn't exactly in the sand or the rough and looks at me and says "Brian, do you think that is fair?".....I turn to him and say "Shut the f@%k up and just get on with it you whingeing Scotsman." He chuckled and just got on with it and admitted that he was wrong.
The bunkering works absolutely perfect, you do not feel like it is "arty" at all when you are there because there is soooo much width on each hole that the bunkering does not overwhelm the hole, it just blends in.
We look for perfection, then when we get it someone whinges about it....
The two guys I played with are both from St. Andrews. One of them has played every course on the planet and detests The Castle course with a vengeance and the other has worked all over the world from TPC Sawgrass to Royal Melbourne to The Castle course and loves it.
They both LOVED The Castle Stuart.
We would all enjoy our golf if we just got on with it....
-
Castle Stuart - Home of the best bunkers in the world? (serious question)
-
Emil,
Close but no cigar in my opinion. I think that goes to Sand Hills.
-
Brian
Thanks for posting some great photos. I've got to say that it looks sensational. The attention to detail is inspirational.
-
Great pics as always. Three items:
Are the mini-faults in the fairways (#31, for example) unique to CS?
Is there an expectation/hope that the exposed bumps in #38 will develop into bunkers?
The path cut through the hill on #48 was also an interesting idea.
It's almost as if this course has tried to implement "manufactured quirk," but I like the ideas and they aren't overdone, so I guess I don't care in this case. Apologies to FBD, but looks fantastic to me.
-
Brian
Many thanks for posting the picks. I think I'm with Marty on this one, the hairy bunker/railway sleeper look does look contrived and makes it look a bit like a golfing Brigadoon. As you say this may be due to you highlighting these aspects in your photos, and it may also be due to the newness of the course as it does look fairly raw. Overall it does look a bit alien in comparison to "typical" Scottish courses, and the layout (from what I can tell from the pictures) looks more American than anything. Not saying that is a bad thing, more an observation.
Brian , some questions for you;
When Mark Parsinen did Kingsbarns he said he wanted it to look hard and play easy, do you think he has gone for that at Castle Stuart ?
What was the turf like ? Is this a true links ?
Green contours - any dead elephants buried out there, or are the greens more subtle than that ?
Niall
-
Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.
It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.
What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.
I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.
cheers,
FBD.
Marty,
If this course was in Vegas then I might agreee with you, but this is SCOTLAND for God's sake.....You expect the courses to look old. That is why The Castle is not well recieved...Castle Stuart looks like it has been there forever.......Americans are not going to travel there to play a modern looking course....These pictures make my mouth water....Just plain eye candy...I am going in September and just can't wait.
AND.......It is just up the road from Cruden Bay.....Just wait and see how popular this area becomes with Dornach, Cruden Bay, Castle Stuart and the new Trump course.....It will be a must destination.
Anthony
-
Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.
It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.
What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.
I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.
cheers,
FBD.
Thanks. I had been looking for the words to say the same thing, you did it better than I would have. The whole "faux antiquity" thing is just so.... False. I'm sure this is a good course, it may even be a great one. I just wonder about the priorities that lead to so much effort being put into a false image. What would the cost (which, presumably pays at least some role in the extravagant green fee) have been if that effort had been saved?
I imagine the point of "faux antiquity" is to make the course attractive to our transatlantic cousins, so from the responses on this thread perhaps it is money well spent. For me, though, I'm afraid the look and the fact that I'd be paying so much to play something so obviously contrived, puts this further down my "to play" list than I had expected it would be.
-
Mark Peace -
What Brian's excellent pictures do not capture is the overall all grandeur of the course. His pictures focus on the "micro," rather than the "macro." When you stand on some of the tees, the scope of what you see is comparable to (and possibly greater than) anything you might find at Dornoch or Cruden Bay.
In addition, many of the holes line up with the numerous landmarks up and down the Moray Firth. The scope of the course goes well beyond its boundaries.
Yes, there was great attention to the micro"detailing" of the features of the course. But, when you are on the property, your eye is far more often drawn to what is visible well down the fairway and beyond rather than what is immediately in front of you or underfoot.
DT
-
Mark and Marty,
I am curious about this "False" issue. Is it that is looks false or that you know it is false? To me it looks natural but I know it is not.
How hard is it for a "new" course to break in in Scotland? In recent years is Kingsbarns the only one that has been accepted by the locals? Or is it not accepted?
Everyone who plays Whistling Straits knows it is false. but it is stil very well accepted. 100 years from now will Castle Stuart be embraced more by the euros?
Was Castle Stuart built for americans mainly?
Anthony
-
Anthony,
It's the detail that's false, in the way it tries to look worn. The sleepers are a nice touch. Several UK clubs have sleepers used in bunkers and to support tees, for instance, including Crail, where I am a member. If the sleepers in the bunker at the fron t of the 14th green at Crail ever looked so worn, displaced and as in need of repair as those newly installed sleepers at Castle Stuart, the greenkeeper would be on a disciplinary. They've obviously worked really hard to make the bunkering look worn. At most Scottish courses bunkering that worn would be repaired. It's that whole false age thing that reminds me of mock-Georgian mansions built for wealthy but taste free soccer stars.
David,
I'm sure that's right. Why then spend so much time (and presumably money) on so much artificial detail. It almost smacks of an architect and developer lacking the confidence in their work to say, look, this is a great course, judge it on its merits. I'm sure that's not the case with the individuals concerned but it's what it would say to me if I didn't know who was involved.
-
After seeing these very detailed pictures, I can see in part where some get this "false" or "faux antiquity" feeling.
But as the course is new and the edges still sharp, I'm guessing once it matures a bit, and things get more raggedy around the edges, it will look more authenticate as if it really had been there for decades.
Looks to be winner, even if it is a little different than the standard fare links offerings.
-
Mark and Marty,
I am curious about this "False" issue. Is it that is looks false or that you know it is false? To me it looks natural but I know it is not.
How hard is it for a "new" course to break in in Scotland? In recent years is Kingsbarns the only one that has been accepted by the locals? Or is it not accepted?
Everyone who plays Whistling Straits knows it is false. but it is stil very well accepted. 100 years from now will Castle Stuart be embraced more by the euros?
Was Castle Stuart built for americans mainly?
Anthony
Anthony
I think Mark stated it well when he compared the bunkering to some of those mock Georgian mansions that you get over here. Yes you can see the influences or basic intent of the design but somehow it doesn't look "authentic". The dilapidated look of the sleepers, sod wall etc, shape of some of the bunkers, the use of the sod wall between different levels of grass, all that I haven't seen anywhere else in Scotland. Neither have I seen fairways shaped like that on a links course (with the possible exception of Kingsbarns), hence my earlier comments that it looks more American than Scottish.
Also in comparison to existing links the planting looks fairly new as there's no blending in. All of that doesn't make it a bad course, by Brians account it is well worth playing, I'm just wondering how much of the plaudits is due to the aesthetics and how much from it being a great layout. Either way I would be keen to play it but not at 150 quid a round.
As I understand it, CS is a pay and play. At those kind of prices it has to be aimed at visitors, the majority of which will be American. Presumably the locals will get a cheaper rate.
Niall
-
Niall -
If you check at www.castlestuartgolf.com, you will see the reduced green fee rates for locals and SGU members.
Mark -
Castle Stuart was conceived and developed as an up-market business enterprise. There is no doubt about that. Assuming the global economy recovers, there will be a boutique hotel, a spa and fractional-ownership lodges built on the property over the next 3-5 years. There are also plans for a 2nd course. I don't want to put words or intentions in anyone's mouth, but it would not be a stretch to think that Castle Stuart aims to be a 21st century Gleneagles or Turnberry, albeit on a smaller scale.
A Swatch and a Rolex both tell the time in just about the same way. No doubt there is a market for both.
DT
-
Niall -
If you check at www.castlestuartgolf.com, you will see the reduced green fee rates for locals and SGU members.
Mark -
Castle Stuart was conceived and developed as an up-market business enterprise. There is no doubt about that. Assuming the global economy recovers, there will be a boutique hotel, a spa and fractional-ownership lodges built on the property over the next 3-5 years. There are also plans for a 2nd course. I don't want to put words or intentions in anyone's mouth, but it would not be a stretch to think that Castle Stuart aims to be a 21st century Gleneagles or Turnberry, albeit on a smaller scale.
A Swatch and a Rolex both tell the time in just about the same way. No doubt there is a market for both.
DT
An interesting analogy. I had in mind a Rolls Royce (TOC, Muirfield, Dornoch) and a gold plated Lexus.
It's surely possible to build a new, high quality links course, intended as part of an upmarket resort without building it to look like something it isn't? It strikes me that an even better analogy would be a brand new luxury car, to an excellent spec but with deliberately worn leather seats and faded paintwork.
-
"Are the mini-faults in the fairways (#31, for example) unique to CS?"
Kidd implemented these at Tetherow and possibly The Castle as well.
-
Mark,
Why be so damning of the place before even seeing it?
-
but this is SCOTLAND for God's sake.....You expect the courses to look old.
Anthony,
and there we have the fundamental point. In Scotland, we do not expect courses to look old, we expect Courses to BE old.
Adding fake oldness of course would work in Vegas and I'd be all for that. The thought of a homage to Scotland and golf somewhere like Vegas would be cool. What is needed in Scotland is great golf, not a facsimile of a Scottish golf course.
As we discussed by IM, I'm sorry I'm not going to be here for your visit. Funnily enough, I'm actually going to be in VEGAS!!!! ;D
Have you been to Scotland before?
cheers,
FBD.
-
Mark Pearce,
If I recall correctly, Castle Stuart's green fee was already a source of displeasure for you, so it seems to me you would have come up with an argument against it regardless of what you saw in the photos.
Of course part of the style is faux-antiquity--no awards for that observation--we know that Gil Hanse found inspiration in Horace Hutchinson's British Golf Links. You find this pretentious and seem to be interested in injecting both class and nationality into this discussion, so:
My questions are: What do you want to see from a new course in the UK? Is it folly for a modern architect to aspire to design and build something great there? Or should they simply “know their place” and build the next Whingeley Common, a place where the subtle brilliance of the architecture will surely fly straight over the heads of the American philistine trophy hunter, leaving the postman and his missus to enjoy their usual game in peace blessedly free of those horrid Chicagoland accents?
Gil and Mark have (thoughtfully, in my opinion) come up with a design that puts the real artistry of modern course construction in the spotlight. Is it a fantasy? Sure, but at least it's one based on one aspect of the roots of the game in the UK, the way it once was—and still is, in places. I've seen little country courses in Wales that still have some of this aesthetic, no question.
I have to say I find it most interesting that the broken-in look of Castle Stuart is perceived in some quarters as the rich man dressing down. The Buddha did this and it went well for him. Do you feel that a course needs to be one thing or the other: The formalism of Royal Lytham or the rustic simplicity of Boat of Garten? Does a course need to state its intentions as to how posh it really is?
As a final note, I just saw Marty Bonnar's post as I was posting this, and I have to wonder if this really cuts to the core of the debate: "In Scotland we do not expect courses to look old, we expect Courses to BE old." I don't know if that's a tongue-in-cheek statement, but it certainly represents a dead end. Of course, Castle Stuart may very well offer what Mr. Bonnar is looking for--great golf. What a shame that it has the misfortune of being new, and what a shame that the architects had the nerve to try something different in the interest of an aesthetic statement.
-
but this is SCOTLAND for God's sake.....You expect the courses to look old.
Anthony,
and there we have the fundamental point. In Scotland, we do not expect courses to look old, we expect Courses to BE old.
Adding fake oldness of course would work in Vegas and I'd be all for that. The thought of a homage to Scotland and golf somewhere like Vegas would be cool. What is needed in Scotland is great golf, not a facsimile of a Scottish golf course.
As we discussed by IM, I'm sorry I'm not going to be here for your visit. Funnily enough, I'm actually going to be in VEGAS!!!! ;D
Have you been to Scotland before?
cheers,
FBD.
This fascinates me and was my point in my post. Will there ever be a modern course accepted in Scotland. Is it in the marrow of the scots bones to only embrace the old courses? Look at my post. Will it be embraced in 100 years? I have made more trips to St Andrews than I have fingers because I fell in love with the place. Too bad you are in Vegas at that time, I'll be dining at La Grange.
What if you did not know it was new? Would you embrace it more?
Do the irish feel the same way about Doonbeg? How do the scots feel about Kingsbarns?
Anthony
-
I agree with Marty, in that I was not impressed with the old sleepers or the way of trying to age the course. My initial opinion was that something was missing and perhaps it is the idea of faking age instead of showing the quality of the design using the land.
I certainly do not like fake – to make something appear that which is not may hide more sinister items, which yet may still surface.
Why do we not just accept that natural and contoured nature of the site, why try to age it and make it appear as a suspect copy of a great masterpiece.
A smack of The Castle Course, perhaps but at least it seems more at home with its surroundings than that course.
Faking age is not the way I want to see golf course architecture going, as I mentioned above what else is still there to discover.
I do not expect a new golf course to look old, but the designer can reflect natural age within his design without surely going to these tacky methods.
Melvyn
-
Tom,
Do you want to write for our website and takeover our marketing work? ;D
That summed up my thoughts exactly.
Martin,
That sentence that Tom brought up is very negative if you meant it. You trained as a Golf Course Architect together with myself, would you not be proud as punch to have designed something like you have seen in the photos?
To me it was inspiring to play there as was The Castle and The Renaissance, 3 very different golf courses but all superb in design by three totally different teams.
Brian.
-
Melvyn,
As soon as soon as an Architect puts in a bunker it is fake.
-
I have to say I find it most interesting that the broken-in look of Castle Stuart is perceived in some quarters as the rich man dressing down.
Mark, like anyone else is entitiled to his opinion, though I think those quarters to be very small in the golf world and insignificant to the success of this venture. Can you imagine a developer and his architect sharing a common goal of winning this crowd unilaterally? My God, the insanity.
I love that Parsinen, Hanse and team shared a conscious goal of diving in to all of the details, which not only had to take a lot of time, but also much thought. I am very excited to one day see Castle Stuart.
Also, this stuff about the sleepers looking too old...never read where anyone on here said that about Old Macdonald's Hell bunker. Wait 'til you see Lehman's course at Prairie Club. I think these are some of the most refreshing ideas implemented in Golf Course Architecture at present and I personally love the look (and the thoughtfulness put into their presentation.)
-
Mark, Marty & Melvyn -
Just out of interest, came you name 2 or 3 courses built anywhere in GB&I in the last 25 years that meet your approval and can serve as a model for what you would like to see done in the future?
DT
-
OK...I am hooked on this faked aged thing.....And do not know exactly why.
What kind of sleepers would you prefer?
If this was the 5th course at Bandon.................
I think without the old stuff you guys would complain it is too modern.
And the question of IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A NEW COURSE TO BE ACCEPTED has not been addressed.
Anthony
-
Mark,
Why be so damning of the place before even seeing it?
Brian,
I'm not damning of the place. If you read what I've said I'm happy to acknowledge it may be a very good golf course indeed (time may even judge it to be a great one). It's that that makes the pretence of age and decay even more jarring. I suspect I will end up playing it sometime. I suspect I will enjoy it. Nothing will ever make me comfortable with the apparent need to pretend it's something it is not.
Mark
-
Mark, Marty & Melvyn -
Just out of interest, came you name 2 or 3 courses built anywhere in GB&I in the last 25 years that meet your approval and can serve as a model for what you would like to see done in the future?
DT
David,
Martin loves Kingsbarns, he told me so at Uni and the man worked there...!! ::)
-
Mark,
Why be so damning of the place before even seeing it?
Brian,
I'm not damning of the place. If you read what I've said I'm happy to acknowledge it may be a very good golf course indeed (time may even judge it to be a great one). It's that that makes the pretence of age and decay even more jarring. I suspect I will end up playing it sometime. I suspect I will enjoy it. Nothing will ever make me comfortable with the apparent need to pretend it's something it is not.
Mark
It is not pretending to be anything other than a fun golf course for the middle handicap player...they have not preached about anything apart from showing their passion in the detail that they have put into the course...
It is just a golf course....that is all....
The point of living, and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come.- Peter Ustinov
-
Mark Pearce,
If I recall correctly, Castle Stuart's green fee was already a source of displeasure for you, so it seems to me you would have come up with an argument against it regardless of what you saw in the photos.
Of course part of the style is faux-antiquity--no awards for that observation--we know that Gil Hanse found inspiration in Horace Hutchinson's British Golf Links. You find this pretentious and seem to be interested in injecting both class and nationality into this discussion, so:
My questions are: What do you want to see from a new course in the UK? Is it folly for a modern architect to aspire to design and build something great there? Or should they simply “know their place” and build the next Whingeley Common, a place where the subtle brilliance of the architecture will surely fly straight over the heads of the American philistine trophy hunter, leaving the postman and his missus to enjoy their usual game in peace blessedly free of those horrid Chicagoland accents?
Gil and Mark have (thoughtfully, in my opinion) come up with a design that puts the real artistry of modern course construction in the spotlight. Is it a fantasy? Sure, but at least it's one based on one aspect of the roots of the game in the UK, the way it once was—and still is, in places. I've seen little country courses in Wales that still have some of this aesthetic, no question.
I have to say I find it most interesting that the broken-in look of Castle Stuart is perceived in some quarters as the rich man dressing down. The Buddha did this and it went well for him. Do you feel that a course needs to be one thing or the other: The formalism of Royal Lytham or the rustic simplicity of Boat of Garten? Does a course need to state its intentions as to how posh it really is?
As a final note, I just saw Marty Bonnar's post as I was posting this, and I have to wonder if this really cuts to the core of the debate: "In Scotland we do not expect courses to look old, we expect Courses to BE old." I don't know if that's a tongue-in-cheek statement, but it certainly represents a dead end. Of course, Castle Stuart may very well offer what Mr. Bonnar is looking for--great golf. What a shame that it has the misfortune of being new, and what a shame that the architects had the nerve to try something different in the interest of an aesthetic statement.
Tom,
That's both lazy and unfair. I'm a member of a Scottish course with a modern Hanse course which has been widely criticised. I'm a big fan of it. I have no problem wiith modern golf courses in Scotland (or anywhere else). I have no problem with modern golf course design. My problem, as would have been clear if you had read what I have posted, is with modern golf course design dressed up to look like something else, which these pictures suggest is what may be happening at Castle Stuart.
This isn't about smartness or rusticity. I've played and loved rustic and formal courses. It's about why a brand new course should pretend to be something it isn't, or why a £150 a round course should aim to look like a course in decay. This course may very well be a great golfing experience. Why can't it look like a modern great golfing experience rather than needing some cosmetic patina of age and decay?
Just so I'm entirely clear, when did you play it and what were your impressions? Or are you working on the pictures, just like I am?
Mark
-
Mark, Marty & Melvyn -
Just out of interest, came you name 2 or 3 courses built anywhere in GB&I in the last 25 years that meet your approval and can serve as a model for what you would like to see done in the future?
DT
Easily. Kingsbarns, Crail Craighead, Loch Lomond and the Carrick at Loch Lomond. Given a bit longer I'm sure I could come up with more. None of these pretend to be something they are not. All may be inferior golf courses.
-
Eric and Anthony,
It's not the sleepers per se I object to. It's the way there are obviously deliberate gaps between them and that they are arranged unevenly, to suggest that they were once, in history, uniform and neat but that time has worn them. That's a lie. By all means have sleepers but arrange them neatly, as the designers and builders of Prestwick, Royal North Devon and even Crail Balcomie did. It's the pretence, not the sleepers that I don't get and don't like.
Mark
-
Mark, Marty & Melvyn -
Just out of interest, came you name 2 or 3 courses built anywhere in GB&I in the last 25 years that meet your approval and can serve as a model for what you would like to see done in the future?
DT
Easily. Kingsbarns, Crail Craighead, Loch Lomond and the Carrick at Loch Lomond. Given a bit longer I'm sure I could come up with more. None of these pretend to be something they are not. All may be inferior golf courses.
I think the pictures look very interesting and I'd love to see the place in person, and jealous of anyone who has or soon will. Bastards All.
Mark, Interesting that the first two on your list of courses that pass your test were created (in part at least) by those that brought us Castle Stuart. Is it possible that they lost their bearings so quickly, or do you think that perhaps you might misunderstand their intent?
-
Eric and Anthony,
It's not the sleepers per se I object to. It's the way there are obviously deliberate gaps between them and that they are arranged unevenly, to suggest that they were once, in history, uniform and neat but that time has worn them. That's a lie. By all means have sleepers but arrange them neatly, as the designers and builders of Prestwick, Royal North Devon and even Crail Balcomie did. It's the pretence, not the sleepers that I don't get and don't like.
Mark
That is a very good answer Mark and maybe that is where Tom Doak manages to distinguish himself from all other architects in the world at the moment. I saw that even more so at The Renaissance Club this week.
-
Eric and Anthony,
It's not the sleepers per se I object to. It's the way there are obviously deliberate gaps between them and that they are arranged unevenly, to suggest that they were once, in history, uniform and neat but that time has worn them. That's a lie. By all means have sleepers but arrange them neatly, as the designers and builders of Prestwick, Royal North Devon and even Crail Balcomie did. It's the pretence, not the sleepers that I don't get and don't like.
Mark
Mark,
I do not dispute your opinion...I just want to know more. Eric and I live in a a country that has Disneyworld and cosmetic surgery so fake is embraced. The recent movement in architecture is for the raw, less manicured look. Castle Stuart has all that. It seems to be the course that we are crying out for. If you were 100 more feet more above the water it would be Bandon. I can see it now Castle Keiser. How do you like Kingsbarns? Is Kingsbarns scotish? I am pulled to the golf culture in scotland and find it more to my liking that the golf culture in the states so it is great to hear you opinions.
Anthony
-
(http://www.golfdigest.com/images/golfworld/2008/09/gwar02_080905bandon.jpg)
Old Macdonald
I haven't been, please someone post a better picture, but the sleepers have not looked uniform to me in the pics I've seen thus far.
-
Someone please post a photo of the large bunker on the 11th at Whistling Straights.
Thanks....Anthony
-
(http://www.golfdigest.com/images/golfworld/2008/09/gwar02_080905bandon.jpg)
Old Macdonald
I haven't been, please someone post a better picture, but the sleepers have not looked uniform to me in the pics I've seen thus far.
Those sleepers look like they have a purpose (even if they don't they are fake as well) of holding up the material behind them. The sleepers at Castle Stuart are there to be aesthetic and do not hide that fact.
-
(http://www.golfdigest.com/images/golfworld/2008/09/gwar02_080905bandon.jpg)
Old Macdonald
. . .
I am very disappointed in Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, and the entire crew.
That snow fence in front of the bunker has obviously been altered to make it look like an old, vintage red slat snow fence. Snow fences like that have not been seen at the nation's top ski resorts for decades. It is fake and ruins the look of the entire course to me. Even though I haven't seen it.
-
Mark,
I have not yet played Castle Stuart, but in my former role as a magazine editor I was fortunate to hear a good deal about the development of the course from some of the individuals involved. I appreciate courses that are both good golf experiences and add to the conversation of what architecture can be--I admit I am only speculating at the moment that CS provides the former, but it seems to me that it has already and will continue to advance the latter. Your Scottish club does this as well, and I am glad to have had the chance to play there.
"Why can't it look like a modern great golfing experience rather than needing some cosmetic patina of age and decay?" Well, I suppose they could have gone down that path. On the other hand, Kingsbarns has been criticized at times for looking too modern. It's a choice made by the architects to create interest and enjoyment for the golfer. Part of that is aesthetic, and part of it, I'm sure, represents conscious decision-making on how these hazards will actually play. I don't see it as window-dressing.
It's entirely possible that I am being unfair again in extending the logic, but it's worth pointing out that golf architecture routinely mines its past and puts its own spin on things to create something new and different. Should the Redan concept have ended at North Berwick--are all of the American versions of this golf hole simply "pretending to be something they're not"? Why should a "look" be any different, and why should your expectation of how a course should look be dependent on the green fee? It's one thing to be critical of how something is executed, but it's another to suggest that certain elements of style should be sealed in amber and reserved for places like Porthmadog.
Lest I be tarred as a Yankee philistine bunker fetishist, for the past several years I have carried as my signature on this site the motto of a UK club I particularly admire. My thoughts about the place can be found in the Visitor Information section of their website. It is in some ways the polar opposite of Castle Stuart, but in its unconventional way it too advances the conversation of what great architecture can be.
-
(http://www.golfdigest.com/images/golfworld/2008/09/gwar02_080905bandon.jpg)
Old Macdonald
I haven't been, please someone post a better picture, but the sleepers have not looked uniform to me in the pics I've seen thus far.
Those sleepers look like they have a purpose (even if they don't they are fake as well) of holding up the material behind them. The sleepers at Castle Stuart are there to be aesthetic and do not hide that fact.
At what point has golf stopped being aesthetic? Has any one ever noticed the water at Pebble Beach?
Anthony
-
At what point has golf stopped being aesthetic? Has any one ever noticed the water at Pebble Beach?
Anthony
That would be the Pacific Ocean? No problems there! Although that godawful concrete retaining wall by 18 is gross.
While we're at it, contributors on this website routinely mock and scoff at the fakery of the likes of artificial waterfalls and the like. Yet it would appear that a half-timbered coke machine is getting a free pass? That confuses me.
BTW, can I say that I am utterly delighted that we're actually discussing golf course architecture around here for once. Lately that has been sadly lacking here.
cheers,
FBD.
-
Marty, I don't know what the issue is. That Coke machine looks like it's been there forever. ;) I'm sure it might even fool some especially dumb Yanks at the tail end of a links fortnight into confusing it for a Portrush storm shelter.
-
At what point has golf stopped being aesthetic? Has any one ever noticed the water at Pebble Beach?
Anthony
That would be the Pacific Ocean? No problems there! Although that godawful concrete retaining wall by 18 is gross.
While we're at it, contributors on this website routinely mock and scoff at the fakery of the likes of artificial waterfalls and the like. Yet it would appear that a half-timbered coke machine is getting a free pass? That confuses me.
BTW, can I say that I am utterly delighted that we're actually discussing golf course architecture around here for once. Lately that has been sadly lacking here.
cheers,
FBD.
Marty,
You are clearly mistaken.
Anthony never discusses golf course architecture.
Adam Clayman
-
I agree with Marty, in that I was not impressed with the old sleepers or the way of trying to age the course. My initial opinion was that something was missing and perhaps it is the idea of faking age instead of showing the quality of the design using the land.
I certainly do not like fake – to make something appear that which is not may hide more sinister items, which yet may still surface.
Why do we not just accept that natural and contoured nature of the site, why try to age it and make it appear as a suspect copy of a great masterpiece.
A smack of The Castle Course, perhaps but at least it seems more at home with its surroundings than that course.
Faking age is not the way I want to see golf course architecture going, as I mentioned above what else is still there to discover.
I do not expect a new golf course to look old, but the designer can reflect natural age within his design without surely going to these tacky methods.
Melvyn
I agree there should not be fakery, but sleepers supporting bunker walls is a time honored technique for bunkers in highly windy areas.
Here's a good example of a modern use of this ancient technique - Forrest Richardson's 4th hole at the Links at Las Palomas in Mexico. There was nothing else at that course like the sleepers, but they work. Without those sleepers, I doubt that green could survive.
(http://www.golfgroupltd.com/images/projects/large_imgs/las_palomas-4.jpg)
So do the sleepers at Castle Stuart bother me? Not a bit. I'm not crazy about the stacked sod fairway cuts though...........
-
Eric and Anthony,
It's not the sleepers per se I object to. It's the way there are obviously deliberate gaps between them and that they are arranged unevenly, to suggest that they were once, in history, uniform and neat but that time has worn them. That's a lie. By all means have sleepers but arrange them neatly, as the designers and builders of Prestwick, Royal North Devon and even Crail Balcomie did. It's the pretence, not the sleepers that I don't get and don't like.
Mark
Mark,
I do not dispute your opinion...I just want to know more. Eric and I live in a a country that has Disneyworld and cosmetic surgery so fake is embraced. The recent movement in architecture is for the raw, less manicured look. Castle Stuart has all that. It seems to be the course that we are crying out for. If you were 100 more feet more above the water it would be Bandon. I can see it now Castle Keiser. How do you like Kingsbarns? Is Kingsbarns scotish? I am pulled to the golf culture in scotland and find it more to my liking that the golf culture in the states so it is great to hear you opinions.
Anthony
Anthony,
I guess my problem is that Castle Stuart appears to be anti-manicured. The very same level of care and attention that goes into making a Trump course look so tidy has been invested in making CS look, well, older than it is. I didn't want to use the world Disney but the pictures did make me think of CS as Scottish Golf by Walt.
Mark
-
Mark,
I have not yet played Castle Stuart, but in my former role as a magazine editor I was fortunate to hear a good deal about the development of the course from some of the individuals involved. I appreciate courses that are both good golf experiences and add to the conversation of what architecture can be--I admit I am only speculating at the moment that CS provides the former, but it seems to me that it has already and will continue to advance the latter. Your Scottish club does this as well, and I am glad to have had the chance to play there.
"Why can't it look like a modern great golfing experience rather than needing some cosmetic patina of age and decay?" Well, I suppose they could have gone down that path. On the other hand, Kingsbarns has been criticized at times for looking too modern. It's a choice made by the architects to create interest and enjoyment for the golfer. Part of that is aesthetic, and part of it, I'm sure, represents conscious decision-making on how these hazards will actually play. I don't see it as window-dressing.
Some of it is in play (the bunkers, mostly) though whether it will really affect how the course plays I can't tell without playing, though I have my doubts. Elements such as the tee surrounds and the Coke machine, though, are pure cosmetics.
It's entirely possible that I am being unfair again in extending the logic, but it's worth pointing out that golf architecture routinely mines its past and puts its own spin on things to create something new and different. Should the Redan concept have ended at North Berwick--are all of the American versions of this golf hole simply "pretending to be something they're not"? Why should a "look" be any different, and why should your expectation of how a course should look be dependent on the green fee? It's one thing to be critical of how something is executed, but it's another to suggest that certain elements of style should be sealed in amber and reserved for places like Porthmadog.
Not at all. I have no problem with taking elements of design and copying, adapting or adopting them. It's the cosmetic dishonesty that I don't like.
Lest I be tarred as a Yankee philistine bunker fetishist, for the past several years I have carried as my signature on this site the motto of a UK club I particularly admire. My thoughts about the place can be found in the Visitor Information section of their website. It is in some ways the polar opposite of Castle Stuart, but in its unconventional way it too advances the conversation of what great architecture can be.
Just so I can be completely clear, BTW. I have no objection whatsoever to the use of sleepers. I like that. I love the 14th at the Balcomie (which my son thinks is the coolest hole in the world).
-
http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/04/kyle-franz/
See video about how and why we used sleepers/fence posts at the Lehman course at the Prairie Club.
-
Mark, Interesting that the first two on your list of courses that pass your test were created (in part at least) by those that brought us Castle Stuart. Is it possible that they lost their bearings so quickly, or do you think that perhaps you might misunderstand their intent?
David,
Quite deliberate. If they could manage these (very different) courses in Scotland, why the need for the cosmetic fakery of CS? I like Craighead more than the vast majority but nothing there pretends to be anything it isn't. There's some quirk (an old stone wall is a repeated feature) but that's because it was there in the land. I wonder if it can be likened to musicians (I have in mind the progressive rock bands of the early 70s) who start off by bringing a level of intelligence and creativity to an art that hasn't been seen for a while but who, in the end, in a bid to continually been seen to be breaking new ground, concentrate more on what might be seen as clever than on their real art.
I don't know if CS is Close to the Edge (a (fairly pretentious) masterpiece, IMHO, but a masterpiece nonetheless) or Tales from Topographic Oceans ( a morass of wallowing crap). Only playing it will tell. I do worry about where the art is going, though, when GCAs are spending so much time and effort to make a tee box look like it is old and decaying.
Mark
-
Mark,
I enjoyed reading all of that and much of it makes sense in relation to what you were saying before.
Cheers.
-
Bill
I have no problems with the use of sleeper, but the way they have been used at CS. They looks crap and unfinished, I suppose to give credibility or the discarded aged look to mature the course. Something is missing. Its interesting that some of us have a similar feeling towards the course, yet approaching it from what looks like different directions.
No the sleepers are not the problem, nor what they have done with them but the way they did it, its looks fake. I suppose I feel as if someone is trying to fool me and I don’t like the idea, even though I know it’s a new course.
Weird feeling, leaves me with many questions. Would I drive past it for Tain, Dornoch and all course North, I think I might.
Melvyn
-
Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.
It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.
What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.
I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.
cheers,
FBD.
Marty,
If this course was in Vegas then I might agreee with you, but this is SCOTLAND for God's sake.....You expect the courses to look old. That is why The Castle is not well recieved...Castle Stuart looks like it has been there forever.......Americans are not going to travel there to play a modern looking course....These pictures make my mouth water....Just plain eye candy...I am going in September and just can't wait.
AND.......It is just up the road from Cruden Bay.....Just wait and see how popular this area becomes with Dornach, Cruden Bay, Castle Stuart and the new Trump course.....It will be a must destination.
Anthony
Cruden Ba and Dornoch... Isn't that a 3 hours' drive??
-
Melvyn -
It is interesting that those of you who "have a similar feeling" have not seen the course in person.
Those who have seen it in person also have a similar, but very different feeling.
Can you mention 2 or 3 courses built in GB&I over the last 25 years that you do admire?
DT
-
David,
Instead of repeating that question of Melvyn, which I suspect we both know isn't likely to elicit a response, and rather than suggesting that those of us who have an issue with these pictures are missing something because we haven't been there (I'm sure we are, BTW, I've said it's almost certainly a very good course, but the photos can't lie about the cosmetic detailing I don't like), would you like to respond to what I said in response to your question?
Mark
-
Mark -
I appreciate your response to my question. Regrettably, I have not played or seen in person any of the courses you named (Kingsbarns, Crail Craighead, Loch Lomond & the Carrick). That makes it hard to place your perception of Castle Stuart in a context with those courses.
I do find it interesting that the people very much involved with 2 of the courses on your list are intimately involved with Castle Stuart, yet you find their work (or should I say "overwork") is lacking there. But then again, not everyone likes all of Woody Allen's movies! ;)
Having toured the course in person 3 times over the past 3 years, I have described it to people as a 21st century combination of Dornoch & Cruden Bay. I will stand by that description. Clearly there are some posters on this board who prefer to live in the past. ;)
DT
-
David
It is not a question of living in the past, but appreciating quality that some of us do not feel is being reproduced today.
Melvyn
-
I have looked forward to this course being discussed on here as I am familiar with it. I have not had the pleasure of seeing the large number of great courses that dominate this website so it is nice to actually know first hand about one that is worthy of discussion.
It surprises me that much of this discussion has been devoted to something as trivial as the way in which they chose to utilise the sleepers throughout the property.
This is a course that embraces all the things that people on this site preach as being the hallmark of a great course. It has width, it plays firm and fast on fescues, it supports the ground game, the green complexes are interesting and varied, it sits well in its environment, the holes offer multiple strategies and options, it is playable for all levels yet challenging to the good player etc... These things are discernible from the photos, but Brian has perhaps disproportionately focused on the details instead of the overall look/feel of the place. As he himself has pointed out, the photos do not do the place justice.
As for the sleepers themselves, I think they work very well within the context of the site. The rugged/rustic look that has been aimed for would possibly have been compromised had they been placed geometrically and great care taken that they were all even and measured.
It would be nice if the discussion could maybe turn towards discussing the course and how it relates to the game of golf as opposed to nitpicking about minor aesthetics and forming negative views of the overall project based on such a small component.
I would love to hear from Brian and others that have played/visited the course about which holes in particular either stand or are just simply their favourites.
I would like to put forth that for me personally, the 3rd hole is possibly one of if not the best short par 4 that I have myself seen. I think it is a real "wolf in sheeps clothing" as it appears relatively innocuous from the tee yet it is no pushover. There are a multitude of ways to play the hole but they all carry a certain risk. I love the use of subtle angles on this hole and the offering of so much width off the tee. Missing the green left certainly appears to be no easy up and down.
-
Grant -
Excellent and spot on post. Some people would rather focus on trees rather than the forest, although in this case, it is more like the toothpicks rather than the forest.
Melvyn -
Did you take the time to see the youtube.com video clip where Gin Hanse discusses the thoughts behind the bunkering at Castle Stuart? If anything, they have gone out of their way to create at Castle Stuart an homage to what you hold so dear. You are being offered a gift and you don't even realize or appreciate it. That is a shame.
DT
-
Good posts Grant and David... Another question: How much credit goes to Gil Hanse? Somehow everybody is only talking about Mark Parsinen... I always thought it's a Gil Hanse project.
-
Mark, Interesting that the first two on your list of courses that pass your test were created (in part at least) by those that brought us Castle Stuart. Is it possible that they lost their bearings so quickly, or do you think that perhaps you might misunderstand their intent?
David,
Quite deliberate. If they could manage these (very different) courses in Scotland, why the need for the cosmetic fakery of CS? I like Craighead more than the vast majority but nothing there pretends to be anything it isn't. There's some quirk (an old stone wall is a repeated feature) but that's because it was there in the land. I wonder if it can be likened to musicians (I have in mind the progressive rock bands of the early 70s) who start off by bringing a level of intelligence and creativity to an art that hasn't been seen for a while but who, in the end, in a bid to continually been seen to be breaking new ground, concentrate more on what might be seen as clever than on their real art.
I don't know if CS is Close to the Edge (a (fairly pretentious) masterpiece, IMHO, but a masterpiece nonetheless) or Tales from Topographic Oceans ( a morass of wallowing crap). Only playing it will tell. I do worry about where the art is going, though, when GCAs are spending so much time and effort to make a tee box look like it is old and decaying.
Mark
Mark, I understand generally your concern with where architecture is going, but make a bit of a distinction. My concern is that sometimes a certain look or aesthetic styling often substitutes for quality architecture. In other words, I worry that some architects just add frilly edged bunkers or fescue to their same old tired designs and call them quality minimalist or naturalist architecture. It is difficult to tell from the photos, but it doesn't sound like that is what is going on here.
Also, you'd think that if you have great affection for Gil's other Scotland work as well as Kingsbarn's I'd think it might make sense to at least suspend judgment until you have actually seen and played the course. I may be wrong, but have a suspicion that once you play it you may find that it is not nearly as contrived as you think.
Is it possible that you are focusing on the little touches here and there and not really looking at the course? Because I don't see much that is all that contrived when I look at the course. Old stylings, yes, and old methods and materials, but I am not sure I see much on the course that doesn't serve a golfing purpose. Maybe you can be a bit more specific?
You mention making the tees look old and eroded? Can you show me what you mean? I saw a couple of photos of tees with RR ties but they don't look too different than RR tie retaining walls I used to help build in high school and early college, and we were just trying to build something easy, effective, inexpensive, and structurally sound.
___________________________
FBD,
This has got to be the first thread where a soda machine cover has considered part of the golf course.
Did you consider Rustic canyon to be overdone and fake? Because while this is obviously on a different level of detail, in the pictures at least I see many of the same general types of features, and the use of natural contours seems to be very Hanse&Wagnerian, which to me means that pretty much took as as they found it. I could be wrong, because I haven't seen it, but then you haven't either, have you?
Perhaps it would be worth a look before either one of us comes to too many conclusions?
-
Grant, David
Beauty is in the eye of the …… as the saying goes. We each look at a course with our own perspective. As you expect us to acknowledge your rights, your opinions and views, could you not have shown the same consideration in return?
With my first view this morning I felt something was at odds or missing, when the later photos appeared I thought the quality of the bunkering poor and what in my opinion it was made to look cheap and fake. As I said that raised concerns.
Sleepers are fine, but to be honest my first initial impressions is a course not for the locals but for the overseas visitors that enjoy Brora, Dornoch etc. I would also say that from the photos what appeared to be the faking to generate age is an insult to our overseas visitors. The cosmetic finished course, yet not apparently to that great a standard.
Grant, the blend of the bunkers is as much part of the course in my eyes as to how each hole plays, it’s the overall experience and as I said this was my initial comment based upon the photos, but just as valid a comment as yours. Although I accept, it is of very little interest to you. Yet added to all the other comments you may that it gives a more representative picture of the course. Nitpicking is if you do not mind me saying a rather arrogant not to mention condescending attitude to take over other peoples first opinions. Nevertheless, we need to wait to see the opinions of others.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn
It is in no way my intention to offend anyone and im sorry if I offended you. I respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that everyone sees things in a different light. I was simply offering my own thoughts on the subject.
I was just hoping that maybe people could start with the big picture first then possibly thrash out the small details down the track. I too appreciate how the bunker style for example fits into the overall of the course but it might be nice if we begin by looking at the course as an interactive object on which we play the game. I think people on board here can often be found guilty of analysing courses as a static image more akin to a piece of art and sometimes forget that they are to be played on.
I appreciate that pictures are often the beginning of forming ideas about a course someone has not experienced but they are not always infallible at conveying an accurate representation. This is why I was hoping that the people who have physically visited the course may offer some further insight.
As a couple of others have mentioned, when you see the course first hand, the scale of how it all fits together becomes more apparent and also how well it works.
-
Melvyn -
1) Please name two or three courses built in GB&I in the last 25 years that you respect and admire.
2) Have you taken the time to look at the youtube.com video regarding the thought and planning behind the design and construction of the bunkers at Castle Stuart? Are you aware of how much time the designers of this course spent studying and researching the history of bunkers in GB&I?
Your comments would be a lot more credible if you could place them in some factual frame of reference, rather than your "feelings."
Grant -
You have nothing to apologize for, especially as you have actually seen the course in person. There is nothing in your 1st post that could possibly be considered offensive by any rational person.
DT
-
Melvin and Martin, I think I understand and respect what each of you are saying, but I am not sure I can agree with either of your perspectives.
First, if there is such a thing as a natural bunker, it exists as a result of erosion, and from the beginning. It is not as if in the beginning sheep and rabbits and wind and water first created pits with clean edges and linear lines, and then erosion and aging started from there. Yet most new bunkers built these days look absolutely nothing like natural erosion, maybe over years of neglect they might but not in the beginning. What is wrong with building bunkers that look like real bunkers that been there and evolved through the seasons? Any natural bunker you might find necessarily will have.
Second, I don't know for sure, but think you guys overestimate the cost and inefficiency of creating bunkers that look like this. I've seen Jim and Gil build bunkers with their chunk method and it is amazingly quick and efficient and produces mature edges from the beginning. A little more complicated with this course perhaps because they were chunking out of a sod farm instead of the immediately local grass, but nonetheless I don't think it is all that difficult a process.
Third, almost all great architecture of which I am aware is in some sense a throwback to the ideas of the great early links courses. I fail to see what is wrong with carrying the emulation to the actual look of the courses in this much earlier era, expecially if it can be done in a cost effective manner. Why must one either reinvent the wheel or be intentionally stale characterless when creating a new golf course?
Fourth and perhaps most importantly, it seems an undercurrent in your posts is that the aesthetic may be masking a lack of underlying quality of the course. Perhaps the photos highlight the aesthetic too much -- many are focused on small details -- yet I wonder if maybe there is much more there than these aesthetic details. I cannot say because I have not played it, but I don't think either of you have played it either. I've a feeling that if Gil and Jim had their way with the contours and hole concepts, it will present a very interesting and enjoyable golfing experience. I will be very curious to hear your thoughts after you play it.
Fifth, I like the look of the bunkers from this very early era Gil was apparently emulating. I don't recall many modern designers emulating this very early, pre-1900 era. It is certainly throwback approach, but at least it is emulating an era that is often overlooked. Here is a photograph of the Hell bunker from British Golf Links, 1897. Obviously the walls are not natural, but I like the look of the bunker nonetheless.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Old_Course_Hell_Bunker_1897.png)
DM
-
Does anybody still question the GREATNESS of CS' bunkers??? Well if you don't like Castle Stuart's bunkers than you wouldn't have liked THE OLD COURSE's in the 19th century.
-
Hell Bunker at OM photo
-
Hell Bunker at OM - side view
-
For those who are not stoked on the bunker style implemented at CS - umm - okay.
But what would you rather have?
1960s saucer bunkers?
Shaggy/natural bunkers?
Only riveted?
No sleeper use in bunkers?
What is a modern bunker?
What type of bunkering would be better suited to the land? (Honestly, I am curious)
Clearly, Parsinen and Hanse created this course melding several genres of design from periods in GCA history in an effort to created an immediate modern classic. The team at OM are doing the same thing, sort of, by channeling the spirit of CBM as you can see in the HB photos on the Long hole there.
I think the efforts of these architects should be celebrated. We have lived through years and years of highly paid GCAs mailing in projects based on topo maps with no thought to finishing detail or using the natural landscape.
What the team at CS have done is commit fully to the project and sweat every element of the design. Maybe the sleepered "pop" machine was going a bit too far, and some of their efforts may be a little to deep into the minutiae but based on the photos, videos, etc. of this course, I think it should be toasted as nothing short of fantastic.
I know it is easier for us on this side of the pond to support "modern classics" because we have very few "classic classics", but it is beyond me how passionate fans of GCA would not be as excited about CS as they should be about Old Macdonald - these are not dime a dozen projects, no matter what country you live in.
A great links course is like a wonderful single malt - it gets much better with time - unfortunately creditors are not interested in waiting that long so investors need to speed up the process these days to pay the vig :)
-
Does anybody still question the GREATNESS of CS' bunkers??? Well if you don't like Castle Stuart's bunkers than you wouldn't have liked THE OLD COURSE's in the 19th century.
Emil,
I can't let you get away with that. That bunker you have chosen is just fine. It doesn't demonstrate the "faux antiquity" look that some of us are uncomfortable with. But then I suspect you knew that before you posted it, didn't you?
-
David,
I hope I have made it clear that I am not commenting on the quality of the course as a golf course. I have said many times that I expect it is very good indeed. I'm not sure the pictures I have seen tell me enough about the course to make that judgment. Anyway, I do find my eye drawn to the detail in them, far more so than on pictures of other new courses. There have also been a significant number of pictures focussing on the detail, which suggests that those who have played the course also had their attention drawn to the detail.
Grant,
Don't you think the detail matters? Or could you visit a cathedral and not loo at the gargoyles?
-
Mark
Of course I think the detail matters. I just feel that some people are getting hung up on what is only a small element of this golf course.
"Create a palpably visual and distinctive personality for the course, through its contours, bunkers, landscape mosaic, and optical compositions."
The above quote is lifted form the course goals page on the Castle Stuart website. I feel that this perfectly describes what they have tried, and in my opinion, achieved with this project. I dont believe that its trying to copy anything else but simply incorporate ideas and features that the designers respect. They have then combined them in a way to produce something that has its own distinct personality.
As for question regarding cathedrals: of course I would look at the gargoyles but I wouldnt pass judgement on the whole building if perhaps they were facing up instead of down.
Grant
-
Of course, many will not agree or perhaps understand other individuals view points or opinions for the simple reason based upon our inherent human make-up.
Many, I am certain remember my likes and dislikes, my concerns for the site being fit for purpose, co-operating with Nature and being as natural as common sense allows. I have only seen the photos of CS, but my first impressions as I have said leaves a little bit to be desired. I also do not have a problem with sod or riveted bunkers or the use of sleepers, however, I am not impressed by the format of the sleepers in photo 2009-43, 2009-50 & 209-51. They have been added to I presume sow maturity and age to the course. This I consider is very poor and certainly not to my liking. The continued use of old sleepers on the drive, walkways and steps (2009-121) is also not helpful. I feel there appears to have been a rush to age the course to perhaps because of the concerns many had with the Castle Course and its incomplete appearance when it opened.
Also, add to the equation that I am a Links man with knowledge of many of the older courses. I am not keen on the Chocolate Box image golf course that many seem to favour, perhaps more out of necessity that desire. Nor do I like the idea of presenting something new but dressed to fool in the hope of creating maturity.
I have been extremely fortunate that over the many years I have ready access to many of our links course. That is not to say that I do not also play on parkland courses, I certainly do or did. Nevertheless as per my first comment after seeing the photos, I still feel something is missing at the CS course. In addition the amount of sleepers and the format that they were used on the course in some of bunkers is not to my liking.
I think someone mentioned Americanised in describing the course. Not knowing the American courses with the exception of what I have gleamed from a few dozen photos, I feel that The Castle Stuart course has a leaning to that description. As David stated the proof of the pudding is actually playing the course, but I still for the time being hold to my first impressions.
The freedom to play golf allows us the right to make our own minds up about various things, including new courses.
Melvyn
PS David T. There are a few modern courses that seem fair, but for the most part when I play, I use the established old courses. As for the list you seek, no I don’t tend to do that. I was going to pass on making comment but something in the photos did not appear right or was missing.
-
Melvyn,
Can you please answer the question that has been asked so that we could get an idea of what courses meet your approval that are not 100 years old:
Please name two or three courses built in GB&I in the last 25 years that you respect and admire.
Thank you.
-
Brian
I see no need to name any other course. We are debating our thoughts & opinions on CS.
Melvyn
-
Mark,
I have not yet played Castle Stuart, but in my former role as a magazine editor I was fortunate to hear a good deal about the development of the course from some of the individuals involved. I appreciate courses that are both good golf experiences and add to the conversation of what architecture can be--I admit I am only speculating at the moment that CS provides the former, but it seems to me that it has already and will continue to advance the latter. Your Scottish club does this as well, and I am glad to have had the chance to play there.
"Why can't it look like a modern great golfing experience rather than needing some cosmetic patina of age and decay?" Well, I suppose they could have gone down that path. On the other hand, Kingsbarns has been criticized at times for looking too modern. It's a choice made by the architects to create interest and enjoyment for the golfer. Part of that is aesthetic, and part of it, I'm sure, represents conscious decision-making on how these hazards will actually play. I don't see it as window-dressing.
It's entirely possible that I am being unfair again in extending the logic, but it's worth pointing out that golf architecture routinely mines its past and puts its own spin on things to create something new and different. Should the Redan concept have ended at North Berwick--are all of the American versions of this golf hole simply "pretending to be something they're not"? Why should a "look" be any different, and why should your expectation of how a course should look be dependent on the green fee? It's one thing to be critical of how something is executed, but it's another to suggest that certain elements of style should be sealed in amber and reserved for places like Porthmadog.
Lest I be tarred as a Yankee philistine bunker fetishist, for the past several years I have carried as my signature on this site the motto of a UK club I particularly admire. My thoughts about the place can be found in the Visitor Information section of their website. It is in some ways the polar opposite of Castle Stuart, but in its unconventional way it too advances the conversation of what great architecture can be.
Tom
Is Castle Stuart great golf or great aesthetics ? It seems to me that what is being discussed here is the look of the course rather than how it plays. This whole conversation seemed to stem from comments from a number of us, including Mark Marty and myself, that the bunkering in particular just jarred in its obvious (to those brought up in UK golfing culture at any rate) contrived appearance. And Brian I take your point that once you put any bunker in the ground you are faking it, however its not the actual fakeness of bunkering but rather the fake style that is under discussion.
Niall
-
Niall -
I think Castle Stuart will prove to be a wonderful combination of great golf AND great aesthetics. The only way you will know for sure is to play it some time.
DT
-
Niall,
What is a "fake style" of bunkers? Could you provide us with examples of what a "non-fake style" of bunkers would look like.
It sounds a bit like you are not familiar with this style, and it makes you uncomfortable, so you call it "fake style." Was it "fake style" in 1897? Or is the problem that these bunkers are in the style of those in 1897? Would it be real style if they were in the style of 1997? 1987? 2007? What is real about those styles?
-
David
Not speaking for Niall, he can fight his own corners without my aid, but I would comment
Re the fake style bunkers. As David T suggested you see the Youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8q8MsF1e8 and Gil explanation you will see that he has produced a totally fake bunker arrangement for the course. As he said, I believe unique to CS. In addition, the sod riveted bunker is certainly not new and has been a Fife feature for many generations. As proved by the Hell Bunker reinforcement picture from the mid 1890’s.
However, this is total made to measure for the CS course. As for how the course plays, we have to play it to comment. Nevertheless, the fake riveted bunkers and that appalling mix and match of parts of sleepers with gaps is just IMHO poor and has spoilt the course for me – its trying to be something it is not - old and established. Therefore, we have sleepers, not laid out in a uniformed way as Westward Ho, but with parts missing and – well it just looks a mess. Add that to Gil’s fake riveted bunkers is not a great start for a new course. Look guys I built a course and trying to fake the age
Is it a Scottish thing, I don’t know about you but I’m not keen nor like the idea of the wool being pulled over my eyes. You guys may have to accept it in the States but its piss poor show to do it in Scotland. Its fake, counterfeit, I feel a party to a sting, it just does not seem right, however the course may well be most enjoyable, but that does not stop it being wrong. That’s my opinion, not Niall or Mark or Marty.
Melvyn
-
Brian
I see no need to name any other course. We are debating our thoughts & opinions on CS.
Melvyn
I would just be interested for the sake of knowing what sort of modern golf courses you enjoy.
This is my Pop Psychology.....I think for someone who has grown up their whole life playing authentic links golf courses; the ones where this very game began, could look at CS and find flaws. You have a deep understanding of that kind of golf; even the slightest hint at phoniness can put you off.
As an American who grew up on parkland golf but loves firm and fast; many options off the tee, etc....I can't imagine anyone looking at those pictures and not thinking WOW, it looks AWESOME, but then again my understanding of Links golf is not anywhere near your league; I feel that as an American....or at least someone used to parkland golf, things like "Sleepers" or the other faux details that attempt to make the course worn don't bother me in any-way.
Don't even know if this makes sense but oh well.
-
By the same token any NEW golf course could be determined artifical or fake. Melvyn your argument therefore would seem to be against any new golf course. As a golf course architect we basically try our best to fit a golf scenery into a landscape, it is fake ofcourse because it is newly formed unless you find a perfect parcel of land where nothing needs to be disturbed which in reality is impossible.
Golf courses change over time, landscapes change the aim surely of the golf course architect is to produce a golf course that people want to play and enjoy, if people play it and enjoy it and it forms part of a golfing calender for county events or better it must be determined good. In that respect I think Mr Hanse has produced a spectacular golf course using the background of things outside of his golf course land and has transformed a not so great piece of land (see google earth before shots) to what it is now which in my opinion is pretty damm good. Time will tell but I have a feeling over the next few years that Castle Stuart will be the highest rated new course in the GB & I top 100, that may or may not be a definitive measure in many eyes and probably not yours. Melvyn what course do you like of the modern courses (last 50 years)? further, what do you think of St Andrews 5th and 6th course, The Balgove & The Strathymn ?
-
Kenny
There is a simple reason I do not mention any other course – it’s because it can be used and generally is to wander away from the topic.
Now what time do you want that alarm call in the morning, sir? See you don't know what I'm talking about - but then whats new, I sometime just about understand what I am not talking about and boy that can be confusing. ???
But at least I'm not Anthony Gray, - I think.
Sorry kenny what were you saying? ;)
Melvyn
-
They way I look at it if you have had to make it from scratch then you are deciding how it is going to look and therefore on the aesthetic characteristics. Secondly you have to ask why the bunkers of the early courses looked the way they did. Was it because of the construction technology available or did they decide that is what looked good?
Were the bunkers created form scratch?
If 100 years ago they did it for aesthetics then it is a fair enough decision to make in this day and therefore we should not describe them as fake. But if modern equipment has been used to create an older look then it is a fake look.
If they were created with antique technology then that might negate the fake tag is it would be an interesting experiment to try and create bunkers without modern construction tools. You cant complain if that is all that is possible with the technology.
Are there any before pictures of the sites where the bunkers are so we can see if they have indeed been constructed like a bunker 100 years ago or made to like they have been. If they have just been made from scratch then how can they be described as anything other than “faux antique”?
What also contributes to the fake look is the likes of the clock and cart paths that seem to have been created by dynamiting the dunes. Is this falsifying the routing compared to a course that would have been constructed 100 years ago?
Would it not have been more likely that the next tee would have been perched on the elevated dune and rather then walking up and over then down the dune. At CS they have just gone straight through it.
-
What also contributes to the fake look is the likes of the clock and cart paths that seem to have been created by dynamiting the dunes. Is this falsifying the routing compared to a course that would have been constructed 100 years ago?
Would it not have been more likely that the next tee would have been perched on the elevated dune and rather then walking up and over then down the dune. At CS they have just gone straight through it.
Ross
Could you please identify the photos in which you are basing this statement on
however its not the actual fakeness of bunkering but rather the fake style that is under discussion.
Niall
Why must a style that is different from the status quo be termed fake? Arent the developers entitled to employ a style that appeals to them and suits their requirements?
-
Who cares...the golf course looks great....it sits well and even though I have not seen it yet...I can smell it....
you guys like fake boobs??? probably not..... ;D
-
Mike
The Devil is in the detail or you are selling a fake masterpiece, no matter how good its still a fake.
Whilst perhaps not that important to a round, its still there in the back of ones mind or should I say in your face every time you see a riveted bunker and that daft effort of old or rotten sleepers.
Mike some care, that's the whole point, while some continue to care there is hope, but if you care then the Devil is in the Detail.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
That's the good thing about different designs....to each his own....I just want to play the course.....but when you have time...explain" fake masterpieces" to me....i understand counterfeit masterpieces but an original golf course is not a fake....it is Castle Stuart....I try to accept for what it for what it is....
Take care....
Mike
-
Melvyn,
I have watched the video, a few times. Is it possible that you are misunderstanding Gil's intention? He did say that he felt the bunkers were unlike any other in the world, but he also said that the bunkers were modeled after photos of bunkers from Hutchinson's 1897 book. I am not sure how you go from this to "he has produced a totally fake bunker arrangement for the course."
I must be misunderstanding. How does modeling bunkers after those from pre-1900 links courses make them fake?
As for the riveting, could you explain what makes it "fake riveting?" I don't think it is a facade-- now that would be fake. I think it is real riveting, and as I understand it they used it for stylistic reasons but also in places where they foresaw cave-ins and erosion. In your mind should they have waited until the bunkers collapsed to include it in the design? (My understanding is that Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner often stack sod on the upper portions of their steep bunkers to help with future potential erosion problems.)
As for the RR ties, have you ever worked with them? They are generally purchased used, from torn up old track, and are pretty rustic. Maybe they once were, but after decades in the conditions they are by no means uniform. People that use them had better be comfortable with a rough, old look because the that is how the RR ties are. So I find it a bit odd that you would require anyone to stack them exactly and evenly.
That being said, I think that perhaps two of the photos showing the same bunker best represent what you are saying:
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2060;image)
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2061;image)
I really don't mind the look of the RR ties on the right. They seem to be serving a purpose. I am not so sure about the ties on the left, as they just sort of seem to be sitting there. Do they serve a purpose other than aesthetic? I don't know.
As for these next two photos, I have no problem with how the ties are used in either. They certainly serve a purpose-- supporting the embankment in the first and keeping carts on the paths and out of the native. (We might agree that a better solution would be to keep the carts off the course all together.) And having worked a bit with RR ties, I think it would have been a mistake to try and square the RR ties. As I said, they don't match well anyway and forcing formality where it doesn't flow naturally from the conditions is not my idea of good design.
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2052;image)
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2122;image)
Is it a Scottish thing, I don’t know about you but I’m not keen nor like the idea of the wool being pulled over my eyes. You guys may have to accept it in the States but its piss poor show to do it in Scotland. Its fake, counterfeit, I feel a party to a sting, it just does not seem right, however the course may well be most enjoyable, but that does not stop it being wrong. That’s my opinion, not Niall or Mark or Marty.
Melvyn
Please don't take this the wrong way, but is it possible that you are maybe taking this a bit far? I agree with your general sentiment, but not sure the photographic evidence justifies the position in this case.
Maybe it is just that I am willing to give these particular designers (at least one half of the team) the benefit of the doubt, at least until I see the course. Hanse and Wagner (and Shackelford) designed and built my home course. I've been told they moved less than 17,000 cubic yards of dirt in building it. In other words, they essentially took what the land gave them and there is very little that is artificial or forced. So maybe I am biased going into looking at these photos, and more likely to try and understand what they are trying to do.
But isn't it possible that you to are coming at this with a certain point of view that might negatively influence your view of designs that come to close to emulating the old courses you so love?
I guess this is my bottom line question for me. If the pre-1900 links courses were so great, then what is wrong with trying to emulate them, right down to the look of the bunkers?
-
Were the bunkers created form scratch?
If 100 years ago they did it for aesthetics then it is a fair enough decision to make in this day and therefore we should not describe them as fake. But if modern equipment has been used to create an older look then it is a fake look.
If they were created with antique technology then that might negate the fake tag is it would be an interesting experiment to try and create bunkers without modern construction tools. You cant complain if that is all that is possible with the technology.
Are there any before pictures of the sites where the bunkers are so we can see if they have indeed been constructed like a bunker 100 years ago or made to like they have been. If they have just been made from scratch then how can they be described as anything other than “faux antique”?
Yea Ross, I can see it now. Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner out on site for the next 3 years with a horse and plow creating each bunker by hand using construction methods from the early 1900's to create a "Real Antique" look. Because YOU would have noticed the difference!
Your comment, and Melvyn's, and Mark's are so outrageous and laughable.
Their well informed design decision was made in part, to make the golf course look as though it had been there for 100's of years. It is something almost all GCA's strive to achieve. And in my opinion it has been one of the most successful attempts I have ever seen. Your attempts to stand out from the crowd have made all of you look a bit silly. And have detracted from the conversation of the actual golf course.
-
This may have already been mentioned but "fake" is a highly inflamatory and derisive way to characterize someone's work. Ditto for faux.
Fake would be if they used Trex for sleepers. ::)
Fake also somewhat connotes intent to deceive or misrepresent.
An overt design technique that seeks to emulate and even pay tribute to something that's admired and even revered from past works should probably not be lumped into the same type of context as a forged painting.
As previously mentioned, those seemingly intent on focusing on this narrow aspect of the course also, not coincidentally, have voiced issues critical of non-architectural aspects of CS. That, coupled with the fact that they've never set foot on the property, creates the perception of dishonest criticism. The perception.
That being said, if that's the most that the toughest potential critics can come up with, to coin a TH phrase- ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
-
Ryan Farrow
I am not saying that they should have done that I was just trying get some ideas down to see what it was that made people call the bunker look fake. At no point did I say i thought it looked fake. I was just interested to see what they could have done to avoid the fake tag people have given it.
If we could establish
I think the cart path is the only thing that I know for sure would not be to my taste if I saw it for real. The dynamite comment was tongue in cheek so I retract that if I have offended you.
I was only trying to establish a set of conditions we could look at to see if there was an element of any "fake" to the look. But as has now been pointed out the term fake is inflammatory and so potentially we need to find a term to better describe the elements of the look.
-
Once again, a thread about architecture devolves into a thread about bunker styling. Imagine!
I did not have a chance to get up to Castle Stuart this past week, and I'm sorry I didn't. From reading through this thread, the argument seems to me to be not just about the "style" of the bunkering, but about the quantity of it. There are so many pictures of these "neat-o" little features that one gets the impression that they dominate each and every hole.
For those who have played the course, is that really the case, or do you not notice them so much except when you are in them? I think the answer would make a difference in how I viewed them.
-
I think it all looks a refreshing change for Scottish links. Especially as the R&A and links trust have steadily stripped the character and individuality out of our famous links.
-
Amen to that.
-
Niall -
I think Castle Stuart will prove to be a wonderful combination of great golf AND great aesthetics. The only way you will know for sure is to play it some time.
DT
David
I certainly aim to play it, and suspect I will enjoy the round. Whether or not I will apreciate the aesthetics when I see them in the flesh remains to be seen. Of more interest will be how the bunkering comes into play, how the course plays, does it play like a links etc.
Niall
-
Tom Doak -
I think, if you review the posts of the people who have actually played and/or seen the course in person, the consensus is the experience of the course as a whole overwhelms the bits and pieces of it.
DT
-
Niall,
What is a "fake style" of bunkers? Could you provide us with examples of what a "non-fake style" of bunkers would look like.
It sounds a bit like you are not familiar with this style, and it makes you uncomfortable, so you call it "fake style." Was it "fake style" in 1897? Or is the problem that these bunkers are in the style of those in 1897? Would it be real style if they were in the style of 1997? 1987? 2007? What is real about those styles?
David
Perhaps I should have said fake antiquity instead. There is a real mish mash of styles going on. Perhaps when the course matures it will all blend in more.
In terms of being familiar with the style, I can't say I've played a course with this style but the look of Castle Stuart does look more like some of the US courses highlighted on this site than it does to your typical links over here. Does that in itself make it a bad course ? Probably not, but it does make me feel a bit uneasy seeing it passed off as a traditional links when the styling and possibly the layout are more akin to a US course IMHO.
Niall
-
Yea Ross, I can see it now. Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner out on site for the next 3 years with a horse and plow creating each bunker by hand using construction methods from the early 1900's to create a "Real Antique" look. Because YOU would have noticed the difference!
Your comment, and Melvyn's, and Mark's are so outrageous and laughable.
Their well informed design decision was made in part, to make the golf course look as though it had been there for 100's of years. It is something almost all GCA's strive to achieve. And in my opinion it has been one of the most successful attempts I have ever seen. Your attempts to stand out from the crowd have made all of you look a bit silly. And have detracted from the conversation of the actual golf course.
[/quote]
Ryan
If the course had been there for hundreds of years you wouldn't have the bunkering the way it is. Those bunkers with the ragged edges etc would probably have been revetted well before you would have got into the 20th century. Thats what happens with old links, they evolve. As for the revetting between the different levels of grass, what greenkeeper/super put there would tolerate that for a minute if given the chance to turf over it. In fact what am I saying, what greenkeeper in his right mind would have built it in the first place.
If this course is a throwback to over a hundred years ago, wheres the flat square greens ? Ryan, you have accused myself and others who have made critical comments on the styling as looking a bit silly. I note that the others like me play there golf over here and I would suggest have more knowledge and better feel for the tradition of the links, how they evolved etc than perhaps you do. And I mean that with all due respect.
Niall
-
I think it all looks a refreshing change for Scottish links. Especially as the R&A and links trust have steadily stripped the character and individuality out of our famous links.
Paul/Tom D,
Not sure I'm with you on this. Care to elaborate ?
Niall
-
Once again, a thread about architecture devolves into a thread about bunker styling. Imagine!
I did not have a chance to get up to Castle Stuart this past week, and I'm sorry I didn't. From reading through this thread, the argument seems to me to be not just about the "style" of the bunkering, but about the quantity of it. There are so many pictures of these "neat-o" little features that one gets the impression that they dominate each and every hole.
For those who have played the course, is that really the case, or do you not notice them so much except when you are in them? I think the answer would make a difference in how I viewed them.
Tom,
At no point did I feel "over bunkered" on the course. I just always take a lot of photos close up of bunkers as I like to have detail of different types of bunkering to load into the memory banks.
There is so much width on the course that the bunkers are blended into the lanscape fine.
Brian
-
Brian
How does it play, does it play like a links ?
Bunkering - do they dictate strategy or do other factors come into play ?
Also, do the bunkers gather the ball or are they perhaps a bit more benign ? One of things Mark Parsinen tried to do at Kingsbarns was make it look hard but play easy, which I think was what he was trying to do here, did he succeed ?
Niall
-
Niall,
It plays like a links as the course is built on pure sand. Greens are bent/fescue and have a typical links feel. The greens are designed very much like old links courses in that there is not that movement within the greens but lots of movement outside the greens.
The bunkers are very much in play. I did not notice that the bunkers gathered like Muirfield or Renaissance. Yes, I would agree that the course looks a little more difficult than it actually is. We played it in a 2 club wind most of the day with a 4 club wind on the holes on the top such as 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
It is not easy but it makes you think. On 17 we played from the whites and that was 210 yards with a 4 club wind. I had to hit driver to get pin high. I am not a short hitter (I think Tom can confirm this as I played with him this week) so it is not easy off the whites. What we did was play the whites with the wind (apart from 17) and off the green tees into the wind and that made the course fun!
Brian
-
Brian
Many thanks for that. I very much like your description of the movement being off the greens rather than on them. Hopefully I'll get a chance to play up there in the next few months.
Niall
-
Niall:
I took Paul T's comment about "the R & A and links trust have steadily stripped the character out of our famous links," as it refers to bunkering, meant that the art of building more natural-looking revetments in bunkers has given way to making the bunkers deeper and more penal on championship courses. And the R & A has not been shy about doing so ... they seem to stiffen the bunkers for championships as reflexively as the USGA adds tees.
The bunkers at Muirfield and St. Andrews have gotten steadily steeper-faced and less natural-looking over the years I've seen them, and they were the best of the bunch.
-
Niall
Yes as Tom states that's basically what I meant. Turnberry, Lytham, Hoylake, Sandwich etc all had different trap styles but now they're much more homogenized and uniform. Basically you get a circular, oval or figure 8 outline with a vertical sod/brick face and dead flat sand bottoms.
We don't have this kind of variety anymore, 18th at Lytham from about 50 years ago:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/misc/lytham18.jpg)
-
For those who have played the course, is that really the case, or do you not notice them so much except when you are in them? I think the answer would make a difference in how I viewed them.
Tom and others
From memory, and a quick look through my photos, I think the course has around 50 bunkers not including the 'blow out areas" outside the holes. At the time I was last there, I believe that sleepers had been utilised in maybe 6 or so of the bunkers. These may have been added to since but I wouldnt imagine it would be a very dramatic increase. These numbers are to the best of my recollection. There most definitely is not the feeling of this being the dominant style at all and it certainly has not been overused.
As for the revetting between the different levels of grass, what greenkeeper/super put there would tolerate that for a minute if given the chance to turf over it. In fact what am I saying, what greenkeeper in his right mind would have built it in the first place.
Niall
Niall
You may find interesting that in the construction team of approx 12 or so, 10 of the people are in fact greenkeepers or former greenkeepers. This includes the project manager who is now general manager and the superintendent who was also a shaper on the project. Jim Wagner is also a former assistant superintendent.
-
Yea Ross, I can see it now. Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner out on site for the next 3 years with a horse and plow creating each bunker by hand using construction methods from the early 1900's to create a "Real Antique" look. Because YOU would have noticed the difference!
Your comment, and Melvyn's, and Mark's are so outrageous and laughable.
Their well informed design decision was made in part, to make the golf course look as though it had been there for 100's of years. It is something almost all GCA's strive to achieve. And in my opinion it has been one of the most successful attempts I have ever seen. Your attempts to stand out from the crowd have made all of you look a bit silly. And have detracted from the conversation of the actual golf course.
Ryan,
A number of people have attempted to engage in a serious discussion of golf course architecture here. Most have read my posts and those of Marty, Niall and Russ. Some have even managed to understand our point. No-one has seen the need to resort to name calling or insults.
Your post shows that:
1) you haven’t read our posts; or
2) you haven’t managed to understand them.
I’m feeling generous, so I’ll go for option 1. However, I’d love for you to give me (since it’s "something almost all GCA’s (sic) try to achieve") a list of 10 courses built in the last 10 years where the architects have attempted to make the course look as if it has not been maintained for 100 years.
And yes, someone has made themselves look silly on this thread but don’t worry, we’ll forget in time.
-
For those who are not stoked on the bunker style implemented at CS - umm - okay.
But what would you rather have?
1960s saucer bunkers?
Shaggy/natural bunkers?
Only riveted?
No sleeper use in bunkers?
What is a modern bunker?
What type of bunkering would be better suited to the land? (Honestly, I am curious)
Clearly, Parsinen and Hanse created this course melding several genres of design from periods in GCA history in an effort to created an immediate modern classic. The team at OM are doing the same thing, sort of, by channeling the spirit of CBM as you can see in the HB photos on the Long hole there.
I think the efforts of these architects should be celebrated. We have lived through years and years of highly paid GCAs mailing in projects based on topo maps with no thought to finishing detail or using the natural landscape.
What the team at CS have done is commit fully to the project and sweat every element of the design. Maybe the sleepered "pop" machine was going a bit too far, and some of their efforts may be a little to deep into the minutiae but based on the photos, videos, etc. of this course, I think it should be toasted as nothing short of fantastic.
I know it is easier for us on this side of the pond to support "modern classics" because we have very few "classic classics", but it is beyond me how passionate fans of GCA would not be as excited about CS as they should be about Old Macdonald - these are not dime a dozen projects, no matter what country you live in.
A great links course is like a wonderful single malt - it gets much better with time - unfortunately creditors are not interested in waiting that long so investors need to speed up the process these days to pay the vig :)
Rob,
It’s not the style of the bunkering that bugs me. Nor (for those fixated on the mere use of sleepers) is it the use of sleepers. It’s the way the bunkers (and the sleepers) have deliberately been constructed to suggest that they have been decaying, without maintenance, for years. If the intention is to mimic an old style, why not build bunkers (using sleepers if you want) that look like bunkers built 100 years ago looked when they were built, 100 years ago.
As to the classic classics, none of them look (in the detail) like CS. All are neater and better maintained. No-one has yet produced evidence that these classic courses looked as ragged as CS when they were new.
-
Mark
Of course I think the detail matters. I just feel that some people are getting hung up on what is only a small element of this golf course.
"Create a palpably visual and distinctive personality for the course, through its contours, bunkers, landscape mosaic, and optical compositions."
The above quote is lifted form the course goals page on the Castle Stuart website. I feel that this perfectly describes what they have tried, and in my opinion, achieved with this project. I dont believe that its trying to copy anything else but simply incorporate ideas and features that the designers respect. They have then combined them in a way to produce something that has its own distinct personality.
As for question regarding cathedrals: of course I would look at the gargoyles but I wouldnt pass judgement on the whole building if perhaps they were facing up instead of down.
Grant
Grant,
I'm not passing judgment on the whole building though, am I? I'm questioning a feature of it. Which doesn't seem to be allowed./ I can't (as has been pointed out) pass judgment on how the course plays until I have been there. I can only comment on what I see, and that is the detail. I'd have thought that this was core GCA discussion but apparently not.
-
David,
I hope you don’t mind me using your (thoughtful) post to clarify my personal position.
Melvyn,
I have watched the video, a few times. Is it possible that you are misunderstanding Gil's intention? He did say that he felt the bunkers were unlike any other in the world, but he also said that the bunkers were modeled after photos of bunkers from Hutchinson's 1897 book. I am not sure how you go from this to "he has produced a totally fake bunker arrangement for the course."
I must be misunderstanding. How does modeling bunkers after those from pre-1900 links courses make them fake?
I don’t have an issue with modelling bunkers from the pre-1900 era. I really hope that’s clear by now.
As for the riveting, could you explain what makes it "fake riveting?" I don't think it is a facade-- now that would be fake. I think it is real riveting, and as I understand it they used it for stylistic reasons but also in places where they foresaw cave-ins and erosion. In your mind should they have waited until the bunkers collapsed to include it in the design? (My understanding is that Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner often stack sod on the upper portions of their steep bunkers to help with future potential erosion problems.)
As for the RR ties, have you ever worked with them? They are generally purchased used, from torn up old track, and are pretty rustic. Maybe they once were, but after decades in the conditions they are by no means uniform. People that use them had better be comfortable with a rough, old look because the that is how the RR ties are. So I find it a bit odd that you would require anyone to stack them exactly and evenly.
But look at some of the well known use of sleepers (or railroad ties) on the famous links. They are just that, stacked exactly and evenly. Early architects (and those who constructed their courses) took as much care in the detail of those courses as modern architects and shapers, didn’t they?
That being said, I think that perhaps two of the photos showing the same bunker best represent what you are saying:
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2060;image)
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2061;image)
I really don't mind the look of the RR ties on the right. They seem to be serving a purpose. I am not so sure about the ties on the left, as they just sort of seem to be sitting there. Do they serve a purpose other than aesthetic? I don't know.
Yes, you do know. The purpose they serve is to make it look as if, in an earlier era, that bunker had a different shape and has worn and deteriorated, without repair, over many years. That’s not true but it’s the message those sleepers are there to give.
As for these next two photos, I have no problem with how the ties are used in either. They certainly serve a purpose-- supporting the embankment in the first and keeping carts on the paths and out of the native. (We might agree that a better solution would be to keep the carts off the course all together.) And having worked a bit with RR ties, I think it would have been a mistake to try and square the RR ties. As I said, they don't match well anyway and forcing formality where it doesn't flow naturally from the conditions is not my idea of good design.
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2052;image)
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2122;image)
But why the uneven top line? There are sleepers here without function, just form. Point me to examples of that from yesteryear.Is it a Scottish thing, I don’t know about you but I’m not keen nor like the idea of the wool being pulled over my eyes. You guys may have to accept it in the States but its piss poor show to do it in Scotland. Its fake, counterfeit, I feel a party to a sting, it just does not seem right, however the course may well be most enjoyable, but that does not stop it being wrong. That’s my opinion, not Niall or Mark or Marty.
Melvyn
Please don't take this the wrong way, but is it possible that you are maybe taking this a bit far? I agree with your general sentiment, but not sure the photographic evidence justifies the position in this case.
Maybe it is just that I am willing to give these particular designers (at least one half of the team) the benefit of the doubt, at least until I see the course. Hanse and Wagner (and Shackelford) designed and built my home course. I've been told they moved less than 17,000 cubic yards of dirt in building it. In other words, they essentially took what the land gave them and there is very little that is artificial or forced. So maybe I am biased going into looking at these photos, and more likely to try and understand what they are trying to do.
But isn't it possible that you to are coming at this with a certain point of view that might negatively influence your view of designs that come to close to emulating the old courses you so love?
I guess this is my bottom line question for me. If the pre-1900 links courses were so great, then what is wrong with trying to emulate them, right down to the look of the bunkers?
Nothing wrong with trying to emulate that look. But that’s not what this is about. If they had built a course in the style of a pre-1900 course, AS IT WOULD HAVE APPEARED AT THE TIME, I wouldn’t have had an issue. That would have been brave and exciting. It’s trying to make it look like it had been there for 100 years that I don’t get, not least since none of the courses that have really been there for 100o years have the same look of decay that this detail is intended to suggest.
-
Questions regarding bunker detailing are so far away from the intent of my original criticism that I feel the need to re-state my position and hopefully better explain where I'm coming from.
Hopefully, one thing we might all agree on here at sunny GolfClubAtlas is that Golf Course Architecture, like its prettier sister, Landscape Architecture and like its more muscular big brother, built Architecture, is an ART FORM. NOT a Science and NOT Engineering. Sure, elements of those fields are involved, but PRIMARILY, golf course architecture is ART.
Do we agree on that?
For that is my initial position on all golf course architectural discourse. If we don't agree on that, we can agree on nothing else.
Now then, if gca is Art, then we can only logically examine and criticise it so. Thus, my contention is that truly great Art can only be ORIGINAL. Truly great Art can only be a product of great creativity. Truly great Art transcends its environment, its time and its place.
Truly great Art might reflect and REFERENCE truly great Art of the Past, but it always does so in the company of new, ORIGINAL thought and with an execution which brings something NEW to the scene.
Lucky me, I had an education which covered Art, Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Golf Course Architecture and I've had a wealth of experience in Occupations which have further strengthened that knowledge with practical experience. I've read the books and attended the seminars. A good few folk around here would do well by themselves in reading some of the tomes regarding 'Truth in Architecture'. There's plenty of them out there from Palladio, through Ruskins Seven Lamps to 'The Fountainhead' and the seminal Charles Bronson's 'Death Wish' Series. SEE, I couldn't be THAT serious for THAT long, now could I...???
cheers,
FBD.
-
I think the course looks very interesting and easily one of the five or so courses built in the past 20 years that I would to see most. There are a few areas of what looks to be waste sand which I don't like and there will definitely be problems keeping the sand in some of the bunkers. That said, it seems to me that low lip bunkers tend be on sides where some sand can spill without too much of a problem. Like Paul, I like the variety of styles, but more importantly how they flow into the surrounds and lead to odd runoffs.
Does the sea really come into play anywhere? How bout a burn?
Brian - thanks for posting!
Ciao
-
Pre 1900 links were rugged by default.
It didn't matter if the course was newly "laid out" or had been there for 100+ years, all of them used hazards that were naturally formed.
I believe Gil Hanse used Hutchinson's "British Golf Links" 1897 which has photos of "old" (St Andrews etc) and "new" (Porthcawl, Dublin ,Rye etc) courses at that time.
They are indistinguishable because they are, in the main, naturally formed:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/misc/dublin1st.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/misc/Sandwich3rd.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/misc/standrews7th.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/misc/Newquay0001.jpg)
Comparing these old pics with those Brian posted and I think it's obvious that Gil has done a cracking job that's in the true spirit of the original links golf. He didn't have naturally formed bunkers but has done a fine job recreating them and apart from Royal County Down try and find another GB&I links that has hazards with as much rugged appeal.
OK some might think the sleepers are a bit affected but I like 'em, they show a bit of flare and remind me of Pete Dye at Casa.
-
Sean -
There are no burns on the course.
The first 3 holes on the front-9 play heading west along the Moray Firth, similar to the first 3 holes at Nairn. A big, ugly right-handed slice off one of those tees might get you wet. A shot long & right into the 3rd green will do the same.
The first 3 (maybe 4) holes on the back-9 head east along the Moray Firth, so the water is on the left. A big nasty pull-hook might find the beach and/or the water, but I would not expect that to happen very often.
DT
-
David - cheers. Does anybody know why water wasn't brought into play?
Paul
I love looking at Hutchinson's book. But I think different times have different requirements. Bunkers left to their own devices with people trampling through them tend to grow because its their nature to do so. With more and more people playing the game at some point bunkers have to be controlled. Given relatively small operational budgets in the UK, it makes sense to formalize the bunkers rather than to do what could be weekly repair to contain bunkers. Its a necessary tradeoff. However, more bunkers like the Lytham example (with heavy grass on its edges) could be used for the sake of variety even though I don't think that style is nearly effective as a well placed pot.
Ciao
-
Sean
As you know, there are a few new courses here in the US that are much more in the spirit of the photos in Hutchinson's book: Pacific Dunes, the Sand Hills courses. So I think the modern golfer can tolerate it to some degree and I'm glad Gil has taken that risk with some of these bunkers too.
Revetting all links bunkers and making all of them into pots, just seems a bit unimaginative. For example, as soon as I heard that Trevose was redoing its bunkers I knew they'd all be changed and revetted.
The only UK architect that I know who resists the revetting trend is Martin Hawtree. He understands that in Ireland that wasn't the tradition...see his work at Royal Dublin (and I think Lahinch has sand faced too?).
Pete Dye was well ahead of the curve when he stated years ago that the only way to make bunkers hazard again was to leave them un-raked. I'd like to know when the raking after a shot came became the norm.
I know that Mark Rowlinson discovered that at Alwoodley they only raked the bunkers once a week for a long time.
-
Paul,
we're moving away from CS, I know but I'm interested in the answer to Sean's point about stabilisation. Given the heavy play that any new links course would be likely to get, can the free form, ragged bunkers you refer to be stabilised or will it be necessary to rebuild them frequently? Does the heavy grass around, say the Lytham bunkers you produced pictures of, provide significant stability?
Mark
-
Golf courses are part art, part function. Whether you like one 'look' or style over another, makes little difference in the long run. Aesthetics alone will not bring you back to a course if it's no fun to play.
Personally, I like the way it looks and I suspect it would be a lot of fun to play. I can see where some people are coming from when they talk about the 'faux antique' look. I'm sure it's not to everyones taste, but then again - how many things are?
It will be interesting to see how it 'matures' over the next few years. Perhaps we should start calling the course 'Castle Benjamin Button'!
-
Mark,
Nowhere did I say that an architect, or this course in particular was meant to look as though it was not "maintained" for 100's of years. As others have mentioned, sleepers were used to shore up bunkers edges which would require MAINTENANCE.
Which begs the question, why would you want someone to think your golf course was just built yesterday?
I understand your analysis, and I think you are correct. And that "fake" that you talk about is borderline genius. I can't re-call this ever being done, and being done so well.
I just don't understand how you think this is wrong?
-
Paul
I feel that I cannot agree with you in full because many of the hazards were not natural in I believe the meaning you are advocating.
We need to remember some of the early hazards included stonewalls, railways, roads (paths) and dykes to name but a few. Certainly many early bunkers were natural but with wear and course modification these where either filled in or extended. After the late 1870’s and onwards as the course numbers expanded many bunkers were positioned to match the pace of play on the course and either modifier or the bunkers were added months after the course opened. This being the case they cannot be seen as natural.
Nevertheless, for the most part I follow you point.
AS for CS, I can’t comment how the course plays, but my first sight of the photos (as I said in my initial post) that I felt something was missing and when I looked at the mix match of the sleepers and the random way they have been used, it did not remind me of any old courses. As for the bunkers with sod riveting. I think if my memory serves me correctly these were used by Gil as part of the bunker construction, not necessary to form or hold the bunker in shape but as a decorative purpose to make the bunker look old with what may appear to be the original sod walls laid years ago slowly being exposed. He, himself said that they were unique to CS. Unless I have totally misunderstood his comments the riveting in parts of the bunkers are just fake and for show while other bunkers have the full faced formed by them .
I understand what he is trying to achieve, but I am surprised that considering the courses in the vicinity, he feels the need to throw some theatre into the equation. There was no need for this certainly in Scotland where most golfers understand golf being weaned upon the course from a young age.
I hope the course is a success, from the photo it looks promising, just a pity that he though the need to fake or if you wish dress the bunkers with useless pieces of sleepers. In addition, some could consider the uneven or stepped formation of the sleeper tops as poor workmanship, not contributing to the quality of the course itself.
Melvyn
-
Mark,
Nowhere did I say that an architect, or this course in particular was meant to look as though it was not "maintained" for 100's of years. As others have mentioned, sleepers were used to shore up bunkers edges which would require MAINTENANCE.
But these sleepers have been installed in a way to suggest that they have worn and not been maintained. New courses (even in the early 1900s) with sleepers had them more neatly and evenly arranged. As those courses wore, the bunkers were maintained to maintain that neatness. That's why the sleepers look like they have not been maintained.
Which begs the question, why would you want someone to think your golf course was just built yesterday?
Because it was? Why the need to pretend it is older than it is? I can't think of any other construction or manufactured product (apart from "distressed" furniture) where that is done.
I understand your analysis, and I think you are correct. And that "fake" that you talk about is borderline genius. I can't re-call this ever being done, and being done so well.
I don't think it has been done before, which is why we are discussing it here. Your genius is my artistic dishonesty. That's fine, we are allowed to disagree without being called stupid.
I just don't understand how you think this is wrong?
I don't like it because, to me, there's a pretence and a dishonesty about it which detracts from the actual quality of the course. If it's a great, new course, why try to hide the fact? If Trump and Fazio had been the first to do this in their development north of Aberdeen, I can't help wondering if the reception would have been so warm.., to me (and this is a matter of personal taste) this faux antiquity is something I would more have expected from Trump than Parsinnen, there's an artificiality to it that I simply don't like. That's a matter of personal taste and a valid one. You don't agree (or understand). That's fine, it doesn't make either of us wrong, let alone stupid or foolish. I suspect, to be honest, that a lot of this comes from our respective backgrounds.
I do wonder, without any disrepect to anyone, whether this sort of artificial age might not be more acceptable in a country where it is unusual for things to look 100+ years old as there isn't much of anything (in terms of buildings, for instance) that are that old than in a country where it is common to live in a building that is 100 years old and where we walk past buildings older than that everyday. I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud.
-
Niall:
I took Paul T's comment about "the R & A and links trust have steadily stripped the character out of our famous links," as it refers to bunkering, meant that the art of building more natural-looking revetments in bunkers has given way to making the bunkers deeper and more penal on championship courses. And the R & A has not been shy about doing so ... they seem to stiffen the bunkers for championships as reflexively as the USGA adds tees.
The bunkers at Muirfield and St. Andrews have gotten steadily steeper-faced and less natural-looking over the years I've seen them, and they were the best of the bunch.
Tom
Thanks for elaborating. I can't in all honesty say that I'm familiar enough (or indeed at all) with the bunkers on those courses mentioned, immediately before and after they were altered in the lead up to an Open championship, to pass comment on the outcome of the work.
The reason I reacted to Paul/your comments was to question whether the R&A are the baddies in all of this. I suspect I am in a small minority on this site but I think the R&A generally does a good job protecting the values of the game, and running the Open championship (in saying that, I'm not looking for an argument with those that disagree, particularly on this thread where a discussion on architecture has broken out, which I wouldn't want to interrupt).
My understanding is that the R&A consults with the club/resort/links trust who happen to be hosting the Open on what possible improvements/alterations might be required to host a competition designed to test the best golfers. As I understand it they do it through there own retained specialists and the club/resort etc brings in their own specialists ie. Hawtree, Steel, MacKenzie/Ebert etc. Amongst that lot, there must be a concensus in opinion and I would imagine a lot of the input will come from the professional guys plus the hosting club, after all can you imagine HCEG doing anything they didn't want to do ? The R&A may set the ball rolling by asking the club/resort/links to host the championship but I don't think you can entirely blame them for eveything thereafter, I would respectively suggest that a GCA is at least partially culpable also.
Niall
-
Niall
You may find interesting that in the construction team of approx 12 or so, 10 of the people are in fact greenkeepers or former greenkeepers. This includes the project manager who is now general manager and the superintendent who was also a shaper on the project. Jim Wagner is also a former assistant superintendent.
[/quote]
Grant
I do find that interesting. I think it is safe to assume that they were working under direction from the architect/designers. In the old days, when the courses that inspired the designers at CS, were built, the greenkeeper would be responsible for the detailed construction and sometimes the design also. In doing so I would suggest that they took account of practical considerations like maintainance and ease of construction. Can you see either of those considerations in the design details highlighted in some of Brians pictures ?
That is what I think is fake about it. Sleepers which are halfway up a bunker face, doing what exactly ? As I said in another post, courses evolve, and it will be interesting to seee how much of the affectations at CS are retained.
Niall
-
The way I see it if they had just copied the design features of bunkers from around 1900 then that would have been fine, if the bunkers at CS on day one resembled the bunkers 0f 1900 on day one.
Why do the CS bunkers look like 1900 bunkers after a number of years instead of brand new?
Further if they had just been constructed like a new set of 1900 bunkers then all the sleepers etc would have been part of the structural integrity to which I for one would have no complaints.
-
Questions regarding bunker detailing are so far away from the intent of my original criticism that I feel the need to re-state my position and hopefully better explain where I'm coming from.
Hopefully, one thing we might all agree on here at sunny GolfClubAtlas is that Golf Course Architecture, like its prettier sister, Landscape Architecture and like its more muscular big brother, built Architecture, is an ART FORM. NOT a Science and NOT Engineering. Sure, elements of those fields are involved, but PRIMARILY, golf course architecture is ART.
Do we agree on that?
For that is my initial position on all golf course architectural discourse. If we don't agree on that, we can agree on nothing else.
Now then, if gca is Art, then we can only logically examine and criticise it so. Thus, my contention is that truly great Art can only be ORIGINAL. Truly great Art can only be a product of great creativity. Truly great Art transcends its environment, its time and its place.
Truly great Art might reflect and REFERENCE truly great Art of the Past, but it always does so in the company of new, ORIGINAL thought and with an execution which brings something NEW to the scene.
Lucky me, I had an education which covered Art, Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Golf Course Architecture and I've had a wealth of experience in Occupations which have further strengthened that knowledge with practical experience. I've read the books and attended the seminars. A good few folk around here would do well by themselves in reading some of the tomes regarding 'Truth in Architecture'. There's plenty of them out there from Palladio, through Ruskins Seven Lamps to 'The Fountainhead' and the seminal Charles Bronson's 'Death Wish' Series. SEE, I couldn't be THAT serious for THAT long, now could I...???
cheers,
FBD.
Marty
Interesting post, I'm almost scared to attempt a reply but what the hell. Someone once said to me that a golf course is really just an engineering project disguised as a golf course. Whether or not that is right depends on your point of view and what end of the design process you focus on but I don't think it can be denied that the practical does come into it, particularly when you look at traditional Scottish courses. I would humbly suggest that the old boys who designed the early courses were more artisans than artists. Would Old Tom know the difference between a Monet and a Rembrandt ? Who knows (other than Melvyn).
Niall
-
Paul,
we're moving away from CS, I know but I'm interested in the answer to Sean's point about stabilisation. Given the heavy play that any new links course would be likely to get, can the free form, ragged bunkers you refer to be stabilised or will it be necessary to rebuild them frequently? Does the heavy grass around, say the Lytham bunkers you produced pictures of, provide significant stability?
Mark
Mark
I think the Lytham bunker is adequately stabilized. It looks very similar to the current bunkers at County Down and those aren't constantly rebuilt.
I guess how often bunkers have to be rebuilt is down to the taste of the people in charge of the course and the public. It depends on how neat and tidy they need the course to be. Personally I wouldn't mind a some sand leakage and decay.
-
The way I see it if they had just copied the design features of bunkers from around 1900 then that would have been fine, if the bunkers at CS on day one resembled the bunkers 0f 1900 on day one.
Why do the CS bunkers look like 1900 bunkers after a number of years instead of brand new?
Further if they had just been constructed like a new set of 1900 bunkers then all the sleepers etc would have been part of the structural integrity to which I for one would have no complaints.
Ross
That's not really true. As you can see from the Royal Dublin photo-a course that was only a few years old at the time- C19th bunkers were raw and ragged regardless of the age of the course. Even newly constructed bunkers were raw.
-
The sod wall peeking out of the turf actually reminds me of Rye and the wooden sleepers on 3,7 and 14.
-
Mark,
All forms of design/construction frequently use materials / design techniques to make products look old.
How about those faded out jeans / T-Shirts / Hats with pre-cut holes or rips in them?
I have seen packaging that is meant to make a product appear older.
How about graphic design? Old School Logos that were brought back by multi-million dollar corporations? Or Throwback Sports uniforms?
Wooden Flag sticks?
Rusted Steel is very big in the Southwestern U.S., I have even seen designers who have purposely placed these materials so the rust would stain the surrounding concrete.
As an Americans perhaps our culture is a bit different and maybe we express our feelings of the past in different ways then other folks. But I would hardly call it "dishonest".
-And again, nowhere did I say that you or your argument was "stupid". Just silly, considering you and several others who have expressed negative views have never even seen the golf course in person! Not to mention the fact that most (all?) of you are from that part of the earth. And I'm beginning to think THAT, has a lot to do with it. :)
-
Ryan,
I'll give you faded denim and ripped/holed clothes. Can't say I understand the latter, but there you go. If I want a rip in my jeans I can manage it myself, thanks.
Old school badges and wooden flagsticks, though, I think are different. Aren't we talking there about new looking but old-fashioned?
As to the rusty concrete thing, I'll take your word for it, I'm not aware of it over here.
There wouldn't be a whole lot of discussion on many threads here if we were only allowed to post opinions on courses we had actually seen, would there? Castle Stuart is a good 8 hour drive for me, so I'm not likely to visit unless I'm up that way. The UK may be small, but it's not that small.
-
Niall
We still do not seem to fully understand or know the story of individuals from the 19th century, yet many are willing to discuss the design of their courses.
All generations seem to fall into the old trap of underrating their dead forefathers. Yet were they more ignorant that many today, no it’s just our own conceited minds believing that we know more that those long dead generations.
As for Old Tom, he was educated at Madras College in St Andrew, whilst not appearing to show much forward thinking when he was young, his education allowed him to mix with Kings, Princes, Earls, Dukes Lords and Ladies not to mention the Engineers Surveyors, The Clergy, plus the rest of the GB&I population. Sorry not forgetting many overseas visitors.
Poorly educated perhaps, although I do not feel that Madras College would agree, but did he not do well in rising to the occasion(s). That I believe shows a little bit more that the average intelligence.
As for the painters, who knows my friend?
PS Monet, is that not a bottle of Champagne – no sorry it’s Moet. ;)
Melvyn
-
Melvyn
I just knew you were going to educate me. BTW, was Monet around back in Old Tom's day ?
Cheers
Niall
-
Paul T:
I guarantee you that the sod wall surrounded by turf was inspired by the little sleeper-tops at Rye. When Gil and I were building The Legends many moons ago, we had a grass bunker to the right of the 13th green and Gil suggested using the little sleeper-tops there to make it tougher. I don't know if it's still there but it was a fun feature. I am sure those sod walls have the same genesis, though out of context, they do look weird.
Niall:
You are right that the R & A themselves don't build any bunkers, and I have never dealt with them directly. But I can tell you that I've turned down a couple of consulting jobs at clubs which were due to host USGA events, because it was very clear the USGA would tell the club what to do and the club would feel obliged to do it -- so I would not have the final say in what we were doing. I just assumed that the R & A operated the same way. And as hard as it is to imagine HCEG capitulating to what others demand, it isn't much different than seeing Shinnecock Hills do the same.
-
Tom
I believe you are right re the R&A, albeit a request verging on ‘do it’. I have been advised that they do lay down guidelines for clubs to follow.
Melvyn
Niall
Sorry can't remember that far back - could be because I had too much Moet ;)
-
Tom
I note your comments regarding the USGA. I suppose it all comes down to the brief given by the client (USGA/R&A) eg. "provide us with advice on how to provide a good challenge for the best players in the world" or alternatively "give us deep, deep bunkers, and lots of them".
It seems to me that the R&A have been a bit more open minded to more imaginative ideas, for instance the re-alignment of the 16th fairway at Turnberry. I'm assuming the idea either came from MacKenzie/Ebert or even Turnberry themselves, either way I thought it was an elegant solution in altering two holes for the better (IMO).
Niall
-
Boy, the opinions expressed here will certainly contribute to the notion that gca.com folk are a bunch of blowhards.
Let me ask this question.
Why are the numerous different bunkers style being employed at Old Macdonald acceptable-even lauded-but those at Castlestuart are being disparaged???
I don't get it.
-
Michael
A lot of it has to do with context, and a lot of it has to do with tradition.
If you are really interested in "getting it" I suggest that you read the thread properly and that way you might appreciate what some people are trying to say, even if you don't agree with it. Otherwise I suggest you move onto another thread.
Quick answer to your question - Old MacDonald isn't in Scotland
Niall
-
Boy, the opinions expressed here will certainly contribute to the notion that gca.com folk are a bunch of blowhards.
Let me ask this question.
Why are the numerous different bunkers style being employed at Old Macdonald acceptable-even lauded-but those at Castlestuart are being disparaged???
I don't get it.
Michael,
I have not made any comment on the Old MacDonald bunkering, so I can't possibly be accused of inconsistency. Anyway, I like Niall's answer.
Mark
-
Hey, get defensive if you want, fellas, the quick and dirty answer here is you guys don't like the style.
But I posit a lot of folks do, so whatever........
-
For those of view interested in a "macro" view of Castle Stuart, I would encourage you to take the video tour of the course on its website. The pics shown were taken last year:
http://castlestuartgolf.com/course.html
George Peper on Castle Stuart in LINKS magazine: http://www.linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/international/scotland/castle_stuart_golf_links_george_peper_scotland_travel_courses.aspx
Sean A. - Looking at the pics on this tour, your will see that the beach is not too far out of on for several of the greens on the holes along the Moray Firth.
DT
-
Article on Castle Stuart by Tom Mackin at GolfCourseArchitecture.net:
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Parsinen-chases-the-Open-dream/1575/Default.aspx
-
I think the course as a whole looks great, thanks for the pictures!
The bunkering to me looks like a study of what has been built on classic links courses over the years. True, this amount of variety would not normally be found on one course let alone on one hole or even in one bunker(!).
I look at it as a bunker study of 150 odd years of course construction. It may be nauseating to some, but very interesting to others, perhaps even more so to those who have limited experience in links golf and can experience a sample of what is out there within just one round.
I would be interested in the discussion including more emphasis on the strategy of the holes.
-
Michael
A lot of it has to do with context, and a lot of it has to do with tradition.
If you are really interested in "getting it" I suggest that you read the thread properly and that way you might appreciate what some people are trying to say, even if you don't agree with it. Otherwise I suggest you move onto another thread.
Quick answer to your question - Old MacDonald isn't in Scotland
Niall
Niall,
I appreciate your comments about the fake-style bunkers, but 'Old MacDonald isn't in Scotland' is not a very persuasive argument.
Apparently, most of us agree that GCA is a form of art. If a golf course and its GCA are art, then the country or area is like its museum.
My point is that a golf course shouldn't be regarded, viewed, ranked... in a different way depending of the country or area it is located.
A painting, for exanple, does it make a difference whether it's exhibited in a museum in London or Paris? It is the same piece of art.
So, you might feel that Castle Stuart doesn't fit into it's museum. Like a modern painting exhibited in a museum of antique art, all right but the modern painting still looks great,IMO.
Sorry, I hope I found the right words to express myself.
Emil
-
Apparently, most of us agree that GCA is a form of art.
I'm not sure most of us do agree with that. Certainly there is an artistic element to it. I have some thoughts I intend to post on Marty's thread, when I have considered longer, in the meantime I'll concede there is an artistic element to GCA but it is a stretch to say tha GCA is art. If a golf course and its GCA are art, then the country or area is like its museum.
My point is that a golf course shouldn't be regarded, viewed, ranked... in a different way depending of the country or area it is located.
A painting, for exanple, does it make a difference whether it's exhibited in a museum in London or Paris? It is the same piece of art.
It may not matter where art is exhibited but it can matter where it comes from. Many forms of art have geographic origins and their authenticity and meaning can certainly change depending on where they originate (or who originates them). However, since I don't agree with your initial premise, I'm obviously not sold on the art analogy.
So, you might feel that Castle Stuart doesn't fit into it's museum. Like a modern painting exhibited in a museum of antique art, all right but the modern painting still looks great,IMO.
And this analogy stinks. A golf course is not a work of art. Nor is it a museum. It's a sports field, albeit a unique one, with significant freedom in its form and with (some) artistic input into its design. It may be a work of craftsmanship (at least in part) but it is nothing without utility. We do not visit golf courses to look at them but to play them. Even when we do visit a course just to look it is meaningless without considering how the course would play.
Sorry, I hope I found the right words to express myself.
Emil
-
Golf course architecture is an Art. That is not open for interpretation.
Have any doubts, go visit Friars Head. Still wondering, ask any architect.
-
Mark,
I know the art- metaphor is pretty weak to support my idea ( ;D), but I stick with it. It wasn't meant to sound exactly the way I wrote those words.
It is just not comprehensible and ligical for me, that people have a different view towards a golf course only because it is in Scotland, simply because it is the same golf course. I assume some people here wouldn't have no problem at all with the bunkering if the course was in the States.
-
Golf course architecture is an Art. That is not open for interpretation.
Yes, it is.
Have any doubts, go visit Friars Head. Still wondering, ask any architect.
I'm a lawyer. If I tell you that law is art, will you believe me?
As I said, I'm going to post my thoughts on GCA as art in FBD's thread. But to argue that GCA is Art, rather than that there is art in GCA is, IMHO (and I'm entitled to one, Ryan, just like you), wrong.
-
Emil
Thanks for your comments. Taking up your museum analogy for a moment, would the Elgin Marbles look better in a museum in London or adorning a building in Greece ?
To my eye (I have only seen photos) Castle Suart looks more akin to some of the recent American courses than to your typical Scottish links, although I appreciate that some on here (mainly American I note) don't see it that way. Would this course look out of place in parts of the US, or indeed elsewhere ?
Niall
-
Mark,
I know the art- metaphor is pretty weak to support my idea ( ;D), but I stick with it. It wasn't meant to sound exactly the way I wrote those words.
It is just not comprehensible and ligical for me, that people have a different view towards a golf course only because it is in Scotland, simply because it is the same golf course. I assume some people here wouldn't have no problem at all with the bunkering if the course was in the States.
On the video about the features used on castle Stuart they talk about the style of the bunker and say that where possible natural open sandy area are used as hazards. It also mentions that riveting is used if; stability or erosion is an issue, heavy traffic is expected, on fairways, where the bunker is tight to the green.
So this would imply that they will go for a natural look where possible supplemented by structural rigidity to protect the course where it is needed. This looks great and is a fair enough design philosophy to aim for. Further it is in keeping with bunker design of the period around 1900.
The problem is however they deviate from this philosophy when in some of the bunkers sleepers are just laid in them very haphazardly with no real structural function within the bunker. This is where the issue of faux or fake comes from, when the sleeper does nothing other than to look like it has fallen away from its original position. Here is where it deviates from the design of the period they are trying to copy. Would the bunkers constructed between 1890 and 1930 have sleepers in them that served no structural purpose? Further more would they have attempted to place them as neatly as possible with the sleepers only becoming uneven over time?
So you can see that when the sleepers are used as per the philosophy set out by the designers of castle Stuart, natural with structural support where needed, they are a great original feature but when they are not serving a purpose they become falsified features.
The point is that in Scotland this seems not to be acceptable but is it possible that in other cultures or countries the “faking” of age or purpose is just seen to be adding charm that age gives?
-
Emil
With regard to your post to Niall, I feel I would like to add a comment.
I do not consider golf course design to be part of any art form whatsoever. I cannot call it art because it was originally based upon Mother Nature with her shapes, contours and forms.
So many believe that we have moved from Nature (natural), to golf courses as a form of art. Well who am I to spoil other peoples dreams, perhaps that the problem with golf today, everyone wants to stamp a label on the game, yet golf will at its heart always be a game played with Nature.
I feel perhaps those who love our courses understand that, we do and certainly the small out of the way clubs that have been around for well over a 100 years do. It’s natural and Nature that was the basic of their courses with art (if any) being confined to the clubhouse lounge bar. Through this daily association with these courses, many feel that there is no need to dress any part, let alone the bunkers to make them look, well yes, poorly maintained and not much loved – sorry even if aged and mature was the intention.
Some talk of style, we talk of taste, yet for many of us there is not style in faking age, or making the course look poorly maintained. In fact, I would say it reflect the opposite to that which it was intended
Perhaps in the end we are mindful of what we have, how wonderful and lucky we are to have such landscapes formed for the most part by Mother Nature that we feel that small parts of a course just do not need to be treated in this way. Art, well if that is art it needs to be removed from our golf courses as certainly IMHO not the correct place to display it. Anyway, in this day and age can we afford to waste, ops sorry, spend money on art – I would rather see the money spent on finishing the bunkers into real playable hazards.
What has this art done, it has taken the emphasis off the quality of the course and onto some of the bunkers and the general usage of sleeper. In other words, a total distraction of the real purpose of the course, which is to enjoy the game of golf. Art, screw art, it has no place on a golf course, those who think it has perhaps should consider giving up golf as they may not be concentration on the game in hand.
Melvyn
Ryan
If GCA is an Art, do you not think that we urgently need the get some architects into college pretty damn quickly as they do not (thankfully) seem to have realised it.
Next time I go to play I will say to my wife "Off to play some art love, catch you later" No think not, its golf from start to finish
-
Of course golf courses are art....Golf courses are DESIGNED not found. A course should be inspireing with out the club in hand. Take a walk at Pacific Dunes as the sun sets and tell me that is not art. Didn't Old Tom invent the walking stick/putter so he could use it on sundays when the course was cloed? Proof that he enjoyed the course without playing. Show me a course that has a minimalism design on a flat uninspired plot and I'll show you a financial disaster. So keep your chin up Castle Stuart and be proud of what you are...........a work of art.
Anthony
-
Of course golf courses are art....Golf courses are DESIGNED not found. A course should be inspireing with out the club in hand. Take a walk at Pacific Dunes as the sun sets and tell me that is not art. Didn't Old Tom invent the walking stick/putter so he could use it on sundays when the course was cloed? Proof that he enjoyed the course without playing. Show me a course that has a minimalism design on a flat uninspired plot and I'll show you a financial disaster. So keep your chin up Castle Stuart and be proud of what you are...........a work of art.
Anthony
Anthony,
Congratulations. Another post with no logical connection at all. Tell me:
1) Is the computer I typed this on a work of art? I imagine it must be since, if I follow your logic design=art, and this PC was surely designed.
2) Is the Grand Canyon a work of art? I imagine it must be since, if I follow your logic looking good at sunset=art, and the Canyon looks fantastic as the sun goes down.
3) Are the Cheviot Hills a work of art? I imagine they must be since, if I follow your logic being a nice place for a walk=art, and they're a great place to go walking on a Sunday.
Opinions are opinions and this would be a very dull discussion board without differing opinions. If we want good debate, however, let's at least try to think through our arguments if we are going to be categoric about things. I understand you think GCA is art. I think it's more than that.
-
Mark,
I am not disputing your opinion and actually have great respect for it and from my travels can understand why a any new course in Scotland is not embraced by locals.
But as far as my opinion not be logical. Who says art is logical? Do you have any photos or paintings or prints of golf courses framed in your legal office?
Have you ever taken a walk on a golf course without playing?
Are courses found or are they designed?
Anthony
-
Mark,
I am not disputing your opinion and actually have great respect for it and from my travels can understand why a any new course in Scotland is not embraced by locals.
But as far as my opinion not be logical. Who says art is logical? Do you have any photos or paintings or prints of golf courses framed in your legal office?
I'm not saying art is logical, I'm just saying that your argument that GCA is art isn't logical, a rather different thing (and that's not to deny that a logical argument in support of the same proposal can't be made). As to my office, no, I don't I have three pictures of family and one photo of Monument Valley which I took myself, so it can't be art!
Have you ever taken a walk on a golf course without playing?
Many times, and very enjoyable it has been. It doesn't make them art, though.
Are courses found or are they designed?
A question better asked of the GCAs here, though my answer would be a bit of both, with the degree changing from course to course. I know that buildings are designed, rather than found, as are cars and I'm not going to call either of those art. Art is an element of design but the words are not synonymous.
Anthony
-
Anthony
In the good old days, many early golf writers believed that a course was actually waiting there to be found. That the land would give up a course to the well informed golfer/designer.
I suppose if we look at most courses today that belief is probably more true that your comment about art. The Courses – perhaps with the exception of some, one that springs to my mind is The Castle Course - are formed from the Natural landscape and to a certain degree blend in with its surroundings.
Art on the other hand, well my opinion of art if it can apply to golf is seeking to make an impression, a statement, which I believe is totally irrelevant in golf. The format of the course is for the game of golf, art would be an expensive distraction.
Anthony do you see when you visit St Andrews an artful town or is it full of history entwined with living through the ages. Walk down to the Links and what are your observations, art, full of great scenes or is it the quality and beauty of Nature herself with some minor assistance from Man. Art, no just life on our planet.
Perhaps some input from a designer may be interesting. ON surveying a site what is the designer looking for, a blank canvas/scene or the potential to build a course on this site. Does the notion of art exist at this moment in time of selecting the site? I feel that most designers would love to be able to select the land for its total suitability (well they keep telling me this when I discuss Land fit for purpose). I wonder what would be must fulfilling for our designers today, to (A) be given a plot of land that has to be completely lifted, replaced and re modelled shaped and contoured for a course or be (B) given a site that
has a natural leaning to being a golf course. To seek out the routing and work with the land to produce a course that is totally at home with itself, the land its and in harmony with the surrounding landscape.
Just perhaps the old guys may have a serious point that we dismiss too easily today.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
Well written. Was Old Tom a designer or a finder? ;) ............The answer is both. It is interesting to see the differences in golf cultures on this thread. Another one of the beauties of golf. Is it obvious that Castle Stuart was built mainly for tourists? I wonder what percentage of play at Kingsbarns is from outside the UK. And by all means Melvyn please visit us someday.
Mark,
Any good attorney's office in the US has at least one golf course print framed and displayed. In my waiting room I have a club from the Tom Morris golf shop mounted. It is not only old but also looks it.
Anthony
-
Anthony
The picture of Old Tom is not art, its History
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
The problem with your authentic position on golf courses being "found" not designed is there is not enough supply to meet the demand. You cannot look at this issue in a vacuum, mister.
If golf courses had only been discovered/built on gorgeous natural linksland, with sand based soils, natural humps and bumps, and sheep borne bunkers; sadly we'd have far far fewer courses than today.
And then where would people play the game???
You do an injustice to the great game of golf with such a limited perspective.
Something I find ironic in all your theories is what is to be said for Heathland courses? These great gems of Colt, Mackenzie and Abercromby???
Golf did not move inland when we 'mericans got ahold of it, it was your precious UKers, striving to meet a rising demand.
-
Anthony
The picture of Old Tom is not art, its History
Melvyn
Melvyn,
Who found it? ;)
Anthony
-
Hey, get defensive if you want, fellas, the quick and dirty answer here is you guys don't like the style.
But I posit a lot of folks do, so whatever........
I'm with you Michael. I believe Tom Doak described the excessive concern over the "look" of bunkers as bunker slutism. As we all know the Slagman is the bunker slut extraordinaire. However, it appears we have some budding bunker sluts on this thread.
Truth be known, I think the real issue here is cost. If you don't put so much extra effort into the construction of these bunkers (and other unnecessary detaling in the course construction), your cost goes down, your green fees go down, and the stereotypical Scot is happy.
-
What do ya'll think about the wooden laminated coke machine?
Anthony
-
Bayley,
Did you just call me a stereotypical Scot? That would be upsetting. Stereotypical I could live with but Scot? Too much.
-
Bayley,
Did you just call me a stereotypical Scot? That would be upsetting. Stereotypical I could live with but Scot? Too much.
Bayley, you wouldn't know a stereotypical scot from a peking duck.
Anthony
-
Bayley,
Did you just call me a stereotypical Scot? That would be upsetting. Stereotypical I could live with but Scot? Too much.
Mark,
No offense, but I would call you illiterate if you somehow read what I wrote to mean I was calling you a Scot.
And, I'm sure my buddy Mel is with me on this.
;)
-
Niall, there is nothing in America that looks anything like what those photos show. At least of what I have seen. I can't help but wonder if the problem isn't that the designers are American, rather than their course. If so, that'd be a shame, given that one often hears of their work here that their is little else like it in America. I think Gil and Jim need their own island. Too Scottish for America, to American for Scotland.
_____________________________________
All, I still fail to understand the underlying criticisms, and wonder if perhaps many are not working off of a false assumption that at one point the old great links courses were manicured with straight lines and exactly aligned ties and such, and then it was just over time that they took on a rough look. In other words, that these old courses started off looking spanking new and then "decayed" over the decades. Judging from the photos I have seen of the pre-1900 courses, I don't believe that to have been the case.
Here is an interesting photo of a bunker on the old course from the early 1890's. Notice how about 2/3 of the bunker is wild and the other 1/3 looks to be maintained.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1994WalkinshawsGrave.jpg?t=1248798975)
-
"Bayley, you wouldn't know a stereotypical scot from a peking duck."
Antonio:
Why in the world would you expect him to know a stereotypical Scot from a Peking Duck?
There's no difference at all between a stereotypical Scot and a Peking Duck. But don't forget the Scots invented golf, liquor, sex, the hoola hoop and everything else of any importance under the sun!
-
hoola hoop, don't remember that one !
-
First of all, we get the carts, then those cart tracks because the courses require much maintenance, then we get distance aids followed by electronic aids because some are just too lazy to work it out for themselves. While all this is going on we get courses built in mad, hot, dry places, between building complexes forcing the use of more carts just to get to the next Tee, this is followed by shallow bunkers that can’t stop a ball if they tried. Is this the end, Hell no, some wise guy come up with island Greens, water all round the green or part round them. Yet they still are not finished, the latest thing is to throw the final insult to the Home of Golf and tell us how to build fake bunkers with match sticks in place of sleepers, riveting mounted low in the bunker to make the new bunker look old by the riveting slowly appear to have been eroded.
Tell Me and with all due respect (if you feel that really applies ;) ) what happened to all the course designers did they die out between the wars (WWI &WWII).
Or are the owners of the world’s football clubs paying off the designers to create these wonderful ideas in the hope of killing off the game of golf worldwide?
In addition, don’t old buddy me, Mate
There are times in my life that I would have loved to travel back in time to stop this or that happening in history, guess what I would like to have done. No wrong, but hand over our colonies south of Canada to the French in 1750’s. There is a good chance that Le Americans would not be a golf nation but playing some French game, eating frog legs instead of burgers and snails in place of Hot Dogs. Boy we would have our game of golf intact and played on land ONLY fit for Purpose.
One more thing we would not be able to understand Mr Gray, Smith, Garland and many, many, many more. Oh for a F#*K Time machine –Eric where are you when needed
Melvyn
PS Just think they would all be French, there but for the Grace of……… >:(
-
David
Sorry not to have respond earlier.
Bunkers are fine if the sleeper are doing a job, but to put small rotten pieces in and have gaps between them looks cheap crap and is of no real value to the design of the course. As for the riveting/sod walls, my understanding is that they have been deliberately made and positioned to appear that the bunker is eroding and has exposed some old sod wall. Again, if the sod wall was actually doing its job then I have no problem, it is not and is only made in short lengths to fool the golfer. Its fake is not right, you are being conned. That is what I do not like about them. In addition, the tops should have been uniform not stepped, it looks unfinished and poor. As mentioned earlier its looks unloved uncared for and piss poor maintenance being undertaken.
I hope that conveys my thoughts re these fake or counterfeit bunkers. There is just no need to waste time money and for what result. What is the purpose of this rubbish? I can accept the wild to run down look but to try to fool people is in my mind just not on.
I can’t speak for others but I hope I have answered you question from yesterday
Melvyn
-
http://sounds.wavcentral.com/televis/snl/scottish_crap.mp3 (http://sounds.wavcentral.com/televis/snl/scottish_crap.mp3)
-
David M
Please explain your suggestion that I have a problem with certain GCA's because they are American. It should be an interesting read, fanciful but interesting none the less.
As it happens I don't require a course to be manicured to like it, and indeed quite like links courses to be scruffy round the edges. What jumps out at me from the photos of Castle Stuart however is that the ragged look isn't because of a lower level of maintainance throughout but is obviously contrived on what is clearly a manicured course. Also, I will say it again, what about the revetting between different levels of grass, the mickey mouse sleepers that are clearly not serving any useful purpose. Not nearly as bad as flower beds on the side of tees, I'll grant you that, but it just looks twee.
BTW thanks for posting the photo of the TOC bunker, good to see.
Niall
-
when I saw this pic I though this was a bit much, and although I love the general look it was some of these types of details (coke machine, etc.) that could be sen to be a bit faux
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2071
-
Castle Stuart............The Pamela Anderson of golf courses.
Scott Land
-
Very intriguing and bold! Hats Off to Gil, the crew and, of course, Roy Harper.
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40698.0;attach=2064;image)
-
Can you imagine if they had a few of those Pete Dye volcano bunkers. Now that would be variety.
Anthony
-
Naill, You and others have said a number of times that the course to you looks like American courses you have seen in photos. At all but the most superficial level, this is crazy. The course looks nothing like what I have seen in America. That this is a recurring theme of the criticisms of this course makes me wonder if there isn't a larger issue here, and valid or not, that you may be barking up the wrong tree in this case.
If the purpose of the ties is to keep the sand and support the edges, I don't think it makes any difference whether they are spaced or notl, except that if they are spaced then the golf will at least have a chance to play his ball.
-----------------------
Melvyn,
I don't know where you are getting your information on the rivetting, but that is not how I understood what Gil was doing with it. I think it does serve a purposes, as (according to Hanse) it is placed in places where cave-ins are a high probability.
____________________________________
All,
The think is, the more I look at the pre-1900 photos, the more I am convinced that they did a very good job on the look of the bunkers. The pre-1900 stuff was not "new looking" it was rough and inconsistent, with some edges maintained and some not. So I fail to understand the basis for the claims. Show me how a pre-1900 bunker is supposed to look?
More photos, the first few from the early 1890's, and then from 1906 or before.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906GGandGCHHMuirfield.jpg?t=1248803862)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906BurnhamSomerset.jpg?t=1248803909)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906GGandGKHHHunstantion.jpg?t=1248803981)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906GGandGKHHMuirfieldBnk.jpg?t=1248804013)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906GoodBunkPrestwick.jpg?t=1248804088)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906IntheMarram.jpg?t=1248804171)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906Sandwich.jpg?t=1248804207)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906StepsinBunker.jpg?t=1248804251)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906VastSandBunker.jpg?t=1248804290)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1906WellGuardedGreen.jpg?t=1248804344)
http://sounds.wavcentral.com/televis/snl/scottish_crap.mp3
-
Dave ,
Love the photos.....I think all the UK guys are asleep.
Anthony
-
Dave ,
Love the photos.....I think all the UK guys are asleep.
Anthony
Thanks. It took hours to doctor them so they looked old.
-
Dave ,
Love the photos.....I think all the UK guys are asleep.
Anthony
Thanks. It took hours to doctor them so they looked old.
That is funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
-
David
Sorry, but you have totally lost me. The range of photos you have shown have no incomplete or unfinished sleepers. Therefore, I do not understand why you have posted them.
What is it you don’t agree with or willing to accept for whatever reason? Is it that I feel some of the bunkers are dressed to fool the golfer. The short sleepers are doing what – just dressing the bunker, not doing any job. It’s not what we expect in our own courses, nor do your photos show that type of incomplete finish either.
I believe Gil made a statement about his unique bunkers.
As for it being like an American course, I have no idea, but being for the American and overseas market I have no doubt as this is not normal practice here.
It’s a waste of time and money, but my understanding is all we are saying is that we do not like it as it’s has a fake finish – call it dressed or whatever.
With respect to you, I live here, I know some of the history and your photos seem to back up everything we are said.
Some of CS bunkers are there to fool the golfer, are fake in finish and does not show the bunker in a good state of repair either in the natural way or man made way, unlike the photos you posted.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
The photos weren't just for you. They are posted so we all can appreciate what bunkers looked like on links courses, pre 1900 or thereabouts. And it seems that Castle Stewart got the look about right, wouldn't you agree? Also, many of the features criticized -- for example, the mixing riveted edges with rough edges and creating a "decayed" look" -- also appear on the old bunkers. So I am not so sure these criticisms are valid.
As for the RR ties, I believe in all the old photos featuring ties they are being used as actual retaining walls. I don't recall any retaining walls in the bunkers in the Castle Stewart photos.
I think the ties in the bunkers are there to keep in the sand and offer some support against erosion. For these purposes, spacing them makes sense to me. Have you ever seen any old photos of RR ties being used in this manner?
I cannot quite figure out the short ties on the left side of one of the bunkers, but judging from the look of the turf above them, it is at least possible that they are intended to support the lip until the turf takes hold. Sure beats the heck out of those plastic fences one sometimes sees.
In short, I don't think these bunkers look any more "fake" than any other bunker, and are a pretty cool reference to bunker styling in a time almost forgotten.
-
Neither have I seen fairways shaped like that on a links course (with the possible exception of Kingsbarns), hence my earlier comments that it looks more American than Scottish.
Could you expand on this?
(Honest request, I'm not trying to trick you into anything.)
-
David
Just to recap the YouTube interview, it actually confirms that their intention was to show fake erosion. If you replay the video clip, watch the sections pre 2 minutes, around 2.10, 2.20, 2.40 & 3.30 will I believe confirm their intentions. I think the last one at 3.30 minutes also confirm their intention with the words “a lot older before its time”. So I feel totally justified in complaining and using the word fake.
As for the sleepers – the CS course has the tops uneven and gaps between as I have said, yet your old photos show all tops of sleepers or fences having a uniform surface, undertaken in a neat and orderly fashion unlike CS, showing yet again the faking of these sleepers. Had CS copied the images on the photos posted I would not have a problem but they did not and wanted something unique – which is a word they mentioned.
I have not had the pleasure of playing all 600 course in Scotland but the ones I have, to the best of my memory never had stepped sleeper edges, large gaps between the sleeper or the part of what appears short rotten pieces of sleepers. After a few storms, the wind and rain may well erode around these short stumps of sleeper and I expect they will slowly slide down the face of the bunkers. Whatever, my concern is to think that the old Green Keeper would allow their courses to be left in this state, is just not correct, again I refer you to your photos – all neat and tidy. They had a pride in their jobs. Use sleeper but use them properly, eroded, then replace. Not left in a bunker to try to fake age.
I also believe that this course has been set up for the overseas visitors and not the locals, yet I expect that the new Green Keep if he has any understand will soon dispose of the errant pieces of wood and reformat the bunkers back to the traditional methods with no gaps between the sleepers. However, I could be wrong.
As for those old bunkers you posted, there is just something special in their appearance, both rough and worked on bunkers. Don’t you just love them, makes me want to play them.
Melvyn
-
David,
Melvyn is absolutely right. All those pictures you have posted that feature sleepers show them neatly, tidily and evenly organised. I have no idea what point you are trying to make regarding the fact that in those old pictures they have a structural function as retaining walls, but not at CS. There, presumably, you are arguing that they are purely cosmetic. If that's authentic, show me some pictures of old bunkers with purely cosmetic sleepers.
-
I never thought I'd see the day when someone was bitching about an architect attempting to make a feature look weathered or like it had been there for a while.
What was Mackenzie's great quote, something about making artificial features indistinguishable from nature herself.
What a bunch of poppycock!
-
Mark,
People (including you) had a number of complaints about the course, and were not just complaining about the RR ties. I posted the photos to give us some idea of what the style was like. I included the ones with the retaining walls simply because those are the photos I had.
As I explained to Melvyn, the RR ties at CS do not appear to have been used as a retaining wall or to support a fence. But I doubt they are purely cosmetic either. I would guess their purpose is to help keep the sand in the traps and to provide some stabilization to the bunker slope and face. You do understand how this purpose is different than using them as a retaining wall, don't you. If you want, you could check with the architects if you like, but my quess is they had a reason for what they did and that reason was not purely cosmetic.
Sticking to the golf course it seems the complaints come down to a bunker with a few RR ties. If you want to condemn a course because of that feel free, but you might want to see the course or find out more about the feature first.
I still sense that there are larger more general issues here and that some are just using this course as a springboard. I also think it is possible that these folks might be barking up the wrong tree, but I'd have to see the course to know for sure.
-
Michael:
You had it right back on page 6 ... this is just a long argument about who likes a bunker style and who doesn't. All of the justifications for it (on both sides) are meaningless.
Niall:
I do not see how the bunkers pictured look American. I've not seen enough of the fairway contouring to get your drift, and would love to hear your further comments on that. Certainly the WIDTH of the fairways is more American than Scottish, but I'm an American too, so that's no problem for me.
-
David,
Have you always been incapable of reading what people actually are saying, or is that a result of 104 pages of that stupid Merion thread? I am not condemning the course. I've made it very clear that it's very likely an excellent course. Of course, as, like most of the other posters here, I haven't played it and the photos available make it very difficult to judge how it plays, and no-one has posted a detailed analysis of the way it plays I can't comment on that. I can comment on the cosmetics, because there are plenty of photos of that.
Finally, and possibly again you're suffering from over exposure to Merion, why look for an ulterior motive in everything? Why not assume (as happens to be the case) that we're commenting on the cosmetic look of the place and nothing more. There have been a number of other suggestions here that the critics (if that's what we are) have some sort of seb-text we are pursuing. Does everything need some hidden meaning? If so, I'm sadly lacking.
Michael,
o you think these features look indistinguishable from nature itself? Or like unantural features with age? I don't get the relevance of the Mackenzie reference.
-
My mistake Mark, I should have said you are condemning the cosmetics of the course.
I sense ulterior motives when people draw very strong opinions before they have all the information. If you have none then great.
I look forward to hearing about what you think of the course after you have actually seen it.
-
David
One of the things that saddens me regards this site, is the inability of you Americans just to accept an honest comment without thinking that we are attacking not just you but your culture.
I look at the way this tread has increased its longevity because you will not accept that we are not keen on – yes, let’s call it cosmic feature or two. There is no malice in any of the statements I have read, just honest opinions on what some of us believe seem pointless and does not appear to reflect a Scottish golf course feature in the correct manner. Let’s not forget that this course is sited near the heart of many old and highly respected courses towards the North of our country.
As for the course, no one has mentioned how it plays or criticised it in any way, not having played it.
Chocolate Box highly manicured courses maybe your preference, which I have nothing against but it’s not for me. I want natural or as natural as common sense allows, I certainly see no reason to dress bunkers or have crenulations to the tops of sleepers, which with your photos have clearly shown is not an old Scottish golfing custom. I have used the word faked parts regards a few bunkers, because that is true. If it is not a Scottish tradition then what is the purpose, perhaps to dress these odd bunkers to attract overseas visitors perhaps may be a plausible excuse, well if excuses are required.
Michael
“never thought I'd see the day when someone was bitching about an architect attempting to make a feature look weathered or like it had been there for a while”.
Bitching, not just an honest opinion of what was seen in the photos. Nevertheless, bitching. Nice one Michael, show the contempt you have for your fellow members. I don’t know your Nationality and will not hazard a guess, but features as previously describes are acceptable to you, fine that’s your belief. However, show some consideration and respect for other who hold a different point of view. Your intolerance is, I suppose no real surprise to me but I am disappointed you feel that you need to try to belittle your fellow Members on a Discussion Group. Perhaps it’s just a reflection of your own shallow personality, hope my initial conclusions are wrong, if not for you, but certainly for this site.
Tom D
Feedback on a design feature is “meaningless”, well that both shocks and surprises me. Clearly, I have in the past considered you a good designer, however, after that unbelievable statement your arrogance seems to know no bounds.
Honest from the heart opinions are meaningless, perhaps that is why we get the courses we do because the designers will not listen. Tom, I am extremely shocked by your statement, but if that is your opinion then you have every right to make it on GCA.com.
On that shocking note, I have said all I intend to say on some of the CS bunkers and features.
Melvyn
-
It will be interesting to see how Castle Stuart is received, particularly by the locals. In comparison with say Loch Lomond which is a far more "Americanized" course but garnered very little criticism when it opened, everyone seemed to love it (the course at least).
-
Dvaid M
Yes, I have said that this course does look more American than traditionally Scottish. I said that in relation to the width of the landing areas and not just the styling. What I've not said at any point is that this is a bad course, not surprising as I've not played it yet, and indeed suggested that I expected that I would probably enjoy it. My comments on the styling were in relation to context, and a tradition of what I would call practical greenkeeping in this country, and that in my view the styling ie. revetted banking between grass areas/use of ineffectual sleepers etc was out of context.
Somehow out of all that you inferred that I might have problems with the designers being American. That could almost be interpreted as suggesting I'm racist in some way. Can I politely suggest that in future you maybe think through what you are saying before making such a statement, as being falsely tarred in that way is not something I enjoy.
George
I think it would have been more accurate for me to talk of the width rather than the shaping. KB has wider landing areas/fairways than pretty well any other links I can think of, always excepting TOC which makes up its own rules.
Tom D
See my comments to George above. We had a discussion on another thread about fairway widths and the point I am making is really the same. Bear in mind also that my golfing experience encompasses largely older/traditional UK courses, therefore KB and from what I can see of CS from the photos both are wider than what I am used to. Perhaps it might have been less contentious to suggest modern rather than American, I'm not sure, but probably over the last 20 years there have been more new courses built in the US than anywhere else (I would guess but I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong).
From my limited experience of playing modern US courses or courses designed by americans, they tend to be more expansive. And for the record, I have enjoyed nearly every one.
Niall
-
Melvyn,
I understand your comments, and would probably feel the same way, but when you make statements like "Chocolate Box highly manicured courses maybe your preference . . . " Youare speaking about at least two things you know little about; my preferences in golf courses and Castle Stewart. Might I suggest you consider learning more about both before you draw such conclusions?
Niall, "American" is not a race or even a nationality (if you ask a Canadian, etc.) When you dismiss the styling of a course as too American even though its styling is nothing like anything in America, then speculation about your biases are bound to follow. Perhaps you should think through what you say.
All kidding aside, I appreciate the various opinions that have been offered. And as said to Mark, I look forward to hearing both of your opinions when you have actually seen the course.
-
Thanks for the answer, Niall.
-
Melvyn:
I fail to see how I could be classed as arrogant for dismissing comments about someone else's course. And those comments are from a bunch of people who have never actually seen the course, no less.
It is you who are arrogant to believe that your opinion of how a course should be styled should have more weight than the opinions of others. As for my own work, I am concerned primarily with what the client thinks, and with what I think is appropriate to the site. There is no rule anywhere that a designer must set out to please everyone else, or in fact, anyone else. And while we have to accept criticisms from others, a majority of them may be classed as Just Another Opinion.
-
Melvyn,
I have known Tom since I started in the business and "arrogant" is the LAST word I would use.
-
David
I am not simply dismissing the styling but trying to give a considered opinion on why I think some aspects of it look strange or out of context. I have stated a number of times that I haven't seen or played the course and that I was commenting on photos which highlighted aspects of the design which appeared out of context in my opinion. As Tom D says, and I have happily admitted, I have not seen the course in the flesh and my opinion is just another opinion but it is one which I have at least considered before submitting. If others don't agree then that all adds to the discussion and more often than not I can come away with a different perspective.
With regards to the designers, it was you who brought up their nationality and suggested I had a problem with that. I don't. Nor do I think it an obvious inference to make from my comments, so please desist.
Thanks
Niall
-
Niall, Desist what? You said the styling was American even though it most obviously is not. Yet you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. And in my honest opinion, whether it applies to you personally I don't know, but this entire line of criticism reeks of posturing and protecting one's own turf, which is only natural, I guess. I have admitted above that I could be accused of the same on this very thread, if only indirectly. If I am wrong so be it, but I'd be more convinced of that if you and others offered your opinions after you have seen the course.
-
...
Tom D
Feedback on a design feature is “meaningless”, well that both shocks and surprises me. Clearly, I have in the past considered you a good designer, however, after that unbelievable statement your arrogance seems to know no bounds.
Honest from the heart opinions are meaningless, perhaps that is why we get the courses we do because the designers will not listen. Tom, I am extremely shocked by your statement, but if that is your opinion then you have every right to make it on GCA.com.
On that shocking note, I have said all I intend to say on some of the CS bunkers and features.
Melvyn
I have to support Tom D on this. IMO his comment was distinguishing what matters to the golf, vs what matters trivially to the eye. This whole thread has been about artistic style. I admit that such style is a part of golf, but a very, very small part when it comes to whether the ends of sleepers should line up, and whether in some cases sleepers may be separated by sand.
To criticize Tom's design capability based on this issue is IMO mistaken. I could care less what style of bunkers he puts in his courses if their placement is interesting to the playing of the game on the course. I suppose the next time he chooses to leave a tree on the course, it will be criticized for the placement of the branches!
::)
-
Niall, there is nothing in America that looks anything like what those photos show. At least of what I have seen. I can't help but wonder if the problem isn't that the designers are American, rather than their course.
this is the sort of crap you should desist from.
Niall
-
Niall,
You seem intent on turning this into some sort of fight. First you write that I may have called you a racist of all things, and now you won't let this issue go.
I don't think my opinion was "crap," but was rather well founded on the strange comments about the stylings being "American" even though they obviously are not. Naturally, you won't agree with me, but that does not make my opinion "crap." Might I suggest that when you start throwing around words like "racist" and "crap" that you are taking this a bit too seriously?
"Crap" is an interesting word choice though. Reminds me of something . . . http://sounds.wavcentral.com/televis/snl/scottish_crap.mp3
(http://sounds.wavcentral.com/televis/snl/scottish_crap.mp3)
-
Castle Stuart is a fine course ruined by attempts at faux antiquity. At least that's what Mark Pearce told me to say. ;)
Played it today, and will have more comments when I get more internet time. But, in truth I didn't find the aesthetic all that intrusive or annoying. I did ask the chatty starter what the point of the RR ties was and he said "to make it look more ancient than it is". I questioned where else in Scotland they were/are used. He mentioned a couple of courses including Cromarty. Others will know better than I if this is true.
More thoughts on the course when I have more time.
-
After a couple of days of links therapy at Royal Dornoch, I can report on my experience at Castle Stuart. The day dawned clear and quiet after a few breezy cloudy days. I went sort of expecting an American CCFAD experience. The impression was ruined on the drive in on a gravel road, not that that is bad. As I pulled into the parking lot for my 10:00 a.m. tee off time, I did notice that there was only one car in the parking lot.
I was met by a greeter and the starter, both very genial. No need to go into the clubhouse, the green fee was already paid over the phone on booking. They pointed me to the practice area, including a nice range and short game area with unlimited balls, that’s included in the fee. The putting green is enormous and slopes down from the clubhouse toward the firth. In a Hansian touch that reminded me of Rustic Canyon, some of the slope to the sea is an optical illusion, you get putts that look to break uphill towards the clubhouse.
The starter walked me down to the first tee and explained the course – much the same as you’ve seen on the web site. He was very chatty (and perhaps a bit lonely, as I was only the 3rd person out on the day) and said he wanted my opinions after I finished the round.
I should point out that the conditions, apart from being bright and warm, were also windy, around 35 to 40 m.p.h., by the time I teed off The prevailing wind blows from the west along the firth. There’s no doubt the wind affected my view of the course. It was pretty close to unplayable and it bordered on unenjoyable because of the wind. The course stretches generally east/west along the firth. The first three holes on each nine are along the firth but in opposite directions. The first three of the front were upwind and the first three of the back downwind. The rest of the course is on a 100 to 140 foot high ridge above the firth and is treeless and completely exposed to the wind. To give you an example of the wind, on the 14th, one of the high points of the course, I hit a pretty good driver 190 yards and a knock down 3 iron 130 yards and came up short on a 360 yard downhill par 4. And, I’m not a short hitter. Now the wind is probably not always that bad, but based on my experiences at Nairn, just down the coast, it must be fairly common. One of the design features of the course is super wide fairways, up to 60 and 70 yards wide – two to three times wider than any other links course I‘ve seen over here. I expect they are this wide to accommodate resort golfers, but also to accommodate the wind.
The pictures that have been posted describe the course better than I can, so I’m not going to try to describe individual holes.
Things that struck me about the architecture, which they seem to attribute more to Mark Parsinen, than to Gil Hanse include the following.
There are areas where the links style seems clearly the creation of man. Some areas are not natural looking. They told me that, in fact, it is all manufactured, that it was formerly a farmer’s field on the upper portion. Consequently, it’s not really a links. It reminded me of Bandon, but with some holes a sea level.
The routing is not a traditional out and back links. The holes change direction fairly frequently on both nines, but mostly aligned along the prevailing wind direction. The frequent changes in direction are good on windy days, you don’t get as frustrated as having to play 8 or 9 holes upwind, before turning around, or vice versa.
With the wide fairways, they claim that there is a strategic element to the course, but I was unable to see much of it in one round and given the winds. One wonders whether the strategic elements are designed for calm conditions or for the prevailing wind direction and speed. There are defenses at the greens, both bunkers and the positioning of the greens. The greens themselves have quite a bit of internal movement. They were smooth and true and running at 9 (they said). Any faster and the balls would have blown off the greens. Most greens provide a run-on option in keeping with links golf, and these are probably necessary from a wind perspective.
The holes are fairly isolated from one another and there are signs to direct you to the next tee, otherwise you might not find them the first time around.
The course has significant elevation change although most holes play level or downhill. It is a tough walking course because of the elevation changes.
The bunkers are a mixed metaphor of natural ragged edging and stacked sod wall, sometimes in the same bunker, as can be seen in the pictures. Functionally it makes no difference, but visually it’s kind of schizophrenic. Beware that the bunker sand is a lot heavier than the practice bunker. Even heavy as it was it was still blowing around in the wind. Maintaining the bunkers looks like it will be a challenge. There were bunkers all over the place, including places it looks like no one would ever go, sort of reminiscent of Whistling Straits. Despite the number of bunkers and the wind, I only found one all day. It left me wondering if they were more for visual affect than for functioning hazards. I’d need more plays to sort that out.
There were continuous tees and fairways if you like that kind of stuff.
I did notice some of the sod walled mounds or ridges, but they weren’t so many or so odd as to cause revulsion. The most egregious was in front of the 18th green. Theoretically you could roll a ball dead against the end wall and have literally no shot other than to try to putt it around the horseshoe curve of the wall or take an unplayable. I noticed today that Royal Dornoch had sod walls supporting the back of the third tee and the side of the seventh tee. Maybe it’s not so odd after all.
I asked about the RR ties. The response was that they were meant to make the place look older than it is. I don’t think anybody will be fooled into thinking this is an old Scottish course. The ties are ubiquitous in the parking lot and around the clubhouse, hardly used at all on the front nine and again more common on the back nine. They are frequently along the walking paths to retain the hills rather than in play. In any event, I think they are neither here nor there.
I don’t think anyone will come to a conclusion that this will become a classic Scottish links course. It just looks too different. It might appeal to those who like well designed modern American courses in attractive surroundings. And, the surroundings are spectacular. And, the views are incorporated into the design in several instances.
When I finished, I spent about 20 minutes chatting with the starter about my feedback. He seemed genuinely interested. I said that it was worth playing once, for me as a hard core golfer, but I wouldn’t play it again at 150 quid. It just isn’t that special. Maybe no course is for me.
I asked about their target demographic and business model. They said they get little local play because the locals who have the money and are serious about golf are already members at Nairn or other area courses, and they don’t want to pay even the discounted local rate. Scottish thrift, perhaps. He seemed to think they could be successful on the rich American tourist trade making a triple header of Dornoch, Nairn and Castle Stuart. He also noted that they were successful at Kingsbarn, so why not here. I did count the cars on the way out – there were 12, but, some of them were local gawkers looking around at the rich man’s play ground.
The clubhouse is super nice, with wonderful views from the top floor bar. Perhaps it will attract the Skibo Castle crowd. I imagine the prices are appropriately high.
So, in summary, for me, it’s a good and interesting design in a spectacular setting but the price and possibility of ferocious winds would deter me from returning. With all the authentic links courses and limited time on my trips, I don’t see why I would come over here to play a modern course that for all intents and purposes could be in America, and is very expensive compared to the classics. Perhaps its competitors over here for the American tourist trade would be Kingsbarns and the Castle Course. If they can attract people who go there they might succeed.
So, I think it may be a design success and an aesthetic success that may be done in by location, price and wind. For context, I wouldn’t go back to Bandon in the summer or Pebble Beach anytime for the same reasons.
-
Bryan, thanks for the extensive report. Just for comparison's sake, for you, what Scottish courses remain playable at 35-40 mph winds?
Thanks.
-
Courses that I can recall playing at that wind speed include TOC, Nairn, Silloth and Rustic Canyon (not in Scotland) and all seemed more playable to me in the wind. Perhaps Castle Stuart seemed worse because it was more exposed on the top of the ridge or perhaps because I was driving the ball badly most of the day. I expect that I would have liked CS better with less wind, but not enough better to spend another 150 quid to find out. In 20 years id it is considered one of the best courses in the world I might go back.
-
Bryan
Sounds like you lucked out with the wind. I dont believe strong winds like you describe to be the norm there at all. Check out the following link: http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_inverness.htm
I personally cant think of any courses I would enjoy in 40mph winds. I do hit the ball pretty high though.
-
Interesting discussion. Having been shown around the course by one of the principles in April (have not played it, yet), it is obvious that a lot of thought has gone into the design of the course and that a lot of that thought was artisitic rather than pragmatic (form vs. function), and I sympathize with Mark on that issue. It looks great, but I'm holding off any judgement until I get a chance to walk the course with balls and implements in my hands (not at the same time). And yes, as others have said, except for the 6 holes down the hill and along the Firth) it is not linksland.
-
Rich,
You should be ashamed if you have your ball in hand anywhere but on the tee or greens. ;)
I don't believe that the lower level is linksland either. If you look east from the top of the hill above the 12th you can see the original landform. It is covered in gorse and it borders a stone beach. I'm not convinced that there was any sand or dunes there on the lower level. It's not at all like the lower level at Dornoch, say. The big sand deposit on 13 was apparently something they found in construction and mined for sand on other parts of the course, leaving the exposed face. I'd be interested to hear what you discover when you are there with implements in hand, and balls down. Hopefully as a Scottish resident you can get a better deal on the fees.
After two calm days at Dornoch, I'm willing to concede that I was unlucky to have had the big wind on the day I was at CS, although I would note that it blew hard for the preceding three days.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for that report. It certainly sounds like you brought the wind with you for your trip! Thanks for providing a detailed insight. Knowing something about your game having played links golf with you a couple of times it sounds like CS is, indeed, extremely tough in that sort of wind, though I suspect just about everywhere is hard enough in 40 mph winds. If it's tougher than Silloth in the wind, however, it's a bear.
Very interesting to hear your thoughts on the aesthetics, too. I have to make a trip up there myself at some stage.
Mark
-
Bryan
Enjoyed your report on your windy day of golf.
Therefore, it sounds that the Club itself does not feel it will attract the locals. That the course seems to be aimed non at locals but “Others” who may consider it a traditional Scottish Course, but certainly not the locals who seem well served by Nairn.
The club appear not to know if it is a real Links course or is that still open for debate but we should settle for more a course by the sea. Yet the real proof of the course is to play it, but how many are attracted to try their luck at that price and knowing both Brian’s photos and Bryans report.
I think someone has made a few minor errors (including marketing). Because it is in Scotland does that allow caution to be thrown to the rather strong wind, well time will tell and the quality of the course is I expect in understand its repeat business.
From what I have seen and read, I believe I would miss it and go and play a round at Cullen (http://www.cullengolfclub.co.uk/) saving in the process £128.
Pity, but I wonder when some of the modern designers will learn that golfers just want a true course to play. I might even go as far as to say that not one designers seems to have understood or for that, matter learnt from Askernish. If you need to ask what, then we are in for more Castle & Castle Stuarts courses with high end fees.
My thanks to Brian & Bryan for two great presentations and reports.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn -
Once again you are having problems seeing the forest from the trees. ;)
Have you been to the Castle Stuart website? Have you read what is there? (www.castlestuartgolf.com)
It states in the very first line that Castle Stuart intends to be a golf resort along the lines of Turnberry and Gleneagles. Castle Stuart has been developed as a commercial, for-profit, business enterprise. It will have a hotel, a spa and factional-ownership lodge accommodations. The primary market for this project is clearly not the local golfer.
Mark Parsinen was a major factor in the development of Kingsbarns, which is arguably the most successful golf course, both artistically and financially, built in Scotland in the last 20 years or more. I can assure you that he knows the market for Castle Stuart and he knows EXACTLY what needs to be done to make it a success, notwithstanding the current global recession.
The wonderful thing about golf is that there is a market for both Castle Stuart and Askernish. I hope both, in their own way, are successful.
DT
-
David
I can see, but on this occasion, I might agree that it’s difficult in seeing anything apart from sleepers. They are sprouting from nearly every orifice.
I understand the intention, yet I wonder if it was a wise move, however we will all know the answer in time. But lessons are not being learnt, courses still charging £150 yet effectively a virgin course demanding that sort of Green Fee. What is it, call it a Castle and that gives one the right to put its fees up and beyond some of the courses with a solid track record. New courses should be introduced at reasonable rates, and earn the right to charge these sort of prices. What is the Castle Course, the bastard of the set, nearly built out of sight of St Andrews. As for the Castle Stuart, not seen it in the flesh, nor am I intending to stop and look at those prices.
Golfers are not stupid, and I believe the approach re the two Castle course is simply exploitation and totally wrong. Are these courses actually worth their Green Fees?
I do not believe that these two courses are doing Scottish golf much good. Scares hell out of me to what to expect from Trump and his circus.
Once again, I can honestly say I have no problems, the vision or should I call it flare/drive seems to be lacking if not totally missing from these Disney based productions. The use of sleepers at CS I expect may be the result of running out of creative ideas, actually we are so lucky we did not find a Green surrounded by water – that is the usual sign that someone has lost vision.
So perhaps we have been saved, but boy will you be paying (£) for the pleasure of an untried course (yet again)
Once again, I do not think I have a problem, I looked and formed an opinion, which I am voicing on GCA.com. Don’t agree, that’s down to you.
A local course should be reaching out to the locals, but at £150 each £300 for man & wife, that’s not what I would call reaching out to the average golfer.
Melvyn
-
Hi Melvin -
To get an idea of your scale, which Scottish courses should charge £150?
Also what is a recent course that has served Scottish golf well? Will you grant Kingsbarns? If so, I'd be interested in seeing a couple options beyond that.
Thanks, and yes, if CS troubles you, then Trump should scare the hell out of you.
-
Melvyn -
Now I understand why you can't see the forest from the trees, you are obviously looking thru the wrong end of the telescope! ;)
You say that a "local course should be reaching out to the locals, but at 150 pound each, 300 pounds for a man & wife, that's not what I would call reaching out to the average golfer."
Again, have you actually taken the time to read thru the Castle Stuart web site? Are aware that there are teetimes available for residents within a rather large area (a 30-50 mile radius) surrounding the course at just 50 pounds a round? That is MUCH cheaper than the visitor rate at either Nairn or Royal Dornoch. Are you aware that residents of Scotland outwith that area can play the course for 90 pounds? Perhaps you should do a little more homework before passing judgment. ;)
Despite the consideration shown by the proprietors regarding local play and local players, it is clear that Castle Stuart was not conceived and developed to be a "local course," anymore than Turnberry or Gleneagles were. It is not adjacent to a town or village. It is a resort that people will be traveling to from some distance to enjoy, in many cases because it is something different from the local course that play on a regular basis.
As to the question of whether Castle Stuart will do "Scottish golf much good," I have every confidence your opinion will be proven wrong. A number of locals in the Highlands already believe that the presence of Castle Stuart will attract more golfers to the Highlands and will have a very positive impact on generating more visitor play at the surrounding "local" courses. Visiting golfers, who now only stay in the Highlands for a day or two to play Dornoch and/or Nairn, may very well decide to spend a whole week in the area, now that there is a 3rd high-quality course available for play. The more time visitors spend in the area, the more likely they are to play courses like Moray Old, Tain, Brora, Strathpeffer, Grantown-on-Spey, etc. Castle Stuart could very well be a win-win for all.
DT
-
Melvyn,
I would just observe that the sleepers are nowhere near as intrusive as they might appear in some of the pictures.
In respect of CS' contribution to the Scottish golf landscape, clearly it doesn't fit your eye, but if there are people like Parsinen and his partners who have the $'s and Stirling to build a destination modern course in Scotland, then I wouldn't begrudge them their right to build it. In the end it may or may not succeed financially, but as a golf course it may in time be ranked as a worthy course and take its place on top-of lists which will make it attractive to some (but not you). It seems unlikely to me that there would be much financial success in building new quirky little courses that emulate the old classics that are beloved by you.
I'd be interested in your response to Jason. CS may well become the next Kingsbarns. I'm unlikely to play either because of the price. I'd guess other hard core golfers might also balk at the price, but there are apparently a lot of rich golf tourists out there who can sustain these kinds of facilities. And, Scots like you can no doubt get a much better deal than 150 quid. Would your sensibilities be less offended if the price point was say half the current price?
-
Jason
I do not believe that any course should charge £150 and no new course has in my opinion has deserved the right to charge golfers that sort of price.
If the course were in high demand then I would agree that high Green Fees should be the order of the day, but that should only come from demand to play the course. TOC is classic in many ways, it is living history, it is also unique in that it is the original 18 hole, it is also a Championship Course and has been for well over a Century. Many others may come up with more reasons but those are mine. Is it worth the Fee, well really only each and every golfer must decide that for himself or herself. However, if the course was not well used then that too would be reason enough to reduce the fee to encourage its use.
As for new courses, I am not over keen on many, plus I have concerns as to construction costs and perhaps the necessity to deform the land to create a course, but that’s me. I, like my father and his before him going way back believe that golf should be open and ready available to the majority of people.
Private clubs are acceptable with vast majority of clubs here in GB&I open to all comers allowing all to experience their courses. As for Kingsbarn, its doing well but I have reservations as to the construction methods. The Castle Course, well my opinion is just too much money was spent in creating that course which may have to be modified soon to resolve some of the problems. Speaks volumes for the quality of modern design.
I list a few Green Fees from Brora, down and along to Cruden Bay to give you an idea of general fees with one of two Membership costs (to gauge value for money) – based upon summer weekdays.
Brora £ 39.00 Membership £220-290
Golspie £ 35.00
R. Dornoch £ 82.00
Tain £ 40.00 Membership £240-365
Nairn £ 75.00
Moray (Old) £ 45.50
Strathlene
Buckie £ 22.00
Cullen £ 22.00
Fraserburgh £ 37.00 Overseas Membership £ 115.00
Peterhead £ 35.00
Cruden Bay £ 85.00 Membership £ 335-510
David
I fear that you are just looking through rose-tinted spectacles, I am looking at what I see. Clearly if that is the correct word, we do not see eye to eye and our approach may indeed be down to binocular vision by both or just one of us. However, I base my opinion on what I like, what I enjoy and what allows me to relax. Regrettably the two Castle courses have certainly failed to win me over. As for a win, win, I hope you are right but it still does not change the current thinking, not even with the pressure of the present financial climate.
I take no pleasure in moaning on about these new courses in Scotland. I want to see new courses adding to the charm and quality of the game in the Home of Golf with the ability for all to play. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be any consideration for the average golfer be they home grown or overseas. A fair price for a round allows all the opportunity to experience the new golf courses. Scottish golf broke the mould and opened the doors for golf to be played by the ordinary man & woman. That was one reason Old Tom kept his £1 per day fee for most of his life, unlike other designers who charged considerable more.
What I see with the new courses is the need or is it panic or just plain greed to try to start filling the coffers as soon as possible after laying out unbelievable amounts of money in the first place. Why can’t they prove the quality of the course first then introduce a sliding scale from the start, rather than say we are as good as other courses and start charging comparable fees from the off. As I have said, time will prove someone right or wrong in the end and that will be by the (hopefully) average golfer.
Bryan
Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head I am not here to make money out of golf but these guys certainly are. The modern curse of the game today is money and the need to acquire more, no matter what is done to the land in the process. I care for golf, its past and future is important to me, it’s just the way I am.
I do not have problems with sleepers, but the finish leaves much to be desired. Look at all the old usage of sleepers and timber fences– they are left level (horizontal) and follow the slope contours without the random stepped method used at CS. I said in my post that it just applies to the odd one or two bunkers plus the drive/car part area, oh yes, and around the clubhouse.
I also feel that these new courses are starting to change the face of our golf, or what we perceive as our golf. This idea of building anywhere if you have enough money, of ripping the natural out of the land to reinstate an alien landscape. The need to mature a course faster than the golfers can play or become accustom to it.
What has happened to design, to creativity, to utilising the natural face (contours) of the land? To draw inspiration and utilise that which attracted the use of the land in the first place as a golf course. It seems that the very form that attracted one are destroyed in the design and construction process, leaving the need to dress the course and recoup the original investment as quickly as possible.
Yes, I far enjoy the older courses, the less congested, enjoyable and fun courses at sensible prices. However, then that is me and I am in part the sum of my heritage. Like wine, I know what I like and am guided by my own preferences. If I enjoy an expensive bottle, two, or three, I will happily pay the price, but I expect value for money. I do not like to pay a high price for something I am not certain is to my taste. Golf Courses are I suppose like wine, we don’t mind returning for more of the same, but sometimes a younger wine is made to pretend it can match the quality of an older vintage, but in real terms, it may have been mixed with anti-freeze to help mature it. The problem is what it is and no dressing can actually improve it – as always it all down to the taste of the golfer.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
In many ways we are not dissimilar. In some we are. But, two thoughts on this subject.
One, the thought of pricing low at the beginning and ratcheting up as demand and accolades warrant, a prime example of that would be Bandon Dunes. I played it early when the prices were relatively low and the demand was from what I would call core golfers. With it's financial, artistic and rating success has come higher green fees that I would now not pay in the summer time. But it earned its stripes before the price went ridiculous. Most other developers apparently don't have that patience or can't wait for the return on the investment.
As for new courses ripping the natural out of the land, it seems to me that the Castle courses are examples of situations where developers wanted to build courses where the natural wouldn't have lead to a superior course. It's hard to find natural golf features on farmer's fields. But perhaps the best golf sites have already been mined or are subject to too many SSI restrictions. Hence the need to redesign nature on marginal golf sites.
Niall was telling me about a new site just north of Glasgow Gailes that was on the sea and was all sand that may be developed as a golf course. I asked if it had natural dune features. Niall said no, that it was pure sand that could be shaped any way the designer wanted. A daunting task with such a site. But, is that also ripping the natural out of the land?
-
Bryan
I keep mentioning that some common sense should be allowed to creep back into the game. In addition, we should see to stop overcomplicating things including our courses.
As for Green fees, its that too not down to common sense and a more simple and calculated approach. When does a new course deserve to be put on an equal footing as TOC, Dornoch, etc. etc. the day it opens? Sorry, I can’t accept that, they are not proven arenas, except in the heads of the designers. Perhaps there may be a lesson for the developers, that a golf course is a long term commitment.
As for sites, well there are many, what about the old sites now closed scattered around the country both links and inland. Niall was able to help me find an old course called Kelvinside in Glasgow now closed with homes built all over it. Yet there are many, many old closed courses that could be developed but it will not quickly generate the revenue that developers seek making them a non-starter. Sites in Aberdeenshire, Islay, Perthshire, and also let’s not forget the West coast. Yes, not as many as 100 plus years ago but still available, but they just do not generate the fast buck some demand today.
There are certainly many sites and with a little “Hearts and Minds” consideration with the local population in mind, may well be encouraged to support such ventures. As for the site Niall has found, I have no information so can’t comment either way.
We make life as hard and as complicated as we want, what does that mean, simple 'expensive' is the final result to our endeavours, but it does it need to be? As I said before perhaps we should study the Askernish club’s approach, there may be important lessons there to be learnt.
Ripping the natural out of the land, I think you fully understand my meaning and I feel that you may well agree. Golf was always about playing the land. Courses set within the confines of the natural and weathered features with minimal interference from man. Yet today is the complete opposite, giving nearly the same experience of playing over a crazy golf course at an amusement park.
Melvyn
-
I do not believe that any course should charge £150 and no new course has in my opinion has deserved the right to charge golfers that sort of price.
That's what I thought. Just wanted to see you write it.
As for new courses, I am not over keen on many, plus I have concerns as to construction costs and perhaps the necessity to deform the land to create a course, but that’s me.
Do you think the turn of the century (19th to 20th) architects were guided solely by their better angels, or in part by the unavailability of heavy machinery? What might James Braid have done with a bulldozer?
I list a few Green Fees from Brora, down and along to Cruden Bay to give you an idea of general fees with one of two Membership costs (to gauge value for money) – based upon summer weekdays.
Well, you've got a fair number of sub-6000-yard courses there with very limited amenities - just the way the members want it. I freely admit I'd love to see all those courses. But isn't it also OK for the market to see whether Inverness can support one high-end daily-fee course?
Moreover, comparing a new course with one that hasn't had a capital expenditure in 115 years (other than maybe a new refrigerator or mower every 20 years) is a bit unfair, don't you think? Even if building a small clubhouse, there are still architects to pay, utilities to run, bureaucrats to mollify, etc.
Why can’t they prove the quality of the course first then introduce a sliding scale from the start, rather than say we are as good as other courses and start charging comparable fees from the off.
You realize that such an approach would mean practically nothing would ever get built? (If that is your goal, fine.) Do you think Kingsbarns would have been built if the banks had been told, "well, we're just going to low-ball fees at £40 and see what happens" when considering a loan? There is economics at work in this regard, but in the other direction, i.e. start high and then drop prices as necessary.
Please understand I agree with you (as mentioned pvsly) that some new courses are wildly overdone. I too hope Trump keeps the fountains, fake waterfalls, and halberd-wielding doormen away from the Aberdeen development, and as I have mentioned to you offline in the past, I think Askernish is a great thing.
My concern here is that you may be perceived as saying "Any new expensive course is by definition not good, and even if it happens to be good, it's a lousy value." Now if I have that wrong I apologize and will happily retract it, but sometimes I wish you'd consider adding a few more exceptions to your rules - don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Are the Bandon courses bad for golf because they cost £165 in season?
If / when you visit or play Castle Stuart, I look forward to your thoughts.
-
Jason
There has to be a common sense and balanced approach to the new courses. No, I am not against new courses, far from it. Having said that I feel some consideration should be made as to where they are being built, whom are they trying to attract, not to mention serve.
I see what I would call non-Scottish courses being built. Again, I would not mind that much, but in content, they seem to be questionable. It would appear that others know better. That they know what we want and are determined to build these semi white elephants. Believing that if we do not play the course, then the visitors will.
It looks like someone is trying to build golf courses in a similar format of recreating the Hilton profile of identical copies no matter where in the world you go. Slight exaggeration perhaps, nevertheless globalisation is not the answer, certainly not here in GB. The enjoyment is to travel and play the different courses the world has to offer.
My preference is not long courses, happy to stay around the 6,000yds, as I may want a second round later. I love blind holes, the unknown, hence the pleasure of playing different courses. The old stonewall, the ditch, plus natural hazards including large rocks, mounds and hillocks all influence the ball as it makes it way to the pin. Some say blind holes are not for them, they just love to hit the ball long distances but where is the fun, the challenge in that. It’s a cop out IMO. The lack of understanding the contours of the course is surprisingly rather common and a great shame as I believe these golfers miss the fundamental enjoyment that a course can offer.
However, that is just my opinion, as I have never considered golf to be a ‘wham bam thank you Mam’ type of game. It’s a game of options, chess on the big board, that’s my game of Golf.
Melvyn
-
Fair enough, Melvin. I don't want a Hilton cookie-cutter course in Aberdeen any more than you do.
Have you been out to see Tom Doak's course next to Muirfield? It sounds as if the course design may be more in line with your ideals, though the membership policies would not be.
Look fwd to any thoughts you have on Braid with a bulldozer.
Jason
-
Jason
I would be very surprised is James Braid would have used a bulldozer. He was a man that seemed to believe in ‘if it is not broken why fix it’. Through his efforts in modifying some of the older courses, James left many Old Tom holes more or less intact, perhaps proving that point. He was also I believe a man of Nature and the Natural, so would have wanted to keep much and I certainly do not believe he would resort to a bulldozer. Different mentality, different approach in those days.
I am no expert when it comes to James Braid although George Payne (brother to Ernie who played all the then know courses in Scotland) is married to James Braid’s great, great granddaughter, but I am advised that he keeps information close to his chest.
As for Tom D, I have a lot of respect for his designs and ability.
Melvyn
-
Since this thread has gotten bogged down in a mire of dubious socio-economic/political philosophizing, I thought it might be worthwhile to steer it back to the actual GCA merits of the golf course itself. I thought I might relate the comments in an e-mail I received from a friend (a VERY good player with plenty of links golf experience) who recently played the course:
"I really enjoyed Castle Stuart. Thought it was a very good golf course and am interested to see how successful it is over the next 5 to 10 years. Thought there were some wonderful green complexes and the holes flowed very nicely. I enjoyed the fact that many holes put you squarely facing landmarks such as the Castle Stuart, the Kessock Bridge and the lighthouse across the firth. That certainly made it hard to miss the wonderful views across the entire course."
"I could tell it was a course I would grow to like and appreciate more with each playing. There's so much going on around the greens that it would take me playing shots to several different hole locations to full grasp the options and risk/rewards when playing each hole."
I know for a fact that the course designers were very aware of the line of sight on many of the holes (which I have seen myself). This is just another example of the great thought and care they have taken to design this course.
-
Sean
As you know, there are a few new courses here in the US that are much more in the spirit of the photos in Hutchinson's book: Pacific Dunes, the Sand Hills courses. So I think the modern golfer can tolerate it to some degree and I'm glad Gil has taken that risk with some of these bunkers too.
Revetting all links bunkers and making all of them into pots, just seems a bit unimaginative. For example, as soon as I heard that Trevose was redoing its bunkers I knew they'd all be changed and revetted.
The only UK architect that I know who resists the revetting trend is Martin Hawtree. He understands that in Ireland that wasn't the tradition...see his work at Royal Dublin (and I think Lahinch has sand faced too?).
Pete Dye was well ahead of the curve when he stated years ago that the only way to make bunkers hazard again was to leave them un-raked. I'd like to know when the raking after a shot came became the norm.
I know that Mark Rowlinson discovered that at Alwoodley they only raked the bunkers once a week for a long time.
Paul
Believe me, in spirit, I agree with you. In practice, keeping sand controlled is very important. Like you, I don't have a problem with sand faced bunkers so long as there is space for the sand to blow without getting on fairways and greens. Unfortunately, many links are narrow and don't have this space. Also like you, I don't mind if some faces erode and become scraggly. It tends to happen fairly quickly at 2nd tier clubs here mainly because as Tom D has pointed out, the art of revetting is largely non-existent these days. That said, at some point they must be rebuilt to contain sand. For me, the bottom line about bunkers is how they play, how they look is much more often than not, not important, but then, I don't mind the look of pots. It would be nice if their shape were altered to include trench-like and other shapes more often (something I really liked about Harlech's bunkers), even so, I don't recall ever seeing bunkers on links that I thought looked terrible. All of this said, I prefer the rolled over grass look ala Woodhall Spa with all the different shapes, but I am not sure how easy that is to accomplish on links.
Ciao