Course Construction Question - Trump Scotland

[George Freeman]

I was looking at some pictures of the Trump Scotland course when I came across the following pictures that caught my eye.  It appears from the picture sequence that the entire subject green complex was created from a pile of sand (brought in).  It certainly doesn't appear to be a natural looking green complex. 

I'm not trying to bang the minimalist drum as I know even the architects perceived as the most minimalist move a lot of dirt in some instances, but this example caught me off guard in that it doesn't appear that they tried to hide it very much at all.

I would be interested to hear from some of the architects after they view the pics:

[Philippe Binette]

sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do...

if you can get a special / unique hole by adding 8 / 10 feet of fill to one spot, can easily tie it in, doesn't compromise the routing (or make it work)  and doesn't ruin a great natural feature... go for it

[Ross Harmon]

It doesn't look "natural", but it works well IMO. Thanks for sharing the sequence of pics!

[Alex Miller]

What's wrong with the area approx. 30 yards beyond the green in the second to last pic? I could see a cool green in there.

I don't really like what they did, but I'm sure it could have been done worse.

[Neil White]

George,

The hole seems really exposed to all that the North Sea can throw at it - without the protection of the dune system I wonder if they shored up the leading edge to protect it from any storm surge that may reach in as far as the hole, plus there is the water adjacent to the hole that possibly could undermine the construction in particularly bad weather.......

Looks like an erosion candidate to me........... 

Neil.

[Sean_A]

George

Where/which is the shot from the tee?  I suspect fill was piled in so the green could be placed more on the water's edge and afford a better view. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Looking at the first picture, there appears to be a dune slack to the left meaning the whole area is low lying and prone to water problems and very possibly erosion... It appears sensible that they stabilised that area for a green...

Alex, the area you suggest might have worked but looking at the size of it they would have had to take those two near mounds down anyway and bearing in mind the orientation of the hole, they would have lost about 50 yards in length and not had the same sea backdrop...

Note - I'm guessing all this from the photos above only...

I'm with Philippe... Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do...

[George Freeman]

I believe the line of play comes from the point of view of the second to last picture.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe the line of play comes from the point of view of the second to last picture.

George, I think that picture is taken from the following tee... Line of play comes through the slack to the green with the sea behind...

I could be wrong of course...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Lovely scenery, lovely evening lighting etc. etc.

However, it does look very artificial from these pics. The contours of the sharp ridge / fall off to the right of the green just don't look right - nor does that conical mound of rough in front of the green - what's that about? Also, the sharp line demarking green and apron is something I'm used to seeing on parkland courses - it doesn't seem right on a links. But maybe as it's in grow in stage that will look pronounced...

Brian, the line of play has that sharp ridge behind the green and therefore hidden... That apron will also be hidden and is I suspect a device to stop the balls running out. It also appears to be an access way. But I agree that it would suit better as fairway cut even though it won't play a visula part in the hole...

Regards the conical mound, quite a few links courses have them although I'm never keen on the look. Usually it's because the mound is a little severe to run a tight cut of fairway mow over without scalping.

[George Freeman]

Ally - are you sure the line of play is from the perspective of the 3rd picture?  Seems like an odd angle, especially with the large dune partially blocking the view of the green/green complex.

I could be wrong, but in the last picture it looks like you can see tee boxes and a walking path up on the dune in the background (and along the burn), which would make the line of play come from the perspective of the second to last picture.

[Kalen Braley]

Ally - are you sure the line of play is from the perspective of the 3rd picture?  Seems like an odd angle, especially with the large dune partially blocking the view of the green/green complex.

I could be wrong, but in the last picture it looks like you can see tee boxes and a walking path up on the dune in the background (and along the burn), which would make the line of play come from the perspective of the second to last picture.

George,

That's how I see it as well.

I can also see why they needed to shore up that area for erosion control, but I sort of agree with Alex that it looks like a neater/more natural hole location could have been found 30-40 yards behind its current location.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Guys, I'm not sure about anything but I'm 99%...

There is no photo from the line of play... Taking the 2nd last photo, the tee box is situated at about 10 or 11 O'clock... See the access path winding behind the dunes (where Alex wants his green site)... The sea is the backdrop to the green... The bunker location / shape and fairway cut backs this up...

The path you see in the last photo is the egress / exit up to the following tee with the fairway winding away in the distance...

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe this hole is the first photo of the first post on the linked thread (from the tees):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50049.0.html

Ally

[George Freeman]

I believe this hole is the first photo of the first post on the linked thread (from the tees):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50049.0.html

Ally

Ally - from that same thread, here is a photo from what appears to be the tee of the subject hole.  Looks like the angle of play is closer to what Kalen and I were thinking:

[Ally Mcintosh]

Trying to be polite about this...

Same hole:


Trump Aberdeen 3rd

Either way it is irrelevant somewhat to your original question and the point of the thread...

[George Freeman]

Haha Ally, don't get snippy with me!

Well, someone is confused (probably me), but the picture I posted last was marked as the 5th hole, not the 3rd.  In that series of pictures, the 3rd hole appears to be a different par 3.  See here - (pics by Tony Muldoon - reply #37):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50049.25.html

Either way, I'm just trying to figure out which way the hole plays so I can better understand the pictures and attempt to assess the hole!  So no, not completely irrelevant.

Maybe someone who knows the course could chime in!

[Alex Miller]

Haha Ally, don't get snippy with me!

Well, someone is confused (probably me), but the picture I posted last was marked as the 5th hole, not the 3rd.  In that series of pictures, the 3rd hole appears to be a different par 3.  See here - (pics by Tony Muldoon - reply #37):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50049.25.html

Either way, I'm just trying to figure out which way the hole plays so I can better understand the pictures and attempt to assess the hole!  So no, not completely irrelevant.

Maybe someone who knows the course could chime in!

the pics labeled holes 5, 6, and 7 all look like the same hole to me.

[Niall C]

The last two pics in George's original post look as though they have put in a more than a fill of sand. The "after" pics seem to show or at least suggest that there will be more than few gabion baskets underneath there to counter the almost certain erosion coming from the tide.

I wonder how long until this becomes an island green 

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Alright, I'll stop beating around the bush.

It's the 3rd hole played from the angle showed in the photo I posted (and tees slightly to the left of that)... The hole numbers in Tony's post were incorrect

Par-3's on the course are holes 3, 6, 13 & 16...

I'd say Niall is correct with the gabions or some other erosion management technique. This would explain the fairly uniform look at the back...

[Tony_Muldoon]

Alright, I'll stop beating around the bush.

It's the 3rd hole played from the angle showed in the photo I posted (and tees slightly to the left of that)... The hole numbers in Tony's post were incorrect

...and not for the first time I might add.



IN my defense, this time , I just asked permission and 'borrowed' them from another source.