[Benjamin Litman]

An excellent article by John on Kidd's rise (Bandon), fall (Castle), and recent rebirth (Gamble). Given how much has been said about Kidd by others, hearing from him directly is a revelation, at least to me.

http://digitalmag.globalgolfpost.com/20151109#&pageSet=16&page=0&contentItem=undefined

[Martin Lehmann]

Castle Course Kidd's fall? That seems to be a harsh judgement to me. Some greens are a bit over the top, I agree, but on the whole it's a strong design. And nice to play too!

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Benjamin - that was an excellent read. I don't think I've read John Steinbreder before, but he writes very well and DMK communicates clearly and that is refreshing.
Peter

[Adam Lawrence]

Steiny knows his stuff. Great guy

[JJShanley]

Good article that neither trashes the guy for some unfortunate periods in his life, nor acts as a mere press release.

[Niall C]

I've not played a David Kidd design although I have partially walked the Castle Course and it didn't seem to me as offensive as is sometimes made out and it certainly utilises a challenging bit of land. I know from a few friends who have played it that you wouldn't want to be playing for your handicap round there but at the same time they had a load of fun.


Yet this article suggests that it's a howler. I appreciate some agree with that assessment, notably Tom D in the new CG. However the question I have to ask reading this article is has Kidd really been out in the wilderness these last few years due to his designs or has he like everyone else been marooned by the general economic climate ? Or perhaps he just suffered from a lack of patronage from Mike Keiser ?


Niall



 

[Michael Graham]

A really enjoyable read. I've only played two of DMK's courses, Mach Dunes and the Castle Course. I played both in less than ideal weather but I definitely felt like I'd been put through the ringer. I believe the greens have been softened at both of the courses which may* have slightly improved playability.

I'm trying to think of a fitting analogy with a band or film director who had early success followed by a fallow period and then a return to form. Hopefully someone can help me out.

*unlikely

[Niall C]

Michael


You've reminded me that I've actually played one of his courses and that is Mach Dunes. Frankly I thought it was excellent given the constraints and thought the greens were the best part of it and certainly not outrageous. If I recall correctly much of the critical comment the course got was that it was a lost ball nightmare. When I played on my own I lost only one ball. To my mind the fairways were plenty wide enough even with the blind shots but what probably helped when I played was that the rough was well down although in fairness I rarely in it and I'm not the straightest hitter.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

The article on Gamble Sands that follows John's (by Brian Hewitt) seems to serve to complete the picture/profile and to make explicit the reasons for DMK's 're-emergence' (to accept the narrative being espoused). The qualities noted include: wide and firm fairways; driveable Par 4s; greens with no buried elephants; design challenges from the tee that are visible, and design surprises (not visible) that are not unfair. And, while all that seems just fine, it really is striking how established this 'new normal' has become, and how deeply this design approach aligns with the modern rankings/ratings, and how much respect/influence is assigned to the main client/developer in this regard. It is also striking that even DMK himself embraces this very framework to, by implication, criticize his own work, i.e. work that does not neatly fit into this prescribed/narrow definition of quality. Maybe I'm missing something and/or reading too much into all this, but (as my 'conservative times' thread touched on) the power of the "collective" has never seemed to me to be stronger than right now. (Well, maybe in the post WWII years the consensus opinion was equally established and powerful -- but of course we call those the Dark Ages...)
Peter
 
 
 

[Paul Gray]

Peter,

I utterly agree with you but would guard against too much of a push for a lack of 'the rules.' Every woolly liberal bone in my body shudders when I say that but I feel the world of golf is best served right now by a period of architectural consolidation amongst some sound fundamental principles. If there then emerges an opportunity to push the envelope a little further, all well and good. But let's not have a 1980's style attempt to reinvent the wheel when things are just getting good.

I'm off now to be physically sick in response to my own conservatism.

[Peter Pallotta]

 
Paul - if it makes you feel any less nauseous, you make a point that I hadn't considered, and it's a valid one. You, sir, have put practical and good common sense ahead of any pre-existing idealogy, and for this you should feel proud...

[Tom_Doak]

Paul - if it makes you feel any less nauseous, you make a point that I hadn't considered, and it's a valid one. You, sir, have put practical and good common sense ahead of any pre-existing idealogy, and for this you should feel proud...

Nah, you were right the first time.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes Peter, I also think you were right the first time.

And Niall, I think you are spot on regarding Mach Dunes. The reason it wasn't playable was the width of the fairways in tandem with the blind shots, not the greens.

Since they have been allowed to cut back the rough, I think it is a most enjoyable course.

The greens at Mach Dunes have big internal contour (fine by me) but they also collect in many places rather than repel the ball. That's where The Castle Course walked a fine line. Even there, I don't believe it was necessarily crossed though.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


The power of the collective may seem overbearing, but I don't think it is any moreso than in the 70s -90s. Only now there is a ton more press about who and what concerning golf courses and there are far fewer course openings. We are swamped with the same names over and over.  Hence my indifference to a new C&C course in Scotland.  Sure, it will be lovely, beautiful and very expensive.  I am also sure it will follow the formula. 

To be honest, The Castle Course is mostly in line with Pietro's list of modern ideals.  Where it falls down is on f&f and the odd green that is ott.  I don't think there are any real issues tee to green...the man simply forgot that the target market will need to bounce balls into greens and that it gets a bit windy in Fife.


What is interesting is that Trump's Aberdeen course has greens along the same lines as The Castle, but we all know the in theory the target market was big time events.  However, in practice, the market is the same punters who play The Castle. 


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Pietro


The power of the collective may seem overbearing, but I don't think it is any moreso than in the 70s -90s. Only now there is a ton more press about who and what concerning golf courses and there are far fewer course openings. We are swamped with the same names over and over.  Hence my indifference to a new C&C course in Scotland.  Sure, it will be lovely, beautiful and very expensive.  I am also sure it will follow the formula. 

To be honest, The Castle Course is mostly in line with Pietro's list of modern ideals.  Where it falls down is on f&f and the odd green that is ott.  I don't think there are any real issues tee to green...the man simply forgot that the target market will need to bounce balls into greens and that it gets a bit windy in Fife.

Sean, fwiw I don't agree with this at all. I think David and his team got carried away trying to build an essay to the Old Course, and forgot that the greens there have a. hundreds of years of history to build their credibility and b. are so large there are plenty of easy options as well as the tournament pins.


I'm convinced the only correct way to view the Castle is as an attempted homage to the Old.

[Sean_A]

Adam


I can see they got carried away.  What I don't understand is how Castle's mainly raised, tilted, high shot approach greens are a homage to TOC's mainly low lying, humpty bumpty approach as you like greens. Where is the demonstrated respect for TOC's greens?  It is the the greens (and awful drainage) which most can't abide. 


I never saw the original Castle (which was meant to be more severe than the version I played) and have been told that every year the course is closed in winter for "softening". 


Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Paul - if it makes you feel any less nauseous, you make a point that I hadn't considered, and it's a valid one. You, sir, have put practical and good common sense ahead of any pre-existing idealogy, and for this you should feel proud...

Nah, you were right the first time.

Fair enough but have you, Tom, not always acknowledged that you try to follow the principles laid down by the ODGs? You may then be a revolutionary in relation to the Trent Jones paradigm but you are anything but that in a bigger historic context. And that's not meant as a criticism, simply recognition that you have realised when not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Jud_T]

Errol Flynn or DMK?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iq6Q_s-r_A

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam


I can see they got carried away.  What I don't understand is how Castle's mainly raised, tilted, high shot approach greens are a homage to TOC's mainly low lying, humpty bumpty approach as you like greens. Where is the demonstrated respect for TOC's greens?  It is the the greens (and awful drainage) which most can't abide. 


I never saw the original Castle (which was meant to be more severe than the version I played) and have been told that every year the course is closed in winter for "softening". 


Ciao

I'm not sure I recognise the Old course greens from that description. I would argue that they're mostly on the higher ground of the property. I'd also argue that internal contour, rather than tilt, is what people most complained about in the Castle greens

[Niall C]

Adam

Not played the Castle course as I said but the impression I got from pals was that it was maybe similar to the criticism that Chambers Bay got at US Open in that if your ball took the wrong slope on the green you could easily end up 30 or 40 yards off the green.

With regards to softening of greens, does anyone remember playing the original 9th at Kingsbarns ? Where they now have a bit of a table top they originally had the mother and father of all buried elephants that was probably 3 or 4 fett higher than it is now. I once played it when one of my companions 4 putted with the 4th putt being from 30 feet !

Niall

[Sean_A]

Adam


I can see they got carried away.  What I don't understand is how Castle's mainly raised, tilted, high shot approach greens are a homage to TOC's mainly low lying, humpty bumpty approach as you like greens. Where is the demonstrated respect for TOC's greens?  It is the the greens (and awful drainage) which most can't abide. 


I never saw the original Castle (which was meant to be more severe than the version I played) and have been told that every year the course is closed in winter for "softening". 


Ciao

I'm not sure I recognise the Old course greens from that description. I would argue that they're mostly on the higher ground of the property. I'd also argue that internal contour, rather than tilt, is what people most complained about in the Castle greens

Adam


re low lying greens...I meant they are nearly all accessible on the ground even if they are slightly higher than surrounding terrain.


I am very surprised to hear people complain about Castle's greens slopes.  Slopes aren't an issue at all for me; it is their table top nature without tilt (or slope) to aid in holding the greens.  It was as if the archie went out of his way to ensure the greens could not be held.  There was more than one time from the middle of the (okay, they are large fairways so it is believable  ) that I knew there was no way to hold the green so I tried the hopeless route of trying to bounce shots up the steep slopes.  Trump Aberdeen greens are quite similar imo, except many of the greens are between dunes so sheltered a bit whereas at Castle there is zero protection from wind. 

If softening work continues on the Castle and the drainage is sorted, I think it could possibly be considered a great course.  Architecturally, I don't think its that far off now even if it isn't really my bag.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - you're a clearer thinker than I am and a better communicator: your few simple lines about the new C&C course describes my feelings about it very well. (Your point about the 'collective' was also succinctly put.) I'm glad the C&C course will be there, and that others will be able to play it one day, but I can't get too excited about it. The consensus approach (and already-forming consensus that it will surely be great) has put me off. And this thread made me wonder: does no one want the "Everest" experience in golf anymore? I mean, I imagine that trekking up to the summit must be a heck of a lot of work and effort, and full of challenges -- but the exhilaration people describe once they get there is very much a result of that challenge. Now, I don't want a whole host of new Everest-type golf courses springing up, but something doesn't seem right when the very *idea* of such of course seems these days to be dismissed out of hand.   

[Gary Sato]

Some golf courses are better than others!


With that said Kidd probably over promised on a very dubious site at the Castle. 


There is no question Kidd has had some misses on his resume but don't all architects?  It sounds like he's reawakened and focused more on quality then quantity.  He had limited site visits and involvement at courses in Korea and Nicaragua but has rebounded with Gamble Sands. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()