Traipsing o’er The Trossachs

[Marty Bonnar]

Leaving my last job, I was very kindly gifted a round of golf (and a hot filled roll!) at Callander Golf Club. A course I’ve never played before, so I was very excited at the prospect. So excited in fact, that I invited Mr Niall C of this neighbourhood and two other chums, as yet unafflicted by the GCA disease.
So it was that our merry band gathered at Callander on Sunday morning for, as it turned out, a rather pleasant, if somewhat rainy, experience.


The Scorecard presents immediate clues as to the mahoosive level of quirk to come:

Yes, that’s 10 par 4s and 8 par 3s!
And yes, that’s 5208 yards OFF THE BACK TEES!


The Club crest is another beauty, all biblical and full of righteous Calvinist angst, featuring the nearby peak of bonnie Ben Ledi, which is to appear occasionally in the course of your round:



The ‘signature’ hole! Remember that thread about your strange golf dreams/nightmares? Well, here it is made flesh before you! And, yes, that’s Ben Ledi!:



There’s so many of these wee quirky charmers tucked away in lovely corners of Scotland. It’s great to be able to get to see them and play them!


Cheers,
F.

[Sean_A]

That is less traipsing and more cutting trails!

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes -
clearly designed when (and currently maintained as if) golfers were expected to accommodate themselves (and their games) to the course, and not the other way around. When, I wonder, did we start judging & rating golf courses in terms of what we want them to be instead of what they actually are? Probably a long time ago, I suspect.

[Tommy Williamsen]

That might be the tightest par three I've ever seen. Hope you don't play a hook.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes -
clearly designed when (and currently maintained as if) golfers were expected to accommodate themselves (and their games) to the course, and not the other way around. When, I wonder, did we start judging & rating golf courses in terms of what we want them to be instead of what they actually are? Probably a long time ago, I suspect.

It was the day after the magazines anointed hundreds of people as panelists to decide what was good.  That was +/- 25 years ago.

[Tom_Doak]

Also, Marty, that's a lot of fairly long par-3's on the card.  Is the course fairly difficult in relation to par?

[Brian_Ewen]

More!!

[jeffwarne]

Yes -
clearly designed when (and currently maintained as if) golfers were expected to accommodate themselves (and their games) to the course, and not the other way around. When, I wonder, did we start judging & rating golf courses in terms of what we want them to be instead of what they actually are? Probably a long time ago, I suspect.

It was the day after the magazines anointed hundreds of people as panelists to decide what was good.  That was +/- 25 years ago.

Good post Peter-you and Tom are both spot on.
A few random thoughts
So many cool courses that lack money and are unaltered and actually are different and have an opportunity for unaltered uniqueness (some unintended by original the architect no doubt)
Aberfoyle comes to mind-some very clever and fun holes and stunning scenery-feels like it's in the back of beyond, yet not that far at all from the beaten path


I for one am stunned by the number of magazine panelists who have the 4th of July week off to "offer their services", having fielded a dozen requests this week so far...(all rejected)
I say keep the system as they mostly know what they're supposed to rate a place and visit mostly higher rated places which keeps the rest clear of clutter.


I'm always amazed that so many horriffic golfers insist on playing the (supposed) "best" courses-(from the appropriate tees of course ) when they could have so much more fun at many, many excellent off the radar courses that the raters haven't even heard of.

[Sean_A]

Yes -
clearly designed when (and currently maintained as if) golfers were expected to accommodate themselves (and their games) to the course, and not the other way around. When, I wonder, did we start judging & rating golf courses in terms of what we want them to be instead of what they actually are? Probably a long time ago, I suspect.

There is a difference in judging courses but what we want to see VS what is actually in the ground (if we see it or not!).  But either way, it doesn't mean what we see or want to see is any good. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
your perspective is an interesting one to me, an important one, ie that of a very good golfer who has played and enjoyed both the
'on the radar' and off the radar courses in America & GB&I. Off Tom's post, I'd revise my own to add: 'what we want them to be -- and over time what we've come to believe they *should be* -- instead of what they are'.
And to keep wondering: I wonder if, as a very good golfer, you're better able than most to accommodate yourself to what actually *is*, ie better able to accept and play well and enjoy the *unexpected* -- whether it's there by design or by happenstance -- just as well as you can the expected & normative.
In other words: maybe one reason why the collective some 25 years ago began judging courses by what it wanted/what courses should be is because what we (a wide range of golfers, all worse than scratch) all wanted was the *familiar*, the comfortable -- because that's where we can play our best.
Sean - true, perhaps, what you say. But to paraphrase a pithy line of yours: maybe 'good is over-rated'. In other words: maybe what we have come to call 'good' is a fairly narrowly proscribed set of elements & qualities -- not *wrong* in and of themselves necessarily, but *limited*.
P.S.
Needless to say, I'm one of those worse than scratch golfers. And truth be told, if I'd played this course with Marty I have no idea if I would love it or hate it -- no idea whether I'd embrace it for what it is or dismiss it for what it isn't.

[Bernie Bell]

I'm always amazed that so many horriffic golfers insist on playing the (supposed) "best" courses-(from the appropriate tees of course ) when they could have so much more fun at many, many excellent off the radar courses that the raters haven't even heard of.

Jeff - How do you pitch that to a group with a wide range of ability?  Asking for a horrific friend.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Thats "great is over-rated" (and I really believe it).  Its easy to get spoiled in this game and get blase about 5s and 6s, or should I say Rs an 1*s.  I spose the corollary to the above is good is good enough.  Yet, that should in no way imply that I like a course or want to return.  BUT, when I do find a good is good enough course that I do like, I do return and often. 

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

Also, Marty, that's a lot of fairly long par-3's on the card.  Is the course fairly difficult in relation to par?

Absolutely, Tom.
Combined with the uphill nature of many of them, they were a beast. The 9th especially, at 225 uphill in wet conditions, with a big, almost vertical front to the green, was a monster! I have to say that overall the routing is genius. Squeezed into such a tight site, Old Tom and Willie Fernie have done a marvellous job as, while it’s undeniably short, it never feels claustrophobic. Come see it!
F.

[David_Tepper]

Video tour of the course on the club's website:

https://www.callandergolfclub.co.uk/the-course/video-tour.html

[Marty Bonnar]

Video tour of the course on the club's website:

https://www.callandergolfclub.co.uk/the-course/video-tour.html

It’s pretty crap, David, as are the photos.
F.

[jeffwarne]

I'm always amazed that so many horriffic golfers insist on playing the (supposed) "best" courses-(from the appropriate tees of course ) when they could have so much more fun at many, many excellent off the radar courses that the raters haven't even heard of.

Jeff - How do you pitch that to a group with a wide range of ability?  Asking for a horrific friend.

very good point.
I could edit that by simply saying they(all golfers) could have so much more fun at many, many excellent off the radar courses that the raters haven't even heard of...
[/size][/color]


[/size][/color]

[Thomas Dai]

I recall a a photo of an equally narrow par-3 in Chile being posted a couple of years ago although I think the Chilean hole had tree canopy pretty much across the top of the narrow corridor.
I have tried to find the photo but no success I'm afraid.
atb

[Peter Pallotta]

An apocryphal story in the making (though retroactively):
Three well dressed members stand next to Old Tom at the tee.  Caddies are milling about, trying to stay out of the way -- the members are clearly not happy.
Member: Well, Mr Morris - with all due respect to your *craft*, I must say you have failed us miserably with this particular golf hole, if one might even charitably call it that!
Old Tom: (calmly) Have I? Please explain.
Member: Dear God man, is any *explanation* even necessary? Look at it? How can anyone be expected to thread that needle, while also gaining the elevation required to clear the hazard and remain on the green?! What say you for yourself, sir?
Old Tom remains calm, saying nothing. Then he slowly turns to a caddy:
Old Tom: Lad - my niblick please.
The young fellow hands Old Tom a club, and steps back -- opened eyed in anticipation.
Old Tom slowly drops a ball from his pocket, humbly motions for the members to step aside, addresses the ball, pauses:
Old Tom: As our dear Lord himself has shown us, gentlemen, actions do indeed speak louder than words.
And with that he steps up and hits a high, soaring straight shot right at the green, the ball landing just short of the pin and, on one bounce dropping in for an ace!
The members (despite their best stiff upper lips) are slack jawed in awe. Old Tom hands the club back to the caddy (who is trying to hide his smile), and then turns to the members
Old Tom: So endeth the sermon for today. Let us go out now to love and serve God according to our callings.

[David_Tepper]

Marty -

As far as golf course promotional videos go, I thought it was more than adequate.

DT