True, Tom. I should run the spell check. I type quickly without really revising what I'm writing, or thinking. I should be more careful, but I don't have time. When I go back and read my post having pushing the post button, there's plenty I wish I could have back.
As I type quickly even now:
The four I mentioned aren't courses that are still being worked on. They are completed. People are playing them. Reports are coming back. Reliable opinions are being submitted. But again, my brash statement was but a "future's option" and not a matter of fact. It's asking people to return to the subject in the future and look back. So take that prediction for what it's is. D
Yes, different courses have different mission statements, and I shouldn't come down on them because I've read a batch of lazy golf writers anoint DMK's two forthcoming projects as the greatest of all time and give Renaissance equal billing to its neighbors. I get why some writer might say that, aside from the fact they were comp'd free rounds. But when I hear from a few that I trust very highly that Mac D is perplexingly difficult and Castle unplayable...well, I don't think every new, heralded course has to automatically be great. So don't believe the type, mine included.
Yes, I have a conflict of interest, indeed, but having spent nearly 2000 hours participating on the site, being on the grounds, knowing what Scottish links is really about, enjoying and appreciating Kingsbarns, yet knowing there was room for which to improve upon, I think people will be surprised with CS. I'll back off "promoting" it for any future threads and posts, but what I suppose I was responding to, and why I was annoyed (and why I didn't bother to participate on the site for five or six years) was that a topic began sharing a new website. It's filled with architectural philosophy and images, so plenty of opportunities to discuss architecture, and it begins a rather unintelligent digression, in this case about greens fees. I get how it works. This is not a complaint.
I propose an architectural discussion. Perhaps people would like to comment about theses subjects.
Here's three quick reasons why I think it will be great.
1. There is width but with meaning. Holes have preferred angles and to quote Mark, "the issue isn't getting the ball in play, but getting it in the right portion of the fairway." We have all discussed width before, but sometimes I feel there's width without purpose. Width for the sake of having width. Width because it's a widdy site, Width because you can. There will be real advantages (nor thin marginal differences) between being on the left edge or the right edge of the fairway. (As an aside, the average guys will enjoy playing the course without losing too many balls. (I love Lossiemouth dearly, but that's not a claim you can make about her.)
2. The nature of the site, and the routing, lends itself to easily compartmentalizing the holes at the end of the round. The course begins along the shore for three holes, turns toward the Castle. Moves inland for two holes, followed by three holes along the sea shelf. The back nine returns (in the opposite dirrection) along the Firth, followed by another move inland, and returning hole with two holes along the sea shelf. The elevation is much higher on the final three or four holes, and you get this wonderful chance on 17 and 18 to see everywhere you've just been for the past four hours. This will no doubt add to the satisfaction of the place. It's something that people won't necessarily realize til later. Believe it or not, that matters. Surely, that's part of what Tom achieved at Pac Dunes by weaving to and away from the coast in different portions of each nine. By the way, compartmentalizing the course, or remember each of the holes after the round, has never been a major criteria for me (luckily, I have an easy time remembering every hole on good and bad courses alike), but the average visitor will appreciate it, whether they realize it or not.
3. Where many architects might choose to place a bunker as a greenside hazard, Gil and Mark choose tight swales, like an endless variation on the Valley of Sin theme. Those of you who fear bunkers (and you know who you are) and would rather negotiate contours with a putter, or wedge or eight irons, or five irons, or hybrid, or three-wood realize they can be much more fun than the un-nuance of a bunker explosion shot.
And to repeat, this is one man's opinion, but I think the course will eventually join an elite category. And I sincerely hole, and I know Mark is counting on this, it greatly adds to the draw of golfers that make the trek to the Highlands. Having lived there for as long as I could, it was a special place. I was very fortunate that a dear friend from America has relocated to the village or Dornoch. We had a standing game each Tuesday night during the summer to play RD at twlight. Around the summer solstice, we once teed off at 8:45 and completed the round without losing a ball to darkness. It included a one-footer for eagle at 15. On another occasion, when it was much darker, he told me (and he said, I've never been able to tell anyone this) to aim at Venus for drive on the 16th hole. I loved those evenings. I also joined Fortrose and Rosemarkie and Lossie whilst over there. As many know, there is a treasure trove of golf, and Inverness has been revitalized in the past few years.
Now it's time for sleep.
Be well. Happy New Year.
-Colin