A Pictorial: The Castle Course!!!

« **on:** June 19, 2009, 03:14:45 AM »

The first tee shot. Par 4. 346 yards.

The landing zone for the first tee shot presents a safe play is towards the bunkers on the left (266 yards out), The mounding seen just right of the bunkers is only 233 yards from the tee such that better players hoping to attack the right channel will think twice about hitting driver, thus the smart play is to lay up on the left side of the fairway (the architect intends to steer play away from the entry road right of the fairway. More mounding obscures the view of the green from the right, but is well short of the surface.

Looking back from the left/rear corner of the green. The controversial “centerline” mounds are quite apparent.

My take on the middling middle mounds:

+Tie in with shaping of surrounds, create strategy, are well-displayed in yardage guide, are kept well-trimmed now that grasses have established

-Penalize balls that end up slightly offline on a windy site, especially galling when placed in blind landing areas (not a huge problem for frequent players or those that study yardage guide)

Landing zone on 404 yard, dogleg right par 4. 253 yards to carry the bunkers inside the dogleg, 299 yards into the left side bunkers.

202 yard par 3 3rd. That pin placement is of the “sucker” variety, on a small shelf at the left edge of the green. The greens are all a bit over shaped, in my humble opinion, with the 14th taken to the greatest extremes. The general concept of the surfaces are sound, just t pushed about 10% past what I think would achieve MacKenzie’s ideal of providing the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of golfers. Even short putts break tremendously. I’d hate to play them at a stimp reading above 9, with winds any stronger than the ones I faced (15mph), or with soggy fairways that required aerial approaches to firm greens. Thankfully, the fairways played firmly and the greens at mild speeds. It would be very easy for the course to be made unplayable when maintenance practices fail to strike this delicate balance.

The 3rd green viewed from the left. That bunker guarding the front/left corner of the green is very penal. Playing downwind, I landed my shot just short of the green on a steep up slope, running the ball 20 feet past the flag on the sucker tier. This close up of the mounding shows how short the scrub grasses are kept near the centerlines.

The 4th hole is a 540 yard par 5 that doglegs left up a steady grade. A burn wanders across the fairway around 75 yards from the massive green. The putting surface is in the shape of a 3-leaf clover. This view is from the right side of the green, looking at the high middle tier, with the lower front tier out of frame left.

The 5th hole is a 536 yard par 5 headed opposite to the 4th (a good routing choice for a windy site).

Further along, the fairway is interrupted by an oblong centerline mound 166 yards from the green before wrapping around the left side of bunkers at 106 yards out. Aggressive second shots can be played over the bunkers…

… and receive a healthy kick forward off of a down slope through a gap to the green.

The 412 yard 6th hole takes the course from the northwest corner to the northeast corner of the property. After a blind drive over the brow…

…the approach plays heavily downhill to a horizon green with trouble behind.

Trouble behind the green doubles as the foreground in stunning views of the town of St. Andrews and the East Sands.

At a brawny 456 yards, the 7th plays very tough when winds are unfavorable

The 7th fairway slopes and doglegs from right to left as it descends.

As seen, the 7th green plays hard against the cliffs and is protected short/left (also long/right, out of frame) by bunkers.

The 8th plays up to 141 yards long, with a large green and another sucker pin presented on this day at the right/rear. The St. Andrews water treatment plant is carefully hidden behind earthworks behind the right side of the 8th. The low-profile clubhouse sits beyond the 9th tee.

The 381-yard 9th plays downhill to a shared green (with the 18th pin on the far side of Kinkell Point).

Bunkers capture cowardly tee shots shots that shy away from the cliffs while the green itself is protected by a single bunker and surrounding fall-offs.

Playing slightly uphill, the 10th is 167 yards long with a burn running down the left side and a centerline mound guarding the front of the green.

From the left/front of the green, one can see how the centerline mound artfully flows into the putting contours. This day’s pin location sits in a large depression that extends two thirds of the way into the green.

The 11th hole plays 402 yards uphill on the left flank of the 1st.

From the right side of the fairway, the right side of the green is hidden, as is a large swale beyond the far right side bunkers (which are well short). The pin is on the horizon between the trees and mound. Long/left is a safe miss, as the green surrounds are bowled.

Switching course, the 12th plays to 454 yards (par 4) up to the highest point of the property. That nasty looking fairway bunker complex requires a carry of 210 yards (pray it’s downwind)

Into a headwind, a mortal probably won’t reach the green. A slight draw through a gap between bunkers at 130 yards from the green will flow with the right to left slope of the fairway to where the divots are seen ahead. From there, it is best not to miss left of the green…

Looking left from the 12th green, one appreciates the amazing amount of shaping that occurred not only within but between holes to create a naturalistic setting. Are you convinced?

The 13th hole (179 yards) favors a fade played at the left edge of the green

Looking back across the 13th green to the 12th.

The 14th (400 yards) fairway snakes down and around a gorse-covered hill…

… before turning right and narrowing considerably around 80 yards from the green’s center.

A look at the 14th green hints at its enormity along with the wild undulations found within and around it.

The 15th hole is a par 5 of 585 yards. A direct line to the flag requires a precise shot to the narrow left portion of the fairway.

From the right, one sees the burn that protects the green from long, running approach shots.

Playing to the southern end of the property, the 16th hole stretches to 406 yards. The left side fairway bunkers require a 210 yard carry to clear, but the ideal line is down the right side as the fairway feeds left.

This centerline mound is 130 yards from the green and marks a mild left dogleg in the fairway. A deep swale and upslope front the green complex.

Looking back at the slopes in the fairway and tiers of the green.

An overview of the postcard, 184 yard 17th hole.

A closer view of the chasm from the walk to the green.

Looking from the high left side of the green to the low right side. The hole is best played as a reverse redan, especially downwind. Anything that attempts to fly onto the green can run through to a nasty bunker found long/right (you can’t see it because it’s perilously deep and at the cliffside).

The 18th fairway urges players away from the public coastal path along the cliffs

But a look to the right beckons players to shortcut the corner on this 555 yard par 5.

Looking back from the outside of the dog leg.

Looking forward from the inside of the dogleg. With a strong tailwind, I was able to drive just left of the nearest bunker, leaving 180 yard into the green. The prevailing wind is generally from the left rather than behind off of the tee.

Lay-up shots must negotiate a centerline bunker 90 yards out.

From left of the lay-up zone, the green is visibly open for low running approaches, but raised so as to reject tentative shots. Likewise, overaggressive play will result in the approach skipping over the back of the green where it may be lost forever.

While many rightfully question the need for such a course and the expense of its construction, The Castle Course does provide compelling golf in a gorgeous setting of a variety not found elsewhere in Fife. It is a demanding test of golf, even in calm conditions, a characteristic that will alienate many golfers but probably also attract a dedicated following of individuals that appreciate its challenges.

« **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:31:04 AM »

Kyle,

Many thanks for these photos which are my first real look at the Castle Course.

It seems to me that this course hasn't had a great reception? I wonder what sort of reception this course would get if it wasn't at St Andrews? Maybe a bit more favourable?

The mounding, though totally artifical, looks like it has been there for years, or at least it does when you look at some of the individual holes. However, it seems to me that when you look at some of the wider landscape type photos, that they all look, well the same??? Maybe a few larger dune type mounds could have been added, the type that you often get on links courses giving you blind shots over marker posts? I'm not saying there should be blind shots, just that a few larger dunes may have looked a bit more natural in the wider landscape? What did you think when seeing it in person?

Cheers,

James

« **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:36:10 AM »

Quote from: James Boon on June 19, 2009, 03:31:04 AM

Kyle,

The mounding, though totally artifical, looks like it has been there for years, or at least it does when you look at some of the individual holes. However, it seems to me that when you look at some of the wider landscape type photos, that they all look, well the same??? Maybe a few larger dune type mounds could have been added, the type that you often get on links courses giving you blind shots over marker posts? I'm not saying there should be blind shots, just that a few larger dunes may have looked a bit more natural in the wider landscape? What did you think when seeing it in person?

Cheers,

James

I would agree with your postulate. Also, the mounds tended to be steeper on the side facing the ocean (probably to mimic the effects of wind). I think it they should also have including some mounds that "wiggle" around a bit as opposed to making all of them clumpy. The site they created is cohesive, but probably too homogenized to be completely natural in appearance.

« **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:06:31 AM »

Kyle,

You also played Kingsbarns on your journey didn't you? I'd be interested to see your photos of there to see how it compares, though obviously its been there a few years longer?

I also like how you follow a sentance which includes "wiggly" and "clumpy" with one that includes "cohesive" and "homogenous"!

Cheers,

James

« **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2009, 08:30:13 AM »

Lovely pics Kyle- I have not spoken too many (3 or 4) but ALL have said the greens are silly and have used words like 'mickey mouse' 'they will have to rebuild them' ' you hit a shot you think is close and you end up four putting'. The landscaping looks good though and I think it looks like it has been there a long time or it certainly does from the pics. I guess the jury is still out I suppose.

« **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2009, 09:14:10 AM »

Pictires can't capture the the true elevation changes on the greens. The downhill par 5 does not allow you to bounce or roll the ball on because of the water fronting the green. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Anthony

« **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2009, 09:52:43 AM »

I am officially declaring a frilly-edged, faux blow-out bunker pandemic.

Bogey

« **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2009, 09:58:30 AM »

Are all those frilly bunkers really necessary? Perhaps this photograph answers that question:

Bogey

« **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:06:05 AM »

Bogey,

It is eye candy and I love it.

Anthony

« **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:26:14 AM »

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on June 19, 2009, 08:30:13 AM

Lovely pics Kyle- I have not spoken too many (3 or 4) but ALL have said the greens are silly and have used words like 'mickey mouse' 'they will have to rebuild them' ' you hit a shot you think is close and you end up four putting'. The landscaping looks good though and I think it looks like it has been there a long time or it certainly does from the pics. I guess the jury is still out I suppose.

I think "Mickey Mouse" is much to strong, especially for a course in the same neighborhood as The Old Course and the North Berwick West Links.

Obviously, DMK Design is criticized because their team shaped these greens when they could have built anything they wanted, whereas the other courses I mentioned presumably took a more minimalistic tack, selecting green sites more than shaping them.

I personally prefer a bit too much contour that is gradually softened over mundane pads of little interest that must eventually be completely rebuilt.

« **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:57:17 AM »

Kyle

I would suggest that all the greens at TOC or North Berwick (or indeed all the other courses you played on your visit) would have been laid/built up at some point over the last hundred years and that the greenkeeper/architect mean't them to have the contours they have got. Whether their was any thought on this being minimalist or whatever I don't know, I just don't think so.

Certainly there was a thought that a lot of the new courses being built in the 1890's, a time period which covers a lot of these old classic courses, that the greens were being built too flat. Willie Park certainly argues against that in his book in 1895 (I think). That said, abelieve a lot of these courses changed over time for practical reasons eg bunkers filled in, new ones created etc and with that in mind I don't think it would be practical to have greens with wild contours on links where strong winds are the norm. Eddie Adams, who was then head greenkeeper on the Old Course, once told me that the greens on the Old were unlikely to stimp much above 10 for the 2000 Open, for the simple reason that the wind was likely to move the ball more readily. And bear in mind the putting surfaces on the Old Course are fairly flat.

Kyle, how would you rate the course in terms of the other courses on your schedule, both on a value for money basis, and money no object basis ?

Niall

« **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:11:44 AM »

Kyle

As usual, you have produced a great range of photos of the course, which I must say I am more than familiar with. I agree the course as a course looks interesting, but does it look like a St Andrews course, well each individual player will decide for himself.

My problem is that I know it is artificial, I know the original land never reflected any of the current bumps curves or hillocks. I expect that I have generally played on natural or close to natural terrain so as I survey the whole landscape it looks as one with the course. Nevertheless, the Castle Course does not do that for me, it looks like a helter skelter or multi zits on the landscape and quite frankly out of place.

I have not been brought up to accept courses in wild locations that have to be built up from the bedrock, for me they are what they are which is a fraud. Yes, so OK they allow golfers the facility to play golf in places perhaps not suited to golf, but for Christ sake this is Scotland, Fife on the outskirts of St Andrews we are talking, not some mountain or desert site. The place shouts to me I’m a fake, I con golfers, help corrupt the golfing senses. I’m not necessary here for the golfer but for the glory of Money. Its there to make money to cash in on the glory of St Andrews and the other earlier courses. Why has it been built, well again we all know why, not because of golf but on the back on money, taken millions of pound of money to build in the hope that millions over the coming years will be returned. Sorry to go on, but it’s disgraceful what has been allowed in the name of golf. Perhaps I would fell less annoyed if the Green Fees reflected the newness of the course at say £30-40, but no it cost a fortune so must make a fortune ASAP.

Kyle, even though the photos are up to your good standards, I feel the course is just riddled with fake bunkers, hillocks, well you name it and I expect you will find it on the Castle Course. Nevertheless, the course is not a tribute to the art of course design, far from it. A bland canvas is far easier, no need to work with the surrounding landscape IMHO.

Still glad you seemed to enjoy your golf.

Melvyn

« **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:13:10 AM »

Man what a trip you had Kyle. I think these pics look fantastic! Thank you for the tour.

I told Anthony this morning that when we go over I think I'd enjoy playing the modern Castle Course first.

« **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:15:04 AM »

I don't really agree about those being frilly edged blow out bunkers.

« **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:25:02 AM »

Quote from: Michael_Hendren on June 19, 2009, 09:52:43 AM

I am officially declaring a frilly-edged, faux blow-out bunker pandemic.

Bogey

Obviously you are not a Bunker Slut.

« **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:34:21 AM »

The Castle was not what I had expected. I guess I had expected something more like Bandon. Even after playing it once I'm not sure what I think about it. It confuses me. I did not dislike it. I guess it left me scratching my head. Not totally a bad thing.

Anthony

« **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:07:10 PM »

Quote from: Niall Carlton on June 19, 2009, 10:57:17 AM

Kyle, how would you rate the course in terms of the other courses on your schedule, both on a value for money basis, and money no object basis ?

Niall

I purchased a three-day ticket (with the surcharge to allow for play on The Castle Course in addition to the other five Links Trust Courses, i.e. everything but The Old Course) for about 180 quid. That ticket can be used for unlimited play on any three days over the course of a week. As such, considering I also played the New (65 quids/ round) and Eden (40 quid), I could consider the Castle Course a repectable value at 80 quids or so. I actually played the Eden and New on the same day, so I could have easily played the Castle again or the Jubilee on my third day to maximize my playing value. However, the rack rate of 115 quid per round on the Castle is far too high. By that logic, Kingsbarns was greatly overpriced at 165 quid (yikes!), though I consider it a superior course to the Castle. I'm not even sure how often I'd shell out 130 quid for the Old Course at today's exchange rate.

The visitor rate I paid at Royal Dornoch (18 quid) made it the clear winner in the $/quality race. Visitor fees at R. Dornoch are 82 quid, and the Castle should be less than that in a sane world (60-70 quid).

Here in California, there are many seaside courses (Half Moon Bay, Pelican Bay, Trump National L.A., Torrey Pines) that are as pricey as The Castle yet not nearly as good (Half Moon Bay has two dissappointing courses priced at $150. I haven't played Torrey or Trump, but they both fetch $250 or so).

« **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:16:55 PM »

Quote from: Melvyn Hunter Morrow on June 19, 2009, 11:11:44 AM

Kyle

As usual, you have produced a great range of photos of the course, which I must say I am more than familiar with. I agree the course as a course looks interesting, but does it look like a St Andrews course, well each individual player will decide for himself.

My problem is that I know it is artificial, I know the original land never reflected any of the current bumps curves or hillocks. I expect that I have generally played on natural or close to natural terrain so as I survey the whole landscape it looks as one with the course. Nevertheless, the Castle Course does not do that for me, it looks like a helter skelter or multi zits on the landscape and quite frankly out of place.

I have not been brought up to accept courses in wild locations that have to be built up from the bedrock, for me they are what they are which is a fraud. Yes, so OK they allow golfers the facility to play golf in places perhaps not suited to golf, but for Christ sake this is Scotland, Fife on the outskirts of St Andrews we are talking, not some mountain or desert site. The place shouts to me I’m a fake, I con golfers, help corrupt the golfing senses. I’m not necessary here for the golfer but for the glory of Money. Its there to make money to cash in on the glory of St Andrews and the other earlier courses. Why has it been built, well again we all know why, not because of golf but on the back on money, taken millions of pound of money to build in the hope that millions over the coming years will be returned. Sorry to go on, but it’s disgraceful what has been allowed in the name of golf. Perhaps I would fell less annoyed if the Green Fees reflected the newness of the course at say £30-40, but no it cost a fortune so must make a fortune ASAP.

Kyle, even though the photos are up to your good standards, I feel the course is just riddled with fake bunkers, hillocks, well you name it and I expect you will find it on the Castle Course. Nevertheless, the course is not a tribute to the art of course design, far from it. A bland canvas is far easier, no need to work with the surrounding landscape IMHO.

Still glad you seemed to enjoy your golf.

Melvyn

Your opinions are likely shared by many, and as I stated before I agree with you on many of those fronts.

I'm not sure the course needs to look like the St Andrews courses. Variety is a good thing. But I can see why you'de prefer they picked a site with more natural features that reuqired less of an overhaul.

« **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:21:23 PM »

Quote from: Anthony Gray on June 19, 2009, 11:34:21 AM

The Castle was not what I had expected. I guess I had expected something more like Bandon. Even after playing it once I'm not sure what I think about it. It confuses me. I did not dislike it. I guess it left me scratching my head. Not totally a bad thing.

Anthony

The Castle Course is much more like Stonebrae -- the DMK course in Hayward, CA -- than Bandon Dunes course, even though Jim Haley was the lead shaper at both Stonebrae and Bandon Dunes.

Stonebrae was built on a very difficult, windy site in the hills over San Francisco Bay. It is by far the least walkable of the three but comparable to the Castle in quality.

Bandon Dunes is clearly the best of the three, offering some real gems though it has a couple of very mundane holes. But the other two are still compelling in many respects.

« **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:48:35 PM »

Melvyn - Whilst the Castle course may not seem a St Andrews course, in reality The Strathynum and The Balfour are hardly 'to be proud of' (yes they serve a purpose). I think you are in a difficult position where you knew just too much about this parcel of land pre course, what do you think of the courses at Bandon?

Kyle - I was only reiterating what people had said to me and 'Mickey mouse' were the words, I have heard that countless times about TOC as well and Kingsbarns in respect of the greens. People say things sometimes without thinking. The proof whether DMK 'cocked up' IMO will be if they do have to rebuild the greens.

As an overview I think it looks very nice and the work DMK and his team have done looks very natural and he has created an oldness about it, I think some/many of the bunkers would have looked better as grassy blowouts with a bit of imported heather or gorse growing out, the sand looks a bit too white, but we will all have opinions and likes/dislikes of parts of any course.

« **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:04:14 PM »

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on June 19, 2009, 12:48:35 PM

As an overview I think it looks very nice and the work DMK and his team have done looks very natural and he has created an oldness about it, I think some/many of the bunkers would have looked better as grassy blowouts with a bit of imported heather or gorse growing out, the sand looks a bit too white, but we will all have opinions and likes/dislikes of parts of any course.

I recall reading that David Kidd also thought the sand was too white, but that it provided the best balance of playing characteristics and resistance to wind displacement.

« **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:17:35 PM »

Is not the proof of a good course down to the sheep? Will they freely roam and use the bunkers in time of bad whether?

Cannot remember seeing this in Tom Doak’s scale, but surely a vital part to judging a good golf course. Don’t tell me that this is something else we modern golfers have also forgotten about the good old Golden Age of 19th Century Golf.

Talking about sheep thought I saw you with one the other day, Anthony, well it looked like you from the back. Liked the action moves, last see in the film ‘The Full Monty’ whilst in the dole queue. See attached link to trailer noting the dance in the queue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3W36JVnRc

Melvyn

« **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:29:25 PM »

Melvyn,

Where I come from the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

Anthony

« **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:31:02 PM »

Are there plans to change the grrens at The Castle Course?

Anthony

« **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:31:52 PM »

Anthony

Love it - why do I always believe everything you say

Melvyn

News:

Kyle Henderson

James Boon

Kyle Henderson

James Boon

Adrian_Stiff

Anthony Gray

Mike Hendren

Mike Hendren

Anthony Gray

Kyle Henderson

Niall C

Melvyn Morrow

Eric Smith

Michael Dugger

Bill_McBride

Anthony Gray

Kyle Henderson

Kyle Henderson

Kyle Henderson

Adrian_Stiff

Kyle Henderson

Melvyn Morrow

Anthony Gray

Anthony Gray

Melvyn Morrow

An Error Has Occurred!