Castle Stuart Photos

« **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2009, 05:19:08 PM »

I'm a little surprised the bunkering is so elaborate (fanciful?, out there?, I'm not sure what the right term is) given what looks to be a fantastic site. Based only on these photos, it looks a little busy at times, not too dissimilar from what I've seen of the Castle course and Tetherow, for example. I wonder if there was a conscious effort to distinguish it from Kingsbarns.

« **Reply #26 on:** July 23, 2009, 05:26:27 PM »

Tim,

It is not busy at all when compared to The Castle. I love The Castle but this is maybe in a different league again. We never felt that the "framing" was abused although some might feel that it has been used too often. The bunkering looks fanciful in the photos because I got close up to many of them but off the tee they look perfect.

« **Reply #27 on:** July 23, 2009, 05:43:42 PM »

Brian P. & Mike Y. -

When visiting the course in May, I was told that the railway ties/sleepers were acquired for a very nominal amount.

I believe that they found a very large deposit of sand in one spot on the course and quarried most of the sand used on the course from that pit, which is now the water retention pond for the irrigation system.

DT

« **Reply #28 on:** July 23, 2009, 05:48:37 PM »

Brian

Thank you for the time and effort to post these images. I last saw the site at the end of 2007 so it is great to see how it has matured and how well the grow in has gone.

I would be interested to hear which holes/ideas you feel stand out in what is a fantastic golf course.

Also, being very familiar with this site, I tend to think that photos dont quite fully communicate the scale and grandeur of the place. This isnt a knock on your photography skills but an observation that seeing the place in person is the best way to appreciate it. I guess the same is true of many courses.

I am really looking forward to the day I get back to Scotland so I can play this course.

« **Reply #29 on:** July 23, 2009, 05:49:11 PM »

Tim Pitner -

There is an excellent 4-minute video on youtube.com with Gil Hanse discussing (and showing) the various styles of bunkering used at Castle Stuart. It is well worth watching.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8q8MsF1e8

DT

« **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2009, 06:18:02 PM »

This is one of the most creative, artistic, well thought-out bunker plans in recent memory. Sleepers, stacked sod, cool shapes, chunked and crumbling edges in a state of benign neglect, moss and vegetation creeping in here and there...it's a master class. These hazards are so loaded with character it's almost a joke. In my opinion, it would take a seriously jaded, anesthetized soul not to flip out at Brian's photos.

I've actually stood up for the Castle Course on occasion, but in terms of the detail work it's really not even in the same dimension as Castle Stuart.

« **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2009, 06:59:20 PM »

Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.

It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.

What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.

I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.

cheers,
FBD.

« **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2009, 07:12:51 PM »

Thanks Brian for the up close view of the details - had been hoping someone would post these.

I expect it was a great day.

Cheers - Lyne

« **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2009, 07:46:13 PM »

Marty B. -

Yours is an interesting and provocative post. Clearly the minimalist, retro, neo-classical school of design is the current flavor.

My question to you is this: how would a golf course designed in the "post modern" style be received in Scotland? The reality is that building a new golf course requires a sizable investment. Recovering that investment requires patronage from golf tourists visiting Scotland. Would those tourists really be interested in playing a golf course in the post-modern style, especially if it was something along the lines of the courses they might play in their home countries? What course developer will be interested in taking that risk?

My guess is such a course my very well be better received by the Scots rather than the tourists.

It would be great to see such a course designed and built.

DT

« **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2009, 10:58:58 PM »

Quote from: David_Tepper on July 23, 2009, 05:49:11 PM

Tim Pitner -

There is an excellent 4-minute video on youtube.com with Gil Hanse discussing (and showing) the various styles of bunkering used at Castle Stuart. It is well worth watching.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8q8MsF1e8

DT

David, thank you. It is an interesting video, particularly Hanse's reference to the Hutchinson book and the more ragged look of links bunkering in the past, and obviously Hanse and his team put a lot of thought and work into the bunkering. I'm just not sure the combination of styles works all that well--again from photos only. And, as Marty put it, the "revetted faces between grass surface levels" was what really lost me. Sometimes, grass is all that is needed.

« **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:00:03 PM »

Thanks for the great photos.

CS looks INTENSE - there is a lot going on there which I absolutely love. Slagbert must totally be digging those bunkers they are super gnarly. There is a also a bit of a raw aspect in the photos which will help the course age nicely.

It does not looked as "tricked" up as Tetherow or the Castle (based on photos) - I think the team was more thoughtful in their design although they clearly incorporated many "Distinct Elements" of links golf in the bunker mix, rumpled ground, etc.

MB does have a fair point - the attention to detail at CS was very thorough, and something they discussed on the website about the course, is it possible to be TOO thorough in terms of attention to detail?

I would argue that many designers do not go deep enough, but it may be possible to go too deep.

Definitely hope to get there someday, please keep the great reports coming lads - I need an IV of CS.

« **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:22:10 PM »

Tim Pitner and Martin Bonnar,

you gotta admit these pics make you want to see the course. I mean really, the fetishes are highlighted here, but they must fade into the spectacular background while on site, wouldn't you think?

My only thought after seeing these pics is and wanting to play it is.... 150 GBP per person rack rate

« **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:40:43 PM »

Eric,

I don't disagree at all. When I'm in the highlands (time TBD), I'll seek out Castle Stuart. In photos--and I agree that the same may not hold true when playing--the bunkering really stands out and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

« **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2009, 02:32:34 AM »

To All,

There is not one photo that has been posted by myself or anyone else that does the course justice.

Martin,

Just go and play it first before judging it. I know where you are coming from but I disagree. As I said before The Castle (St.Andrews) is probably over the top (okay it is over the top) but I still love it and I just accept it as it is. We don't accept golf courses for what they are enough anymore.

One of the guys I played with loved it but his ball landed in a bunker with a rough tongue coming into the bunker so he wasn't exactly in the sand or the rough and looks at me and says "Brian, do you think that is fair?".....I turn to him and say "Shut the f@%k up and just get on with it you whingeing Scotsman." He chuckled and just got on with it and admitted that he was wrong.

The bunkering works absolutely perfect, you do not feel like it is "arty" at all when you are there because there is soooo much width on each hole that the bunkering does not overwhelm the hole, it just blends in.

We look for perfection, then when we get it someone whinges about it....

The two guys I played with are both from St. Andrews. One of them has played every course on the planet and detests The Castle course with a vengeance and the other has worked all over the world from TPC Sawgrass to Royal Melbourne to The Castle course and loves it.

They both LOVED The Castle Stuart.

We would all enjoy our golf if we just got on with it....

« **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2009, 03:05:02 AM »

Castle Stuart - Home of the best bunkers in the world? (serious question)

« **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2009, 03:09:56 AM »

Emil,

Close but no cigar in my opinion. I think that goes to Sand Hills.

« **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2009, 05:45:50 AM »

Brian

Thanks for posting some great photos. I've got to say that it looks sensational. The attention to detail is inspirational.

« **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2009, 07:03:33 AM »

Great pics as always. Three items:

Are the mini-faults in the fairways (#31, for example) unique to CS?

Is there an expectation/hope that the exposed bumps in #38 will develop into bunkers?

The path cut through the hill on #48 was also an interesting idea.

It's almost as if this course has tried to implement "manufactured quirk," but I like the ideas and they aren't overdone, so I guess I don't care in this case. Apologies to FBD, but looks fantastic to me.

« **Reply #43 on:** July 24, 2009, 07:23:48 AM »

Brian

Many thanks for posting the picks. I think I'm with Marty on this one, the hairy bunker/railway sleeper look does look contrived and makes it look a bit like a golfing Brigadoon. As you say this may be due to you highlighting these aspects in your photos, and it may also be due to the newness of the course as it does look fairly raw. Overall it does look a bit alien in comparison to "typical" Scottish courses, and the layout (from what I can tell from the pictures) looks more American than anything. Not saying that is a bad thing, more an observation.

Brian , some questions for you;

When Mark Parsinen did Kingsbarns he said he wanted it to look hard and play easy, do you think he has gone for that at Castle Stuart ?

What was the turf like ? Is this a true links ?

Green contours - any dead elephants buried out there, or are the greens more subtle than that ?

Niall

« **Reply #44 on:** July 24, 2009, 07:44:20 AM »

Quote from: Marty Bonnar on July 23, 2009, 06:59:20 PM

Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.

It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.

What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.

I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.

cheers,
FBD.

Marty,

If this course was in Vegas then I might agreee with you, but this is SCOTLAND for God's sake.....You expect the courses to look old. That is why The Castle is not well recieved...Castle Stuart looks like it has been there forever.......Americans are not going to travel there to play a modern looking course....These pictures make my mouth water....Just plain eye candy...I am going in September and just can't wait.

AND.......It is just up the road from Cruden Bay.....Just wait and see how popular this area becomes with Dornach, Cruden Bay, Castle Stuart and the new Trump course.....It will be a must destination.

Anthony

« **Reply #45 on:** July 24, 2009, 08:13:12 AM »

Quote from: Marty Bonnar on July 23, 2009, 06:59:20 PM

Brian,
thanks for the great pix. What strikes me - ONCE AGAIN! - about a newly constructed golf course in Scotland is how much attention has been lavished upon what I like to describe as 'faux-antiquity'.

It strikes me that lots of time and attention gets spent in the creation of details which are meant to look, ehm, well, 'old'. Almost as if the designers NEED to seek our approval in their use of historic adornment. In true Architectural terms (with the Capital 'A') it's fake, it's forced and it's wrong. Revetted faces between grass surface levels? Eh? No thank you.

What would be wrong with today's designers spending some time and energy establishing and developing a NEW vocabulary of design details INSTEAD OF regurgitating the 'best' bits of History? I am tired of reverentialism which is either advertised as minimalism or feted as 'golden age' hat-doffing. We'll get nowhere fast if we keep going round in circles.

I'm sure it's a decent 'golf' experience, but as a piece of landscape design, I'll take Desmond Muirhead any day.

cheers,
FBD.

Thanks. I had been looking for the words to say the same thing, you did it better than I would have. The whole "faux antiquity" thing is just so.... False. I'm sure this is a good course, it may even be a great one. I just wonder about the priorities that lead to so much effort being put into a false image. What would the cost (which, presumably pays at least some role in the extravagant green fee) have been if that effort had been saved?

I imagine the point of "faux antiquity" is to make the course attractive to our transatlantic cousins, so from the responses on this thread perhaps it is money well spent. For me, though, I'm afraid the look and the fact that I'd be paying so much to play something so obviously contrived, puts this further down my "to play" list than I had expected it would be.

« **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2009, 08:57:56 AM »

Mark Peace -

What Brian's excellent pictures do not capture is the overall all grandeur of the course. His pictures focus on the "micro," rather than the "macro." When you stand on some of the tees, the scope of what you see is comparable to (and possibly greater than) anything you might find at Dornoch or Cruden Bay.

In addition, many of the holes line up with the numerous landmarks up and down the Moray Firth. The scope of the course goes well beyond its boundaries.

Yes, there was great attention to the micro"detailing" of the features of the course. But, when you are on the property, your eye is far more often drawn to what is visible well down the fairway and beyond rather than what is immediately in front of you or underfoot.

DT

« **Reply #47 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:02:09 AM »

   Mark and Marty,

  I am curious about this "False" issue. Is it that is looks false or that you know it is false? To me it looks natural but I know it is not.

How hard is it for a "new" course to break in in Scotland? In recent years is Kingsbarns the only one that has been accepted by the locals? Or is it not accepted?

  Everyone who plays Whistling Straits knows it is false. but it is stil very well accepted. 100 years from now will Castle Stuart be embraced more by the euros?

  Was Castle Stuart built for americans mainly?

   Anthony

« **Reply #48 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:20:24 AM »

Anthony,

It's the detail that's false, in the way it tries to look worn. The sleepers are a nice touch. Several UK clubs have sleepers used in bunkers and to support tees, for instance, including Crail, where I am a member. If the sleepers in the bunker at the fron t of the 14th green at Crail ever looked so worn, displaced and as in need of repair as those newly installed sleepers at Castle Stuart, the greenkeeper would be on a disciplinary. They've obviously worked really hard to make the bunkering look worn. At most Scottish courses bunkering that worn would be repaired. It's that whole false age thing that reminds me of mock-Georgian mansions built for wealthy but taste free soccer stars.

David,

I'm sure that's right. Why then spend so much time (and presumably money) on so much artificial detail. It almost smacks of an architect and developer lacking the confidence in their work to say, look, this is a great course, judge it on its merits. I'm sure that's not the case with the individuals concerned but it's what it would say to me if I didn't know who was involved.

« **Reply #49 on:** July 24, 2009, 10:31:01 AM »

After seeing these very detailed pictures, I can see in part where some get this "false" or "faux antiquity" feeling.

But as the course is new and the edges still sharp, I'm guessing once it matures a bit, and things get more raggedy around the edges, it will look more authenticate as if it really had been there for decades.

Looks to be winner, even if it is a little different than the standard fare links offerings.

News:

Tim Pitner

Brian Phillips

David_Tepper

Grant Saunders

David_Tepper

Tom Dunne

Marty Bonnar

Lyne Morrison

David_Tepper

Tim Pitner

Rob Rigg

Eric_Terhorst

Tim Pitner

Brian Phillips

Emil Weber

Brian Phillips

Robin_Hiseman

Jason McNamara

Niall C

Anthony Gray

Mark Pearce

David_Tepper

Anthony Gray

Mark Pearce

Kalen Braley

An Error Has Occurred!