Paul Lawrie on Castle Stuart

[David_Tepper]

"Say what you will, but Le Golf National in the condition they present it for the French Open, is a far better preparation for The Open than a soaking wet Portrush or a Castle Stuart in most any condition."

Ulrich -

I had no idea you knew more about links golf and what it takes to prepare for the British Open than Paul Lawrie. Thanks for sharing your insights!

DT

[Ulrich Mayring]

David, I am not speaking for Paul Lawrie, how would I dare second-guess a major winner. I am speaking for Lee Westwood

Ulrich

[Jon Wiggett]

David, I am not speaking for Paul Lawrie (Open Champion), how would I dare second-guess a major winner. I am speaking for Lee WestwoodNot Open Champion

Ulrich

[David_Tepper]

Well, with a bit of a breeze and the course playing a little firmer & faster (and some Sunday pin placements), the scores are running 3 to 5 shots higher. I would still like to see the course played in a 3- or 4-club wind.  

[David_Tepper]

What a difference a day and a wee breeze makes! Of the 77 players in the field, only 6 broke 70 in today's final round at Castle Stuart. 

[Brian_Ewen]

So after his praise of CS, Mr. Lawrie missed the cut, and posted this on his diary:

Sunday 15th July
I played at Royal Aberdeen today with Craig and his pal Jamie Pryde, the boys were playing in the junior medal.   We had some horrendous showers but managed to play through it.   The course was tough with loads of rough but in awesome condiltion and the new 15th green looks like its been there for years and is now a much better hole.   The roads were badly flooded on the way home especially in Cults where there was a foot of water on the main road.   Congratulations to Jeev on winning the Scottish Open today, he's a good lad who loves a whisky or two.   Marc Warren will be gutted but its nice to see him back up there where he belongs.

New 15th green at RA ...... news to me !

[Niall C]

Niall,

You seem to be defining "soft" as almost requiring plugged lies, but that hardly seems to realistic on a sand based(?) fescue course, does it?  I'd expect it to drain well but with lots of moisture I'd expect things would be quite a bit slower and softer than ideal.  

______________________________________________

I recall a few people with lots of complaints when the course first opened about railroad ties and contrivances, but the course looks lovely on  television.   I am left wondering whether it has a tiered feel to it but other than that it looks terrific and quite natural.   I hope to get to see it some day.

David

Correct. The course was softer than normal but not in my book what you would call, correction - what I would call soft. Basically it wasn't brick hard but there was still run in the course.

One of the things in bringing in the rough was that it gave the course a lot more definition and certainly made it llok better to my eye. You're correct about the sleepers and all that, although there still are a few tee touches that grate a bit. One thing I can't agree on is the seclusion of the individual holes, which to my mind is a weakness rather than a strength. I also don't think its looks all that natural, especially not in comparison to the teams previous effort at Kingsbarns.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Niall,  I am no expert on links golf, but I don't think your definition of "soft" is realistic for sand based golf and fescue grass.  True plugged lies are almost unheard of, are they not?   So what is the point of such a definition, other than to avoid admitting that the conditions were largely responsible for the low scoring? 

In short it seems that you are defining "soft" conditions in a manner which renders the definition meaningless.   While you might not want to call it "soft" you don't get easier scoring conditions than what they faced for the first few days of that tournament, do you?

And on Sunday  with a bit of a breeze  and slightly dryer conditions (well short of "brick hard") the scoring was markedly different.  Even though about every hole was reportedly set up on the short side.   And angles seemed to matter much more (even though I saw instances where they mattered plenty even when it was soft.) 

I'd love to see a tournament there with more traditional links conditions for a few days.   I have a feeling it would put an end to this notion that the course was a pushover and that angles do not matter.   

 

[Niall C]

David,

If you want to compartmentalise it then it was certainly softish for a links. Looking at a scale of golf courses as a whole then no where near soft. Have I seen balls plug on a links ? Not like you get on over watered inland courses but certainly seen balls land "softly" particularly on west coast links.

The major reason scoring at Castle Stuart was low was because of the design and how it was set up, simple as that. You can argue all you want as to whether the softer conditions made it easier, harder or no difference at all but it would be foolish to suggest the basic design wasn't by far the main reason why the winning scores were so low.

Niall 

[DMoriarty]

I do want to compartmentalize it.   It makes no sense to judge links golf on a standard of "softness" more applicable to a "mudder" track in central Florida.

Given the difference in scoring on Sunday, "it would be foolish to suggest" that the soft conditions weren't "by far the main reason why the winning scores were so low."

Yet, you wrote: "The major reason scoring at Castle Stuart was low was because of the design and how it was set up, simple as that."

So then how does your theory explain the far higher scoring on Sunday?  With just a bit of wind on Sunday, and slightly drier (but still not "brick hard") conditions, then . . . what happened?    Did the designers sneak out and redesign the course in the middle of Saturday night?  I don't think so.  If anything, the tourney officials seem to have set up the course to play a bit easier on Sunday, yet the scoring was much higher.   And the angles seemed very much to matter, and the shots became more interesting, and the course was hardly a pushover.  

Don't get me wrong . . . there are aspects of the design which are obviously conducive to low scoring: the "par" of 72, the relatively short total yardage, the four potentially reachable par fives, two very reachable par 4's; and a few others which could be reachable or close depending upon the conditions. Obviously the course wasn't designed for a sluggish US Open type tournament featuring long irons to impossibly narrow fairways, but I say thank goodness for that.

You've been trying to sell this notion that the course is a complete pushover where the angles and choices off the tee never matter, buy my own eyes (albeit watching on television) suggest that your interpretation is flawed.  Even on television, I see compelling and exciting golf where the angles matter very much. And even on television (which tends to underplay such things) I see interesting movement on and around greens, apparently placing a premium on angles and choices going back to the tee. And rather than curtailing interesting approaches, I see the width as very much enhancing the course.
 
For just one example, did you see Oosthuizen on the 14th on Friday?   From the tee he drove it no more than ten or fifteen paces short and right of the green but still in the very wide fairway.  He left himself a very short approach from the fairway, but it would have taken a brilliant shot to get it close from there.  For his second he tried to run up a chip, but the ball didn't  quite make it to the green, and it rolled back well past where he was, leaving a longer but similar shot.  For his third he did the same thing.  For his fourth shot he was still further away than he was for his second shot, so he switched approach and tried a putter.  His ball rolled over the green into a small swale back and left. Fifth shot, putter, up onto a green but stopping probably 10 feet from the hole. Sixth shot he made the putt for a double bogey.  

He had blasted away from the tee with a driver, and while he found fairway he didn't find the correct angle, and it took him five shots to get down from there.  And this was on Friday, when it was plenty soft.   And I could be wrong, but to me the 14th looks like one of the least interesting holes out there.  

I hope they keep the tournament there long enough for them to get some breezy weather in a year not so inordinately wet and calm. The course makes for terrific viewing, and I cannot wait to see how it plays under more normal conditions, even if only on television.

[Niall C]

David

I haven't analysed the stats but not sure that the scoring was that much lower on the final day. However you asked what happened, rain wind and colder day was what happened. That and nerves getting to some of the leaders. Singh won having shot 5 under in his final round and never really having been in the mix and having posted his score early. Warren got to 5 under on the day, and 20 under by the 14th and then his bottle went, I'm sorry to say.

I echo your comments about it not being a US Open design and I'm also happy its not set up that way. There's only one US Open and a fine job it does at providing a challenge on that kind of course. What I've been consistantyly saying about CS is that it is very wide, even where the fairways are "only" 50 yards wide. However my main critque has been that a lot of the upper holes are not only wide open with no appreciable hazards, but also there is little or no real startegic element to the hole. You refer to 14th and the way Oosthuizen played it. Haven't seen it but spoke to the scorer and basically he made a hash of it. The hole is one of those where the big hitters can just about get on however the bulk of the field including the big hitters played short so as to play a full approach shot into the green. It made no difference as to what angle they came in from. BTW, did you notice the centre-line bunker put in for this tournament ?

Hole 13 - wide open fairway with no hazards, open green on two different levels. No particular benefit from coming in from one side or the other.

Hole 14 - we've discussed

Hole 15 - more conventional hole with bit of dog-leg, one of the "narrow" fairways at 50 yards wide or so, open green at the front although junk both left and right of the green.

Hole 16 - driveable par 4 with huge wide fairway and big wide green with gully in front left half. Yes, its nice to be able to have a go at a par 4 but little risk in doing so.

Hole 5 - possibly the widest fairway on the course with a flanking bunker left in range for most and two flanking bunkers right which are so far out of range that even Daly wouldn't get there on a normal day. Another big open green where it matters not a jot what angle you come in from.

Hole 6 - par 5 where the green complex and centreline bunker short of the green is a copy of the 3rd to the extent of facing the same way. I do like this approach and the need to work your way round the bunker with your second but the drives just another case of hitting into a wide open space and having a nice day, look at the views , isn't it lovely kind of pish golf scenario.

Hole 7 - copy of the 15th, again playing in the same direction as the 15th, except the fairways wider and the green is even bigger and more open with a bail out area to the right. The interest/hazard here is being able to hit it far enough to reach without snap hooking over the cliff.

Hole 8 - downhill par 3, wide green, narrow front to back Nice hole.

Hole 9 - split level fairway (very wide, surprising that isn't it) with short approach to green with junk front and left and bail out right. To quote one of the caddies to his player " if you go up the left you'll see the putting surface with your second but if you fall off to the right it doesn't matter as its just a half wedge to an open green". Sums it up neatly.

Visually CS is a lovely course and I can see it looks great on TV, however aesthetics don't make a golf course great. Where this course falls short is there is a complete lack of interest in an awful lot of shots. I firmly believe you don't need an US Open set up to do that, indeed mostly they provide a singular kind of challenge, but equally just giving wide open golf in nice surrounding doesn't do it either.

BTW, the lower holes are very good.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

David M,

the wind on Sunday was a 3 club wind and many of the pins were tucked away. This combined to add greatly to how difficult the course played.

Jon

[DMoriarty]

I haven't analysed the stats but not sure that the scoring was that much lower [higher?] on the final day.

Well why not just look at the leader board?  http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/season=2012/tournamentid=2012050/leaderboard/index.html

David Tepper estimated the scoring was three to five shots higher.   And judging between the difference between the first day scores and the last day scores of those who made the cut (just under 4 strokes harder) he was on the money. 

Is this going to be another what is "soft" discussion where you suggest the four strokes higher is "not that much higher?"

However you asked what happened, rain wind and colder day was what happened. That and nerves getting to some of the leaders.

Funny how with you this course it seems to be everything but the architecture. 
1.  I don't think nerves of the leaders explain the difference in scoring from top to bottom in the field. Again take a look at the leader board and you will see the scoring was much different from top to bottom!   
2.  While the weather was a bit different it was by no means harsh --I'd guess a relatively benign day by links standards.   For the most part most part the conditions and the THE ARCHITECTURE seemed to demand better play.

So again . . .  Given the difference in scoring on Sunday, "it would be foolish to suggest" that the soft conditions weren't "by far the main reason why the winning scores were so low."  When the conditions changed even a bit for the worse, the scores ballooned.  That would strongly suggest the architecture had something to do with it. 

Frankly Niall while I respect your opinion on all of this and appreciate your wasting your time trying to explain this stuff to someone who hasn't even been there, it seems you are intent on not letting the facts get in the way of your opinion about the course.
___________________________________________________________________

Jon.

A three club wind?  Well . . . you were there so I guess you should know . . .but that sure as heck didn't look like anything near to a three club wind to me. However many "clubs," the wind was certainly manageable with quality play, as we saw from a few. 

But we are in agreement that the change conditions was largely responsible for the change in scoring the last day.  To me this strongly suggests that the low scores on the first few days were more a product of benign, soft conditions rather some deficiency in the architecture as Niall keeps claiming.

Isn't this exactly how links golf is supposed to work?  Easy in benign conditions . . . much more difficult as the weather turns for the worse? 

As for what you describe as "tucked pins" I am a bit confused.  I didn't see many such pins . . . perhaps you can describe how the pins were "tucked?"  Tucked behind what?    "Tucked pins" suggests that the course must have at least some semblance of defense, and that there is some importance to angle of attack, and by Niall's description these characteristics are virtually nonexistent at Castle Stuart.

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

yes the wind played a major part on the last day. The pins on many of the holes were tucked in close to bunkers and hollows on the last day. As the the GCA aspects of CS I really like the course and feel it offers plenty of challenge and opportunity to all standards of player which was the intention.

Jon

[DMoriarty]

David,

yes the wind played a major part on the last day. The pins on many of the holes were tucked in close to bunkers and hollows on the last day. As the the GCA aspects of CS I really like the course and feel it offers plenty of challenge and opportunity to all standards of player which was the intention.

Jon

Sounds like we are in agreement.

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

yes the wind played a major part on the last day. The pins on many of the holes were tucked in close to bunkers and hollows on the last day. As the the GCA aspects of CS I really like the course and feel it offers plenty of challenge and opportunity to all standards of player which was the intention.

Jon

Sounds like we are in agreement.

Reckon so

[Jon Wiggett]

Just food foe thought. If the holes at the US open this year had been meassured according to the guidelines of old then Web Simpson would have been -15 under par. Winning score at the Sottish was -17 so on paper not much difference.

[Niall C]

David

Just about every one of my posts has been about the architecture ! WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON !

The longer the post, the more selective you like to read. My basic premis, is that this is an easy course relative to par. Do you doubt that ? Secondly, the reason for the scores being worse the last day was due primarily to weather, do you doubt that ? If the answer to both those questions are no then there is no need for you to go on talking shite.

Also David, when more than half the field are looking to get round the course as quickly as possible in order to get a taxi to the airport and the other half are getting themselves uptight while trying to win the tournament is it any wonder scores on the last day might not be as good as the first when everyones fresh, in with a shout and their nerves aren't shot to bits. 

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

if you read my post before yours it shows that the Olympic course only played about half a shot per round harder than CS yard for yard which quite amazed me. Does this suggest that the penal set up of the USGA is no more challenging than the strategy of CS' wide fairways and green complexes?

Jon

[DMoriarty]

Niall, it is paragraphs like your last one above that make me continue to question your objectivity concerning this course. You try to explain away a four stroke per player swing in the scoring by claiming half the field blew off their round because they were hurrying to catch their taxis to get to the airport?  Really?  

Yet you lash at out me, asking what planet I am on?  That's rich.

I didn't say your posts weren't about about architecture.  I said you have been trying to explain away the higher scores on the last day of the tournament by citing everything but the architecture.  Your latest post is further proof of this.   Your alternate theories - the nerves of the leaders, that horrific light breeze, that long line of waiting airport taxis - none begin to explain why when there was even a hint of weather the course held up very nicely, angles mattered, and the golf was very interesting.

Is the course easy relative to par?  It sure looked like this was largely dependent upon the conditions, and isn'tt that exactly how it ought to be on a quality links course?   As for why the scores were higher the last day, it looked like the course became exponentially more interesting and challenging with even a bit of weather.  Again, the way it should be.  

And Niall, if you agree with both these points "then there is no need for you to go on talking shite."  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re your response to Niall, and the parts I underlined,

I didn't say your posts weren't about about architecture.  I said you have been trying to explain away the higher scores on the last day of the tournament by citing everything but the architecture.  Your latest post is further proof of this.   Your alternate theories - the nerves of the leaders, that horrific light breeze, that long line of waiting airport taxis - none begin to explain why when there was even a hint of weather the course held up very nicely, angles mattered, and the golf was very interesting.

The AP wire story on the final round included the following:

"

............................

After three opening rounds of very low scoring, Castle Stuart finally bared its teeth Sunday.

A fierce westerly wind and heavy rain at times proved too much for top-ranked Luke Donald (73) and Phil Mickelson (74), who both finished tied for 16th at 12 under.

Warren, playing in the second-to-last group and also seeking that one remaining berth in the Open Championship, led by three shots with six holes remaining. But he faltered under pressure and dropped four strokes in the final four holes. He finished tied for third with Alexander Noren of Sweden (70) at 16 under.

.................................

"

So, at least one person felt that the wind was "fierce" and not your condescending "horrific light breeze".  And, said same person felt that at least Warren "faltered under pressure".  You're correct though, no mention of the early finishers running to catch cabs.

As to angles and architecture, you really should go there to see for yourself.  Pictures, TV, and trusted sources that have been there are not the same as having been there yourself. 

For whatever it's worth, I've played there and it is wide in any conventional definition of the term.  My one play was in 40 mph winds, so I was focused on survival and didn't really have the chance to study or experiment with the strategies involved in the course.  And, at 150 quid I doubt I will be back to find out.  Better a round at Dornoch and another at Brora with enough left over for a very nice dinner, in my opinion.

 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I'd like to see it for myself, and hopefully will some day, even if it means paying the steep fee you emphasize.   And maybe when I do, then I will realize that I have been deceived by all I have seen on television, in photos, and in video tours, and all I have heard in conversations of others who have played there or otherwise know the course well.  Maybe I'll agree that the course is as Niall understands it . . . way too easy and bereft of interesting golf shots and meaningful strategic interest.  

But more realistically, I suspect that our differences may be about more fundamental issues, such as role width and subtlety play in strategic design, as well as differences in understanding concerning incremental risk, delayed consequence, and the interplay of conditions and the architecture.  It seems to me that Castle Stuart (and courses like it) pose interesting challenges to the conventional wisdom concerning quality golf design, and I view my discussion with Niall as being more about those wider issues.  

As for the conditions on Sunday and the AP article on which you rely, did you happen to see the coverage of Sunday's round?   If so I doubt you'd agree with the characterization that the wind was "fierce," especially not if the wind was blowing 40 mph when you played the course.   Whatever you want to call the weather on Sunday, I trust that you will agree that the Sunday weather allowed for a more realistic assessment of the quality of the architecture than the unusually soft conditions of the first few days.

As for Warren spitting the bit down the stretch, what's that got to do with the discussion?   Surely you aren't buying into Niall's theory that the higher scoring on Sunday was consequent of a few of the leaders choking?   If so, why don't you go ahead and take a look at the numbers yourself?   How does Warren's collapse on Sunday (leading to a one under par round of 71) explain why the field on Sunday needed around 290 more strokes than the same golfers needed on Thursday?  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Niall has his view of the architecture based on first hand experience and his own set of values and standards.  You have your view of the architecture based on remote observation and third party reports and your own set of values and standards.  Your conclusions differ.  C'est la vie.

I suspect that someday when you do get there that you will find a lot that fits your architectural assessment eye.  You love Rustic.  You'll most likely love CS.  I hope that when you are there that you also see Dornoch and Brora and Nairn and Moray.  It would be an interesting study for you in comparing and contrasting a modern architected course and four very old architected courses, none of which will be remotely confused with CS in architectural style, but do have subtlety, incremental risk, delayed consequence, and feature interplay of conditions and the architecture.

I am wondering about your statement:

the Sunday weather allowed for a more realistic assessment of the quality of the architecture than the unusually soft conditions of the first few days.

Do you feel that the quality of architecture is best assessed under some specific set of weather conditions?  Dry, but not too dry.  Windy, but not too windy?  Warm, but not too hot or cold? 

I am reminded of a day that I played 36 at Rustic a couple of years ago.  The morning was OK, but in the afternoon they let us play for free because of the Santa Ana winds.  If I had only played in the afternoon I would have said the architecture was poor because there were 5 or 6 greens where it was not possible to keep the ball on the green and architectural features and subtleties were rendered moot because of the wind.  I think I could still see the architectural merit of the course, although it was clearly not designed to handle that weather. 

Tomorrow the Canadian Open will be at Hamilton, a classic Colt course.  We're getting pounded by severe thunderstorms tonight.  Will the architecture at Hamilton be tougher to realistically assess tomorrow because the course will be super soft and the tour guys will be playing dart board and scoring low?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

One should consider the gamut of conditions when assessing architecture.  My point was (and is) that it makes little sense to draw conclusions about the difficulty of CS based on tournament scoring when the conditions were unusually soft and still.  The same would apply to Hamilton unless the course generally plays "super soft."   Sunday at CS wasn't an extreme weather day.

As for your experience at Rustic where you feel the architecture failed, what's the point?  Was your point that sometimes one can play in certain conditions and come away not understanding the course?  If so, point taken.    Was it to provide an example on the other extreme of why judging a course in unusual conditions is not the best approach?  Again, point taken.   Was your point that solid architecture ought to shine through in a wide variety of conditions?  Again point taken (provided that solid architecture is not measured on the scorecard.)