The Macleod at Trump Aberdeen

[Niall C]

The fact is that the course is most definitely good enough to earn accolades from many discerning critics. Most seem to really like it, some to varying degrees, but when people like Ran, Brad Klein, Joe Passov and Geoff Shackleford endorse it's architecture, that speaks with enough respectable volume.

Steve

We've covered this ground before. Other equally discerning critics as the ones you name have also made critical comment on the course, and I'm refering to those on here who's opinion I value, and their comments while being fair in highlighting the good points about the course (IMO) have also made justifiable critical comment as well (again IMO). All that is fair and admirable on a discussion board that seeks to promote frank and honest discussion about golf course design.

You on the other hand seem to believe that this course is beyond any critical comment and consider that as Ran/Brad/Joe/Geoff have all spoken, we should all just shut up and tow the line on the basis that these guys know better than us. Apart from being contrary to the point of this discussion board as outlined above, I also take exception to the bit about these guys views being worth more than mine. For one thing I paid for my round, how about them ?

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Where did I say that, Jon?  I'm baffled!

Rich

The former is history, struggling to maintain its place.  
Rich

I, along with others probably thought the above Rich. I did not take your comment seriously though. I too think that Trump will be good for the area and that he has had a positive influence for golf in general.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Steve,

I come to exact opposite conclusion and would suggest that the last thing that should be done is forget all that has gone wrong in this project. It should be remembered so as not to allow such a farce to occur again. The project was rejected by the  regional constituency which was overruled by national powers who now regret doing it.................

Jon

Exactly.

I can only assume, Steve, you really have failed to grasp just how objectionable many people find Trump and his band of mercenaries. The fact that you, Trump and all his little Yes Men would love for those that opposed the project to simply slip off into the shadows is exactly why that won't be happening. If that kind of belligerent approach offends you, maybe you should have another long, hard look at just whose actions you've been supporting.

[Steve Lapper]

Niall,

   I'm not sure I understand your two paragraphs? In the first you suggest that all the folks I mentioned made positive and critical remarks about the course and that's certainly true.....though to a man they were overwhelmingly positive. In the second you attack me and suggest I'm trying to force feed their opinions down people's throats??? My fine sir, which one is it??

    I have NEVER thought this, or any other course, "is beyond critical comment and consider that as Ran/Brad/Joe/Geoff have all spoken, we should all just shut up and tow the line on the basis that these guys know better than us." Quite the opposite if you took the time to actually read. The course, like most all other new courses, has its' flaws and all the names I cited, including myself, found no less than a few. With time, perhaps Trump/Hawtree will remedy them and improve it's architectural integrity?

   On the subject of the comparative weight of those views, I'd staunchly argue that the likes of Brad, Ran, Joe and Geoff have more than likely seen a vastly greater number of golf courses than you (and most others including myself) have, or ever will, see. Therefore, their opinions have EARNED the respect I find myself according them.  Additionally, Ran, Brad, Geoff (and myself) have all been, at one time or another, intimately involved in developing a golf course or two. Have you?? Do you exactly know the spectrum of what's involved in most facets of golf course design & construction? I may well be wrong, but I think not. Regardless, it's a tough and difficult road to navigate and while it doesn't absolve you of unethical behavior, it can be maddeningly frustrating.

   As for paying for the round vs. being comped, that's unmitigated bullshit. Are you suggesting Ran, Brad, Joe or Geoff are for sale? especially for a few hundred quid?? Really? I don't believe you are that cynical, but perhaps I'm wrong? As a rater, I've less-than-liked plenty of places that have cost even more than Trump Scotland. I know a good deal of savvy golf architecture critics, raters, journalists, etc.. and not a single one of them has an opinion available for purchase below $5M.

Paul,

  This site isn't, and shouldn't be, a political one. The fact that you post incessant hate and denigration for anything Trump is well established and well associated with your voice here. None of it has any value as to the architectural values of the golf course nor it's relevance to the game of golf.

   I really don't expect you or the rest of the haters to "slip off into the shadows." You should absolutely follow your heart and channel all of your passion into hating if that's your thing, but none of it here will do you any good save for assuring others of your"post facto unseemly behavior," and cheapen your contribution. Perhaps I can suggest you direct it into writing Scottish politicians and media to constructively channel your rage. Blame all the politicians if you wish, but with even a small mirror, one can see where the real or equal belligerence lays.

   I don't, per se, support all of Donald Trump's actions or his approach to things. I've made that clear here before, however, I do support the finished product in this case as well as the contribution it's made to golf in the Aberdeenshire region. I think the course is hardly the naked "tourist attraction" you called it.  No doubt it wasn't built for the locals, but like others I mentioned (i.e. Whistling Straights, Kingsbarn, Kiawah etc....) it doesn't mean it's wrong for not addressing a nearby market. Are you afraid to admit your description doesn't work quite well?

Brian,

   I won't speak for Pat...heaven knows he will for himself, but you've made a strong practice of posting all negative press pieces on mostly political machinations concerning anything Trump in Scotland, no? That's your right, however, it can hardly lead to a fair and reasonable discussion of the course(s).

All,

   I respect that you have a strong distaste for all things Trump. I get it. That's your privilege, but shouldn't we here on GCA.com stick to debating the merits of the course(s)?  ???So far, the majority of people who've played the first course have, with fair commentary and critique , liked it. That would seem to be an uncontested fact. I'll happily stick to discussing the merits of Hawtree's work and leave the other stuff aside. Can you?

[Brian_Ewen]

Brian,

   I won't speak for Pat...heaven knows he will for himself, but you've made a strong practice of posting all negative press pieces on mostly political machinations concerning anything Trump in Scotland, no? That's your right, however, it can hardly lead to a fair and reasonable discussion of the course(s).

Posted many positive press pieces on the course also.

But like Mr Mucci, you see what you want to see.

[Ken Moum]

   As for paying for the round vs. being comped, that's unmitigated bullshit. Are you suggesting Ran, Brad, Joe or Geoff are for sale? especially for a few hundred quid?? Really?

I certainly wouldn't suggest that they are "for sale."

But i do believe it's a fact that free golf for people in the industry is a part of what's wrong with golf in the US, and i am saddened that places like Trump Aberdeen and Kingsbarns have exported our business model to Scotland.

I worked in the industry for about 10 years and spent a fair amount of time around some of the game's decision makers, and I believe that  endless free golf has made most of the people who work in business completely unaware of how devastating it is to average folks to see a fourball that costs two weeks pay.

And I do think that judging courses without considering what their prices are, especially in places like Scotland where golf is still truly a sport of the people, has the potential to harm the game in fundamental ways.

Just yesterday I played with a Scot who was lamenting the fact that his home course had built a new tee to make a par four into a par five, "Because Americans don't want to play a par 69."  And that we mostly come to Scotland with a checklist to tick off, Nairn, Cruden Bay, Dornoch, TOC, Troon, Kingsbarns, et. al.

I didn't think about it at the time, but look at what that checklist has done to the green fees at those courses.  

IMHO, it's shame.  And I say that knowing that there isn't really any solution to is.

K

[Sean_A]

Ken

Courses being maintained and sometimes altered to fit the tourist market is a reasonable opinion to hold, but I wouldn't blame tourists for this state of affairs.  It is the clubs that do the courting and decision-making.  

I do agree on your point about judging courses.  I don't believe for a stone cold minute that anybody is capable (even if willing to do so) of stripping away the extras of the experience of visiting a club, course and history when actually getting down to brass tacks of rating a course.  I would rather that fact on the table from the get go so the extras can be talked about as part of the overall experience.  Of course, if we are talking about an experience, there is nothing wrong with talking about the cost of the experience.  Its all a matter of opinion. I know I say it all the time, but if it was only the course raters were interested in they would absolutely limit their contact with club employees and the house.  They should pay full whack and not let on in any way that the intention is to rate the course.  In and out - course focused, no freebees, no beers, no laughs with owners etc - in and out.  The bottom line is the rating system rates the course and the experience under the guise of rating a course.  Why not just admit this is the case upfront?  

But of course we all know golf is a social game and that golfers do care about extras such a views, nice house etc etc - so is the in and out model really valuable?  For me it isn't because I don't trust the rating system.  Many raters don't practice the in and out model - sometimes because it is impossible to do so.  The system is even more difficult for writers.  After being schmoozed to a lesser or greater degree, its difficult for a writer to then slam a course.  He is leaving himself open to getting the cold shoulder when places calls and getting it in the neck from the boss.  So what do we get, a lot of fluff much of which has nothing to do with the quality of the course.  

Steve

I believe I have given Trump I a fair shake.  I am in doubt it is a great course.  I am also in no doubt that the course doesn't really grab me for several reasons, the biggest of which is design style mainly around the greens and philosophically about daring design.  I think the property could have yielded something much more bold in terms of design instead of the heavy visual focus.  I accept that people love views so that is more my issue than Hawtree's.  The thing about its near neighbour, Cruden Bay, it has the views and the bold design - some of which works and some not so well.  That said, there are as many very good holes at CB as at Trump.  

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve Lapper,

your very black and white in concern to who is for and against this project and the balance of opinions. Maybe you should read some of the posts again. Oh, have you played or even seen the course in person?

Jon

[Ken Moum]

Ken

Courses being maintained and sometimes altered to fit the tourist market is a reasonable opinion to hold, but I wouldn't blame tourists for this state of affairs.  It is the clubs that do the courting and decision-making.  

Of course you are right. Nevertheless it does sadden me that our business model could be worming its way into Scotland. At least someone like me can still play most of the Open rota, even if it's getting pretty costly.

The bottom line is the rating system rates the course and the experience under the guise of rating a course.  Why not just admit this is the case upfront?  Of course, if we are talking about an experience, there is nothing wrong with talking about the cost of the experience.

I think I would take my point about too much free golf even farther, since we are talking about lists aimed at golfers, why do we have accept that two similarly courses should get the same consideration when the difference in visitor green fee is a factor of 3x to 5x?

Some times the high fee is intended to discourage.  Karsten Creek is one example. OSU doesn't need the revenue to operate thanks to endowments that can fund all of the costs to operate and maintain.  So they set the green fee at ~$75, doubled it, then doubled it again--which apparently has the number of outside rounds where they want it, which is fine.

But when assessing the course, please don't overlook the fact that the other "public" course in town is about 1/10 that.

But of course we all know golf is a social game and that golfers do care about extras such a views, nice house etc etc - so is the in and out model really valuable?  For me it isn't because I don't trust the rating system.  Many raters don't practice the in and out model - sometimes because it is impossible to do so.  The system is even more difficult for writers.  After being schmoozed to a lesser or greater degree, its difficult for a writer to then slam a course.  He is leaving himself open to getting the cold shoulder when places calls and getting it in the neck from the boss.  So what do we get, a lot of fluff much of which has nothing to do with the quality of the course.  
I give the raters a little more credit than that. I think they really do try to look at just the quality of the course, but htat has to be difficult.  And if they DO consider the amenities, the isn't cost sort of part of that?

[Steve Lapper]

Brian,

   If I've missed the positive posts I apologize, however I'd wager the majority have been skewed the other way.

Ken,

   Your point about free golf blinding the receiving from understanding what the effect of the cost is on the playing public may well have some validity, but when it comes to simply rating a course, it doesn't hold water. Course raters or panelists are asked to look and measure solely the course, ignoring the tangential experience, the atmosphere, as well as the cost. I don't think their measuring a course without regard to cost has done anything harmful to the game. In today's world of endless online information, any and all educated consumers do their own homework with regard to cost and desire. It is both human nature as well as a natural by-product of capitalism that the cream-of-the-crop (checklist) rises to the top. Demand and supply yield market pricing.

Sean,

     I agree to disagree with you. I can only speak for myself, but I've had plenty of experiences rating a course where the off-course interaction and experience has been near dichotic from the merits of the course. In fact, just last year on the same trip to the Boston area I was treated like crap at a club with beautiful facilities and a fabulous course, then warmly received just down the road by a slightly- lesser course with a tad more spartan atmosphere. I paid full freight at the first and was comped at the second. Did I as a self-respecting golfer wish the experiences were reversed? Sure, yet I ignored all but the courses and slotted them appropriately.

     Your point about golf scribes is much more poignant in my opinion as they are paid and in the employ of a publication or other media. Some do permit bias to produce fluff and as a reader, I make sure to note that every time they have a byline.

     On measuring the price of admission, any respectable art critic wouldn't begin to compare a Braque to a Lichtenstein with any regard to cost....there is no legitimate basis. They wouldn't weigh the cost of entry to their viewing venues either. Is a $350 round at Trump better than a $220 round at Dornoch? No. Maybe only an unbiased and ad-free travel guide (i.e Golf Odyssey) should make the cost-comparisons you allude to.

   As for Trump, you've always been fair, balanced, and more interested in enunciating your view of the course itself. Your opinion based on just that deserves respect from everyone and it most certainly has mine. I may disagree and feel the bones of a great course are there...just in need of some tweaking, but you'll note I've never doubted your approach and I respect that very much.

   Nor, by the way, have I ever knocked the architecture of nearby Cruden Bay. You'll recall I demurred about it's conditioning last year and felt like it was maintained with some neglect, but CB is a marvelous layout and most worthy of playing anytime one should have the chance. As someone whose last visit included rounds at Fraserburgh, Tain, Murcar, Boat of Garten, Brora as well as the the more popular venues, I believe in the inclusive school. The more the merrier IMHO.

Jon,

   Yes, I've played a total of 5 rounds on the course over two visits. You?

   Most who know me would tell you that while I have full color capability, I try to stay away from gray...doesn't look good on me . I am only judging what I read. You and a few others have spent the super-majority of your time posting purely negative things with little regard to balance. Folks like Sean and a Ran or Brad have been far fairer in their measure of the project and it's product. I'll respect them if you don't mind.


Cheers!

[Ken Moum]

Ken,

   Your point about free golf blinding the receiving from understanding what the effect of the cost is on the playing public may well have some validity, but when it comes to simply rating a course, it doesn't hold water. Course raters or panelists are asked to look and measure solely the course, ignoring the tangential experience, the atmosphere, as well as the cost. I don't think their measuring a course without regard to cost has done anything harmful to the game. In today's world of endless online information, any and all educated consumers do their own homework with regard to cost and desire. It is both human nature as well as a natural by-product of capitalism that the cream-of-the-crop (checklist) rises to the top. Demand and supply yield market pricing.

Oh, I know you're right.  I am currently in northern Scotland, and the "per diem" of golf trips has been on my mind, thanks to a discussion with another GCAer the other day.

I also have been sensitized to it because at both Fraserburgh and Brora there's some hope that they can have what their famous neighbors to the south have gotten.  I'm not sure they're aware of the collateral damage of being on "the checklist" for touring golfers--I hope they are looking at more than the fact that their green fees are half of what Cruden Bay, Nairn and Dornoch get.

[Sean_A]

Steve
 
Comparing golf architecture to fine art is well off base.  The bottom line is that golf courses exist to play on.  One doesn't rent fine art or at least very few people rent fine art and one doesn't play with fine art.  Plenty of people do "rent" a golf course/club for the round or day.  

If you can ignore lovely surroundings, views, history etc in determining the merits of a golf course I think you are in an extreme minority.  And that is before we even get to personal preferences when it comes to design.  I really tried to this thing for Links100.  In the end, it was a crapshoot in deciding if course A was better than course Z.  What is better, N Berwick or Muirfield?  I would say there is more of a problem with the question than the final decision.  I could fairly comfortably group courses more or less of the same quality, but I failed miserably beyond that.  I had no recourse other than to fall back on herd mentality and/or personal preference for that exercise.  I can, however, tell you which courses I would rather play again.

Just to be clear, I think Trump is great as it right now.  It ticks a ton of the right boxes.  My issues with the course are based on personal preferences and therefore I wouldn't pay the full freight to play it again.  

Ken

I think there is room in the GB&I market for the upscale public facilities and I don't necessarily think they are bad for golf.  Though, I am not sure what "bad for golf" even means.  In the short term at the very least, Trump has certainly been good for the other big name traditional clubs in the area.  Its been a win-win.  

Ciao      

 

[David_Tepper]

"I think there is room in the GB&I market for the upscale public facilities"

SeanA makes a very valid point here. It should be remembered that high-end golf "experiences" have existed in Scotland ever since luxury resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry were built to cater to golfing tourists early in the 20th Century.

In creating Castle Stuart, the proprietors explicity refer to those resorts as the models for their project.    

[Thomas Dai]

Steve, I come to exact opposite conclusion and would suggest that the last thing that should be done is forget all that has gone wrong in this project. It should be remembered so as not to allow such a farce to occur again. The project was rejected by the  regional constituency which was overruled by national powers who now regret doing it. I agree however that hopefully the whole thing will be a success and that course number two is even better. Funny that Rich G seems to think it will hurt other courses in the area though.
Jon

We shouldn't forget the farcical process by which course number 1 came about. Lessons should be learnt, not just in Aberdeenshire, but in the UK as a whole when it comes to land use and the application of existing laws and environmental and other restrictions.

As to course number 1, it's there now and I hope it's successful. I'm not sure why, given the issues of course number 1, course number 2 was permitted to go ahead......I presume it was because it is outside the environmentally 'protected' area, but it'll be there too one day and I hope it's successful as well. More golfing visitors to the NE of Scotland will not be a bad thing. There are some tremendous courses in that part of the world, and perhaps Cruden Bay apart, they have been off-radar for far too long.

As to the housing and hotel issues, that is another matter altogether. One where a line ought to be drawn in the sand (sic).

All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

I have posted many negative things about this project however I would say that on the whole my posts have been more balanced than yours. However, I suspect the fact that my overall opinion does not line up with yours is more to do with it.

Wow, 5 rounds means if you were paying the going rate you laid out almost £1000 on green fees or have you? If so I really have a lot of respect for the honesty of you opinion about the course. I have not played the course but not because of my opinions about Trump or the process that was taken in its planning and construction but rather I do not believe any course to be worth the price tag asked.

I have however seen the course on several occasions and whilst it is good it is disappointing given the site. As to the conditioning and presentation it can not be described as links in character.

Jon

[Niall C]

"On the subject of the comparative weight of those views, I'd staunchly argue that the likes of Brad, Ran, Joe and Geoff have more than likely seen a vastly greater number of golf courses than you (and most others including myself) have, or ever will, see. Therefore, their opinions have EARNED the respect I find myself according them.  Additionally, Ran, Brad, Geoff (and myself) have all been, at one time or another, intimately involved in developing a golf course or two. Have you?? Do you exactly know the spectrum of what's involved in most facets of golf course design & construction? I may well be wrong, but I think not. Regardless, it's a tough and difficult road to navigate and while it doesn't absolve you of unethical behavior, it can be maddeningly frustrating."

Steve

As I said, been here before.

In response to your questions, I've idea how many courses I've played. I stopped counting over a decade ago when I was c.150. I imagine it's about double that now. How many have they played ?

More to the point how much links golf have they played ? I'm sure they've played a good few links (I'm about 50 odd the last time I counted) but how many rounds over a links course have they actually played ? I'm not yet in my fifties and probably younger than those guys but I'll bet I've played more links golf than those four guys combined and not only that, but more experience in a greater variety of weather and conditions. Fast and firm links golf isn't something I experience once a year on holiday, it's what I play 95% of the time.

I'd respectfully suggest that counts a good deal more in judging a links course than how many courses in Florida someones played.

With regards to your other qualifier for earning Steve Lapper Respect, sorry no design credits other than those garnered doing the inaugural GCA course at ECA/Heriot Watt. I won't bother outlining my unwanted and unasked for suggestions on friends projects since I doubt they count.

With regards the "it doesn't absolve you of unethical behaviour" comment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not talking about me or my conduct on here.

Niall    

[Brad Klein]

Niall, your boasting is wasted. You have no idea how much golf any of us has played, or where. I can't vouch for the others and doubt it matters anyway. I've been to Bandon 15-20 times, been to GB&I well over 25 times, was a member of Royal Dornoch for 25 years and have played every major links course in England, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland, including every Open Championship rota venue and lots of secondary ones -- including Wick, Brora, Golspie, Cullen,Tain, Lossiemouth, Fortrose & Rosemarkie, just to pick one area of Scotland. You won't win a pissing contest. And I didn't just play them, I've written about them, meaning my judgments are a matter of public record and so I'm accountable for what I say. And some of us get to see courses in process - like ongoing site visits long before they even open to Kingsbarns, Trump Scotland and Castle Stuart. There's a difference between play and research. That doesn't mean my views are more credible than yours. But it means your attempt to wrap yourself in glory is vain thrashing about.

[Dan_Callahan]

I'd be interested to know from the architects on this site if the personality of an owner would ever cause you to turn down a chance to work on an exceptional piece of property. Or if you were already working on a site, and you saw an owner like Trump publicly ridicule Michael Forbes simply because he refused to be bought, would you remain quiet? Publicly condemn Trump's statements? Walk away? High-five Trump (in private, of course)? Is the fact that you have no control over the owner and are simply doing your job to the best of your ability enough? I can't imagine it comes up often, but I've got to believe it does once in a while, whether it is displacing people or acquiescing to decisions that will negatively impact the environment. Just curious how extreme the scenario would have to be to push you over the edge.

[Brian_Ewen]

SeanA makes a very valid point here. It should be remembered that high-end golf "experiences" have existed in Scotland ever since luxury resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry were built to cater to golfing tourists early in the 20th Century. 

Just looked at my green fee stub for when I first played the Kings Course in 1986.

£16 !

Oh for the days before golf was on the telly !

[Sean_A]

SeanA makes a very valid point here. It should be remembered that high-end golf "experiences" have existed in Scotland ever since luxury resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry were built to cater to golfing tourists early in the 20th Century.  

Just looked at my green fee stub for when I first played the Kings Course in 1986.

£16 !

Oh for the days before golf was on the telly !

Yes, for the last 20 years (at least), green fees in GB&I have far outstripped inflation.  From the early 80s is also the period of crazy maintenance increases to match tourist expectations - ie heavy water and feed.  Even so, I bet £16 was a hefty green fee compared to local clubs.  I seem to recall paying 40 punt on a deal for Ballybunion back in '92 or '93 and it was quite expensive, but not massively so.

Troon was very high end at about £60 20 years ago. That was a profound experience in economics for me.

Ciao

[Brad Klein]

Brian, 1975, first time over there, I got a 3-week BritRail Pass for about 80 Pounds, landed at Glasgow airport, took the train to Auchterarder, and I am certain that I paid 32 Pounds per night B&B at Gleneagles, inclusive of golf, for two nights. With a student's budget I also made it to St. Andrews, Carnoustie, Dornoch and Turnberry on that trip. In most towns I could get a B&B for 2.5 Pounds, even if I had to sleep in a grotty industrial dorm in Invergordon with oil workers. Of course salaries were a little different; the summer before, 1974, I drove a cab in NYC and thought I was rich making $250 a week.
 

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian, 1975, first time over there, I got a 3-week BritRail Pass for about 80 Pounds, landed at Glasgow airport, took the train to Auchterarder, and I am certain that I paid 32 Pounds per night B&B at Gleneagles, inclusive of golf, for two nights. With a student's budget I also made it to St. Andrews, Carnoustie, Dornoch and Turnberry on that trip. In most towns I could get a B&B for 2.5 Pounds, even if I had to sleep in a grotty industrial dorm in Invergordon with oil workers. Of course salaries were a little different; the summer before, 1974, I drove a cab in NYC and thought I was rich making $250 a week.
 

Ah, happy days Brad,

even in the early 80's I recall being able to play courses such as Moortown, Alwoodley, Ganton, Lindrick and Birkdale for under £2 for a day ticket as a junior.

Jon

[Niall C]

Niall, your boasting is wasted. You have no idea how much golf any of us has played, or where. I can't vouch for the others and doubt it matters anyway. I've been to Bandon 15-20 times, been to GB&I well over 25 times, was a member of Royal Dornoch for 25 years and have played every major links course in England, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland, including every Open Championship rota venue and lots of secondary ones -- including Wick, Brora, Golspie, Cullen,Tain, Lossiemouth, Fortrose & Rosemarkie, just to pick one area of Scotland. You won't win a pissing contest. And I didn't just play them, I've written about them, meaning my judgments are a matter of public record and so I'm accountable for what I say. And some of us get to see courses in process - like ongoing site visits long before they even open to Kingsbarns, Trump Scotland and Castle Stuart. There's a difference between play and research. That doesn't mean my views are more credible than yours. But it means your attempt to wrap yourself in glory is vain thrashing about.

Brad,

My boasting as you call it, was to point out to Steve that just because some of us on here don't write for a living doesn't mean our views aren't credible or valid. The point of this DG is supposedly to promote frank and honest discussion about golf course design, a point that Steve seems to forget as he repeatedly try's to close down discussion with citing your views as being the be all and end all.

And if you want to be pedantic, I was asking how much links golf you've played, not how many different links you've played or how long you've been a member of a golf club. In that particular pissing contest, as you call it, I don't doubt I'd win. You can also count me in as one who has seen courses before during and after construction, who's done the research as you put it.

However I suspect what's really got your goat is my query as to whether you'd paid the greenfee. Do I think you and the others mentioned, can be bought ? I doubt it, but like Darius Oliver on that other thread, free golf, transport and wining and dining is bound to help some take a different perspective, is it not ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Brian

I was clearing out a bag recently and came across a bundle of golf receipts from the last couple of years including our favourite, Forfar which cost £12, Covesea (2 x 9 holes) for £10, Boat of Garten for £16 (I think, I'd need to check that one but certainly wasn't the rack rate), Fraserburgh for £12, Inverallochy for £10 and Huntly for £15 (terrific if short front nine, have you played it ?).

The top deal however was Kingussie. The deal was supposed to be £12 for the round but when I pitched up the owner/manager/pro decided the course wasn't in good enough condition and felt a bit embarrased charging that price and instead charged £7.50 !  When I played the course, it was more than acceptable condition, not tip top by any means but more than good enough.

Plenty of cheap and reasonably priced golf on engaging and fun course can be had, particularly off peak.

Niall

[Simon Holt]

Can anyone that has played it, hand on heart tell me that Trump Scotland is not a good to great golf course?  Forget whether it could have been even better.  I think its very, very good indeed and Sean rates it as great in his own words.

I don't think many here can say they pay full freight all the time.  Most of us are lucky enough to be guests of members, certainly at high-end US or even many UK courses.  Then all the GCA get-togethers, when GCA stalwarts commendably get a better rate for the participants?  

If DG members start trying to call others out for how much they paid, which is quite blatant in this thread, will this be consistent across all course reviews?  

Should we ignore the discussion group's opinion of Silloth if the contributors didn't play full whack to play there?  Or don't we count that?

Do you guys expect people to declare what they paid at the start of the great photo threads we are treated to?  

I would like to think we have a little more class and/or respect than that.