Top 3 Scottish moderns ?

[Mark Pearce]

I played Kingsbarns for the first time this summer.  For whatever reason I was pre-disposed not to love it but I did.  A ton of great shots and absolutely beautiful.  That said, part of the attraction must be how easy it is.  It felt almost impossible to miss a fairway on the front nine, every time I tried the ball bounced back to the fairway.  They aren't flat motorways through the dunes but the ball does collect towards them.

I've only played four modern Scots courses (KB, Renaissance, Graighead and Craigielaw) and that would be the order I would put them in.  That said I'm a big fan of what Gil Hanse achieved at Crail on a flat bit of land and a very limited budget.

[Sean_A]

Frank why walk courses in the land that is the home of golf when there are hundreds of reasonably priced courses to play? You'd learn a lot about top level links golf at North Berwick or Royal Dornoch for half the price of the new American links courses.

Sean didn't you play Trump or was that on a deal?

David Tepper I'd be interested to know how many Scots play the courses at full whack now the local's discounts.

Are the fairways at Kingsbarns like the back nine at Hillside, motorways through the dunes?

Chappers

I've only played two Scot mods; Trump and Castle.  Both had some quite impressive aspects to the designs and I think Trump is a great course.  I prefer Castle, but think Trump is better, however, both left me slightly flat for various reasons discussed previously.  I won't be going back to either at full price. 

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

"David Tepper I'd be interested to know how many Scots play the courses at full whack now the local's discounts."

Mark -

I am not sure what what you are asking. The majority of Scots I know who have played Castle Stuart have enjoyed it very much.

Regardless, I think green fees should have no relevance in discussing the quality of a golf course. If the question was "what modern golf courses in Scotland are the best values," you could factor green fees into the equation. Otherwise, green fees (and initiation fees and annual dues) should be irrelevant.

DT    

[archie_struthers]

 

Why does moving dirt disqualify a project such as Kingsbairns,  even a little bit ?

Of course I'm sensitive because the only 18 hole course I built moved more than 4,000,000 lol

For my money it's easier to make a good site awesome than a dump. But that's another conversation. Once it's built , it's built .

 I've been a little surprised that Trump's new course gets so few votes , hope it's not a bias . Confess  don't have enough personal  knowledge of Scottish courses to opine on favorites.

[Kyle Casella]

I always think it's odd when someone says that a parkland course shouldn't be considered for this sort of thing because "it's Scotland." True, Scotland is known for its linksland, but we shouldn't define an entire country by one style of course? I would have to put Loch Lomond in my top 3, especially with the improvements that have been made to the turf conditions there in the last decade. The variety of holes is outstanding, especially the two short par fours and the great cape finisher.

[Ryan Coles]

Posted in error.

[Robert Thompson]

Though it is hard to separate the course from its owner, there's no question that Trump International Scotland (isn't it redundant to call it both "international" and "Scotland"?) is an exceptional course, certainly in the handful of great courses built in the last few decades. I am predisposed to not liking it; however, it was very well done, some nitpicks aside.

Castle Stuart is also excellent, though in a completely different way.

And I'm also fond of Kingsbarns.

I'll say this: all three have excellent routings, that turn and wind, play into the wind, down wind and cross wind. Many traditional links are out-and-back; none of the three I mentioned are that way, which is a big benefit to them. There are also a lot of traditional links with questionable closing holes; however, I'd say all three of these modern courses have strong finales.

[BHoover]

[Sean_A]

I spose describing Trump Aberdeen's 18th as strong is appropriate so long as strong doesn't mean good  

Ciao  

[Niall C]

Robert

As a confirmed links lover who has played most of his golf on links over the last 15 years, I've come to the conclusion that designing a routing to give different winds isn't a worthwhile objective. For a start, in a 3 to 4 hour round, the chances are the wind is going to shift direction repeatedly such it could about face by the time you are finished. Even two consecutive holes playing the same direction tee to green can be different if for instance in the first hole you drive to the right side of the fairway whereas the next hole you drive straight or to the left. Even assuming the wind stays constant, the subtle changes in angle of approach shots is enough to make a difference.

Apart from that enjoy the challenge of a "hard" outward half where you have to knuckle down followed by an "easier" inward half where there is a chance to make some headway on your score, or indeed vice a versa.

BTW, are you still on your Scottish tour and what courses have you played/still to play ?

Niall

[Gary Slatter]

Agree  about the changing winds Niall!   Played both1 and 18 on the Old Course into 40 mph breeze one round, also played 9 and 10 with the wind at my back (too long at the refreshment vehicle).

The original Torrance and the original Devlin are both better than their present offering.   Although the bunkering on both is now excellent, some of the best work that I have seen.

[Sean_A]

So there is no potential difference in quality between an out n' back design and one such as Muirfield where wind direction constantly changes?  If this is what you lot are claiming, I couldn't disagree more. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean

In terms of quality, no, in terms of effect, yes. I just don't think it a worthwhile objective. As I said in my earlier post, even on your typical out and back routing, the wind changes during a round anyway so it seems hardly worthwhile IMO.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

I am not sure what to say  .  My home course is an out n' backer and I can count on two hands how many times the wind has shifted during a round and on one where the wind has shifted significantly.  To me, its an obvious advantage to design holes in different directions if possible.  Why rely on the rare times when wind changes during a round if you don't have to?  In other words, out n' backers are that way because of needs must.  What archie would build an out n' backer on a property that doesn't have to be that way?  No matter what the wind does during a given round, it will be more varied if more holes run in different directions compared to an out n' back design.  Its incredible that yopu would think otherwise. 


Ciao

[Michael Graham]

My favourite 3 moderns

1. Castle Stuart,
2. Kingsbarns
3. Archerfield (Fidra)

Michael

[Niall C]

Sean

With regards change in wind direction, I suspect that it’s one of these things we will just have to disagree on however let me say in the hundreds of rounds I’ve played on links over the years I’ve found it’s not at all unusual for a significant change in wind direction during the round and probably happens more often than not.

However the point is surely that even a slight change in angle in wind direction vis-a-vis direction of travel requires the golfer to think and reassess how he’s going to play the shot. Even with a constancy of wind direction and holes playing on an exact some bearing (how often do you get that ?), the average golfer would still get variation in the direction of wind they would be playing into (or behind them) since most golfers tack their way up the fairway anyway either by accident or design, and therefore there would be variation in the approach shots at least.

For my money what’s of much more significance in a routing is the sequencing of holes in terms of how they affect the rhythm of the round, and how the course travels through the landscape.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,

I'm afraid that I once again find myself siding with Sean. That must be 3 times in a row, surely a record.

I think you are on a loser here and if presented with a long narrow strip of land, then I'd do everything in my power to route switchback holes and at least one or two par-3's going perpendicular to the general flow.

Wind changes, yes. But you are far more likely to experience variety over the course of 4 hours with a Muirfield or Portmarnock routing as opposed to a Royal Aberdeen or St Andrews.

[Sean_A]

Sean

With regards change in wind direction, I suspect that it’s one of these things we will just have to disagree on however let me say in the hundreds of rounds I’ve played on links over the years I’ve found it’s not at all unusual for a significant change in wind direction during the round and probably happens more often than not.

However the point is surely that even a slight change in angle in wind direction vis-a-vis direction of travel requires the golfer to think and reassess how he’s going to play the shot. Even with a constancy of wind direction and holes playing on an exact some bearing (how often do you get that ?), the average golfer would still get variation in the direction of wind they would be playing into (or behind them) since most golfers tack their way up the fairway anyway either by accident or design, and therefore there would be variation in the approach shots at least.

For my money what’s of much more significance in a routing is the sequencing of holes in terms of how they affect the rhythm of the round, and how the course travels through the landscape.

Niall

Niall

You just changed your tune.  Previously you stated wind wasn't worth designing for because it changes through a round.  I think this is a dubious claim, but whatever.  Now you are saying there are more important elements to design for.  That may well be, but if an archie has the opportunity to switch hole directions several times, do ya think the varying wind directions will have an important bearing on the rhythm and flow of a links?  I think all the possible elements get wrapped into one whole when it comes to how a course unfolds and that wind is potentially both extremely important and huge benefit to be taken advantage of for the right properties. 

Ciao     

[Niall C]

Sean

When I've got more time I'll check back to see where I've changed my tune, although I don't think I have. My point has always been why bother designing holes in different directions to vary the wind direction that you play with when the wind largely does that for you, therefore holes shooting off in various directions is not at all an essential criteria for me.

Re wind having a bearing on rhythm and flow, are you suggesting that with a routing with holes going at all angles that it’s easier to take the wind into consideration in the rhythm and flow of the course ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

Sean

When I've got more time I'll check back to see where I've changed my tune, although I don't think I have. My point has always been why bother designing holes in different directions to vary the wind direction that you play with when the wind largely does that for you, therefore holes shooting off in various directions is not at all an essential criteria for me.

Re wind having a bearing on rhythm and flow, are you suggesting that with a routing with holes going at all angles that it’s easier to take the wind into consideration in the rhythm and flow of the course ?

Niall

Jeepers, you have lost me. I can't understand how more holes heading in different directions doesn't result in more varying wind directions.  You seem to be saying that out n' back design works just as well as at Muirfield in terms of providing wind variety.  If this is the case, yer bonkers    If varying direction of wind is important, I don't think there is any question that altering hole directions will much better achieve this than relying on the wind to change.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I can't help thinking the above is not what you meant. 

Ciao   

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean, Ally,

I would hope that a GCA would design the course to make best use of the land in respect of its features. If this means an out and back then so be it but it could also mean something more like Muirfield. I understand what you are saying but designing for the wind should be way down the list of priorities here in the UK as the wind does vary a lot. As for two loops of nine, even par 36 both sides or 4 par 5s and 3s these concepts have ruined more courses than created.

Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jon,

I reckon changing direction is an integral part of routing a course, not just for wind. I try and avoid multiple holes heading in the same direction, the same as I try and avoid 3 or more sardines back to back. Both options take away from the sense of adventure.

I do like the odd out and back routing at the seaside - just like I like a brisk winter walk along the beach and back - but even most of those have the odd kink. Playing a links in a wind where your front nine is about controlling the ball down wind and your back nine is a slog in to it generally detracts. I prefer it mixed up more.

So I do have it as a consideration. How far down it lies in my list of considerations I don't know. Because I find the process more intuitive than that. You take it all as a whole. That's my experience anyway.

[Niall C]

Sean

Nope, quite happy with what I said. I think it's the difference going from in yer face to wind in your back and back again, compared to more subtle changes where the change in direction is maybe a quarter or so. You still get variety, just a different flavour.

Niall

[Ben Malach]

1. Craighead
2. Castle Stuart
3. Kingsbarns

I think Craighead is overlooked a lot of times as it has the misfortune of being next to one of the best traditional links in the world.
   

[Niall C]

Ben

That's an interesting selection, putting Craighead before the other two. I quite like Craighead as indeed I quite like Balcomie but I wouldn't put either of them near the top of their respective categories.

Niall