The St Andrews (Castle) course is not everybody's cup of tea but...

[Jim McCann]

... for Tom Doak to rate it a 0 (yes, ZERO) on the Doak scale is, I would suggest, more than a little controversial :

http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/course-architect-tom-doak-gives-rival-david-mclay-kidds-castle-course-st-andrews-zero-rating-new-book?mobile=n

Or perhaps it's just a clever way of directing attention towards his new book...

[Paul_Turner]

I thought Archerfield was going to get the 0.

[Sean Leary]

The article doesn't explain what a Doak zero means, unfortunately...

[jeffwarne]

Was in the St. Andrews area this summer and never considered playing there based on all I had heard and read in the past few years.
Newer courses in that part of the world just aren't my cup of tea with so many more subtle older choices (not exactly fair I know)
Certainly given the neighborhood it would have to be quite an extended trip to consider spending big $$ playing there with so many other options.

That said, Clicked on the Castle website just now after reading the "0" article and the pictures made it look quite appealing-certainly somewhere one could spend an enjoyable afternoon (even if spending some of the time head scratching)

I guess any publicity is good publicity?? (because the course hasn't crossed my mind for a long time and now it has)

[Ryan Coles]

Is Queenwood in the confidential guide?

[Greg Taylor]

Got to love golf course architecture.

Wot other  profession could you rate someone else's work a ZERO and publish it in a book....?!

Classic!

[Thomas Dai]

This is the Doak Scale I believe.

"0" in bold.

0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.

1-A very basic golf course, with clear architectural malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid even if you're desperate for a game.

2-A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. As my friend Dave Richards summed one up: “Play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer”.

3-About the level of the average golf course in the world. (Since I don’t go out of my way to see average courses, my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better, and the best).

4-A modestly interesting course, with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18, or at least some scenic interest and decent golf. Also reserved for some very good courses that are much too short and narrow to provide sufficient challenge for accomplished players.

5-Well above the average golf course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if you’re in the vicinity and looking for a game, but don’t spend another day away from home just to see it, unless your home is Alaska.

6-A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn’t disappoint you.

7-An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning, and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8-One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8’s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.

9-An outstanding course – certainly one of the best in the world – with no weaknesses in regard to condition, length, or poor holes. You should see this course sometime in your life.

10-Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Drop the book and call your travel agent – immediately.

Question - has the scale changed for the new book?

atb

[Ryan Coles]

Got to love golf course architecture.

Wot other  profession could you rate someone else's work a ZERO and publish it in a book....?!

Classic!

When it's the only zero amongst 288 courses (apparently) it seems a bit of a hatchet job to me.

I did chuckle at the line that Ran Morrissett hadn't seen it. The Arsene Wenger of golf course reviews.

[Chris DeToro]

This is great.  Can't wait to read the rest of the book!

[Frank Pont]

Very Strange.

I did not like the shaping of the greens, but thought the landscape and routing they created on a rather unpromising site were good.

I can think of many far worse courses.

[Marty Bonnar]

I'd LOVE to hear Paul Kimber's thoughts.
F.

[Daryl David]

0-A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place.

I think Melvyn would say Tom nailed it. 

[Tom_Doak]

Here is my actual review:

“A friend of mine who had never played The Old Course waited for hours at the starter's box in July to try to get out as a single, and as the day was starting to wane, he told the starter he was thinking of going up to The Castle Course instead. ‘No laddie, you don't want to do that,’ came the reply. ‘We'll get you out yet.’

I'm with the starter on this one. I feel for David Kidd because a lot of the criticisms of the course are things one might say about The Old Course if it wasn't so famous: the greens are huge and wild, and it's hard to discern the strategy from the tee. However, the severe tilt of the land and the size of the greens yields a lot of recovery shots to greens that are up over your head, and the moonscape of the course is only appealing when you’re looking away from it, across the bay toward town. Trying to one-up Kingsbarns (a heralded course just up the road) turned out to be a formula for excess.”


The course was rated 0 - 5 5  ... Ran hasn't seen it, the others each gave it a 5, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

It is one rating out of 288 in the book.  I am certainly not rating it that way to be controversial; GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial. 

It's my honest opinion.  You may all choose to play the Castle Course every day for the rest of your lives, if you want.  I can't imagine.

[Ryan Coles]

Tom were there any other courses with a disparagy of 5 or more between marks amongst you?

[Mike Treitler]

Personally I really enjoyed the castle course. It's absolutely beautiful and i didn't find the greens to be as crazy as people have said.  Its not the greatest course ever but it was my first course off the plane in Scotland and I found it to be a fun warmup round.

To each his own I guess.  It was the worst of the 6 I played out there but the others were toc, kingsbarns, prestwick, carnoustie and turnberry so that's not saying much.

[John Crowley]

Played it only once, never again. It fulfills most of the criteria in the definition of a zero.
Good views of the town and sea but that can be had from other high points without having to suffer through a round of golf.

[Scott Warren]

It is one rating out of 288 in the book.  I am certainly not rating it that way to be controversial; GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.  

Tom, you're PR savvy enough to know that shitcanning a rival designer's work would be a significant talking point, and as you're launching the first of five new volumes of the book, the discussion and promotion is welcome, I am sure.

GOLF.com is focusing on it because it's notable and newsworthy, which you knew it would be when you assigned the duck egg.

Given you say in the article that you like DMK, did you consider giving him a call privately before the book was published to give him a heads-up that you had given him the only 0 in the book?

[Keith Phillips]

GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.

Really?  You are blaming golf.com for being controversial?  I've never played the Castle and have no relationship with Kidd so have no reason to discredit the '5' median rating.  And since it's 'The Doak Scale' I guess it is hard to dispute the ZERO rating that was assigned by the founder, but for me it begs the question...'what is the point of the exercise?'  Is this really the worst course in the United Kingdom?  I suppose that's possible but for me this all seems 'Krugman-esque'

[Bill_McBride]

GOLF.com is choosing to focus on it to be controversial.

Really?  You are blaming golf.com for being controversial?  I've never played the Castle and have no relationship with Kidd so have no reason to discredit the '5' median rating.  And since it's 'The Doak Scale' I guess it is hard to dispute the ZERO rating that was assigned by the founder, but for me it begs the question...'what is the point of the exercise?'  Is this really the worst course in the United Kingdom?  I suppose that's possible but for me this all seems 'Krugman-esque'

Please translate "Krugman-esque."

[Ben Sims]

My understanding of the Doak scale--at least at the lower end--is to identify some golf courses that are blatantly contrived and shouldn't have been built. If anyone can give a solid reason why St. Andrews needed another course that is geographically separate from its others and sited on a junky piece of land, you're smarter than me. Tom's review read more like he felt sorry for Kidd than anything else.

As for all the hubbub surrounding this first book, a little controversy was bound to occur. It should take the edge off the impending meltdowns that some in the business will have following the second and third installments. It's all very delicious for those of us that love golf courses.

[Keith Phillips]

Haha I created a term but have since googled and see many others preceded me.  I view Krugman as a leader in his field who is clearly brilliant and influential, but commonly makes outlandish, indefensible claims intended to generate publicity as much as anything else (again, in my view).  I LOVE the original Confidential Guide (it is on my coffee table as we speak), but really struggle with taking such a shot as a ZERO on a course that has generally received mediocre-to-good ratings...I get that books are being sold, but just cannot understand the need to inflict such harm on a course and an architect...and, from 1000s of miles away and not having read the book, that is what appears to be happening. So yes, Krugman-esque.

[Ryan Coles]

My understanding of the Doak scale--at least at the lower end--is to identify some golf courses that are blatantly contrived and shouldn't have been built. If anyone can give a solid reason why St. Andrews needed another course that is geographically separate from its others and sited on a junky piece of land, you're smarter than me. Tom's review read more like he felt sorry for Kidd than anything else.

As for all the hubbub surrounding this first book, a little controversy was bound to occur. It should take the edge off the impending meltdowns that some in the business will have following the second and third installments. It's all very delicious for those of us that love golf courses.

Surely all golf courses are, by definition, contrived.

Not sure that Southampton 'needed' another course, either.

There is almost a rite of passage about someone young giving the establishment a bit of a kicking, as the original guide does in places. The confidential premise of the original was to many endearing in its honesty.

When you are the establishment and you've clearly already won the argument but continue to kick, IMO, it is gratuitous.

[John Kirk]

I did not play the Castle course, but I walked around it with a cousin of mine.  It is very severe, and the contouring is complex and ornate.  There are several tee shots where the landing area is partially hidden from sight.  My cousin, who lives in St. Andrews, played it once.  To be fair, he is in his seventies, so the course would be an arduous walk.

[Rich Goodale]

Living within an hour's drive from St. Andrews, I occasionally followed the development of the course as it was being built and was neither impressed nor inspired to want to play the course.  A few years after after its completion I walked a few of the holes with Tom (and other archies) when they were in the toun for a conference.  This hour's walk confirmed my lack of desire to ever play the course, even if I were comped (which I am from time to time, being a writer).  The more I think of it, "wouldinae play the course even if comped" is a reasonable way of defining a "Doak 0."

I tgake a loook of the course annually, as I have business in St. Andrews, and while the Don King's Hair mounds that infested the early version have had a cut and blow dry,  the overall routing and green designs are still not value for money.  Why oh why did the Links Trust ever even consider building this monstrosity?

Either by my or Tom's scale, this course is a zero.

[Mark Chaplin]

I've played many of the worlds great courses and whilst this isn't one of them it was an enjoyable game with a few cracking holes.

Ryan asks the important question, how many other courses have a 5 point difference between the reviewers? If it's none it kinda undermines this review and suggests to the reader a more underlying factor.