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

[Mark Pearce]

If it had received a 1-4, I wouldn't even bother and strike it from my list to play. 

And this is the real problem with the a Doak scale.  People won't play a 4 because it's only a 4.  That's a good course but not worth playing because it isn't a 5.  And this isn't Tom's problem, it's the people who read the guide, understand the words but are too influenced by numbers.  It's a bit like Robert Parker and his wine scores.  The problem isn't the critic, it's the reader's inability to take the words on board properly.

[Jud_T]

Mark,

I disagree.  If anyone is stupid enough to completely ignore the write-ups and how they do/don't align with their own interests, budget and game and solely focus on the numbers, well better the CG than Digest at least.  And lets face it gents, I don't think Tom is looking to hit the NYT Best Seller list or finance an oceanfront home on Majorca with the proceeds from this.  That's the beauty of it-  a travel guide for the guy who already has a clue; The insider's guide to golf travel if you will.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I would side with Mark P. I think we live in a world ruled by numbers and whilst I think what you (Jud) say is also correct, most people see a 4 as below the benchmark. It is all explained in the book and largely its a private book, but its highly unlikely a club would boast about its Doak 4 rating.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I like the rating....now when TD gives my best courses a 1-2 rating, it will feel like an accomplishment!

More seriously, I saw DMK's response, and wonder if the Doak scale takes context into consideration.  As David says, when in St. Andrews, you can't "out old" the Old Course, and many attempts at the same style have been done there. Besides, Kingsbarn was a good effort at a 'modern adaptation of a links course" so it had already been done.

In a difficult comparative setting, I can sure see his reasoning to attempt something totally new for the area.  And, the zero comes from a guy who just told us in another thread that uniqueness counts for a lot from him. Granted, over the top has been done elsewhere, so it would only be regionally unique, but I would be sure to play both that and Kingsbarn on my next Scotland trip.  Whether it was a bucket list type deal, it shouldn't matter to the Doak ranking, since its basically for the traveling golfer, who would be most likely to see any course just once anyway, no?

[Pete_Pittock]

Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria? I can wait until the book comes out to find out the particulars of theii systems, if different.

Have you every charted out a bell curve?

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

If your goal is to play every course once and see for yourself, and you don't mind paying top dollar sight unseen to do it, then you're probably not in the market for a reference work.  Most golfers without unlimited time and budgets have to make some choices.

[Thomas Dai]

Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria?

Good question Pete!

When re-reading the D-S I couldn't but help think how the style of writing is jovial, jokey, lighthearted, flippant, almost as if written on the back of a napkin by a young man after several beers had been consumed in the company of a few mates. No disrespect intended, but I do wonder if the 0-10 groupings and the phrasing would have been the same if written by someone a couple of decades older?

atb

[Kyle Henderson]

To my knowledge (I read the Scott Gummer book about The Castle Course's conception), the project was actually completed on a relatively modest budget. In fact, the budget constaints aRe partly responsible for the elevated green complexes that Sir Doak dislikes, as the small deposits of sand found on site were used to build the greens up for drainage - the property was quite flat and mud prone and the resources needed to sand cap the entire site were not made available.

Im curious as to how the adjacent Torrance and Devlin courses were rated, as they looked pretty unispired and I suspect they had much higher construction budget judging by the numerous stone walls and water works that were produced to "supplement" the golfing experience.

[Jon Wiggett]

I do not have a copy of the guide so would be interested if there is any other course in there with a '0' rating?

Jon

[Tom_Doak]

I do not have a copy of the guide so would be interested if there is any other course in there with a '0' rating?

Jon

Jon:

There were about a dozen courses rated 0 in the original book.  Several of them have closed, or been totally redesigned in the twenty years since those grades were assigned.

There is only one "0" rating in the first volume of the new edition.  There may be a handful of other modern courses in the UK that might be considered for such a rating, but I haven't gone out of my way to see any of them.

I don't know how many "0"s there will be in the whole set, the jury is still out on other places.  After all the hullaballoo about the first one, maybe I should just abandon the grade and give those courses a "2".  The definition of a "2" is "Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria?

When re-reading the D-S I couldn't but help think how the style of writing is jovial, jokey, lighthearted, flippant, almost as if written on the back of a napkin by a young man after several beers had been consumed in the company of a few mates. No disrespect intended, but I do wonder if the 0-10 groupings and the phrasing would have been the same if written by someone a couple of decades older?

Thomas and Pete:

My co-authors are trying to apply the Doak scale as best they can.

Thomas, your characterization of the Doak Scale is probably in keeping with the spirit of the book, but at the time it was written I didn't drink!  Certainly the phrasing would have been different if I wrote it today.  My wife suggested the "0" should only say "I regret having gone to see it", so it wouldn't sound so judgmental ... but by the same token, many readers want the book to be judgmental.

[Jon Wiggett]

I do not have a copy of the guide so would be interested if there is any other course in there with a '0' rating?

Jon

Jon:

There were about a dozen courses rated 0 in the original book.  Several of them have closed, or been totally redesigned in the twenty years since those grades were assigned.

There is only one "0" rating in the first volume of the new edition.  There may be a handful of other modern courses in the UK that might be considered for such a rating, but I haven't gone out of my way to see any of them.

I don't know how many "0"s there will be in the whole set, the jury is still out on other places.  After all the hullaballoo about the first one, maybe I should just abandon the grade and give those courses a "2".  The definition of a "2" is "Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer."

Thanks Tom

[Thomas Dai]

Tom,
Do the other panelists rate on the Doak scale or their own 1-10 scale, which have different criteria?

When re-reading the D-S I couldn't but help think how the style of writing is jovial, jokey, lighthearted, flippant, almost as if written on the back of a napkin by a young man after several beers had been consumed in the company of a few mates. No disrespect intended, but I do wonder if the 0-10 groupings and the phrasing would have been the same if written by someone a couple of decades older?

Thomas and Pete:

My co-authors are trying to apply the Doak scale as best they can.

Thomas, your characterization of the Doak Scale is probably in keeping with the spirit of the book, but at the time it was written I didn't drink!  Certainly the phrasing would have been different if I wrote it today.  My wife suggested the "0" should only say "I regret having gone to see it", so it wouldn't sound so judgmental ... but by the same token, many readers want the book to be judgmental.

Tom,

Thank you for responding. Clarification from the source, so much better than speculation from afar!

Looking forward to reading the 'new Confidential'.

atb

[Scott Macpherson]

I have a Links Ticket and have played the Castle Course a few times.  The routing is good, and there are a couple of nice holes, and but overall there are more contrived holes and features than not. It is very clear that things got out of control during the construction of the Castle Course as every year since it opened The Links Trust have paid Paul Kimber to come back and fix/change parts of the course – including greens. That is continuing again this winter.

The Links Trust have the money to cope with this unfortunate situation, but had the course been privately owned and run as a commercial operation, I think a owner would have struggled to survive. The continual changes to the Castle Course are well known, to the point where in an interview for a new course I was once asked by a developer how much money should be set aside for changes to a course after it had opened. Of course the answer to the question is 'none', and it gives me shivers to think that architects are experimenting with a client's dollar, when they should be 'professionals'. When I dug a little about the premise for the question, it turns out it was based on the ongoing situation at the Castle Course. So, love or hate the Castle Course, in my opinion it is not doing the reputation of the design industry many favours.

Scott

[Michael Essig]

A response in four points.

. . .

2.  The zero rating.  It would have been much easier to just eliminate the "0" rating from the Doak Scale and avoid this controversy, except I had already set a precedent 20 years ago, and many people would have accused me of copping out by eliminating it.  And that's exactly what it would have been, a cop-out.
     The "zero" is not one point below a "1".  It's reserved for a small group of courses which I feel are completely beyond the pale, that cost a lot of money to build and to play.  When I'm considering giving a course a 0, it's usually either a 0 or a 5 … because if I didn't find the course in question offensive, it's probably big and well-conditioned and all of that.
     The problem with the 0's is that they are all going to be modern courses.  If James Braid had built one, it would probably be long gone by now, and for sure he wouldn't have wasted a king's ransom to build it.  So anytime I use this grade, it's going to be for a course designed by a contemporary of mine, which is easy to turn into a controversy.
     If I'd given the Castle Course a 5, I would have been rating it even with Crail and Dunbar and Gullane #2 and the Eden Course at St. Andrews, among many others.  I think you should play all of those before you consider spending $200 to play the Castle Course.

When my son told me of the "0" Doak Rating for Castle, I asked him for the definition.  He read me the definition, and I said, "That's fair."  I took the "0" to not be less than a "1", but a course on which TD was making a professional critique unrelated to the course.

Over time, the course won't be a "0," because they will stop making changes and it will be rated for what it is, and not what it should have been or could have been (or in TD's opinion that it never should have been?)  It is the extraneous "stuff" that makes it a "0", not the course itself.

I played it once, and will never play it again.  In the wind, I have to believe it would be nearly unplayable. 

I will take a simple course like the Eden over the Castle any day (and for 1/3rd the price).

That being said, the staff was cheerful and pleasant.  I appreciated their excellent suggestion for fish and chips on the drive to Edinburgh.  And on a different day (on our way to Crail) they helped my son and me in getting onto the daily ballot for the Old Course, which led to us playing the Old Course for a second time on our trip.  For those moments, I will never forget it. 

So, how about a zero with an asterisk - "0*" 

[James Brown]

Castle is in the same category as Machrihanish Dunes.  Right next door to an amazing and historic true links course.   Makes zero sense to build a modern  "fake links" course under such circumstances.  Further, DMK repeated the Castle formula at Mach Dunes, which makes Castle all the more clear as a failure.  Both deserve a zero. 

[Tom_Doak]

Castle is in the same category as Machrihanish Dunes.  Right next door to an amazing and historic true links course.   Makes zero sense to build a modern  "fake links" course under such circumstances.  Further, DMK repeated the Castle formula at Mach Dunes, which makes Castle all the more clear as a failure.  Both deserve a zero. 

James:

I have not been to Machrihanish Dunes, but what I've heard of it [from my co-authors and from others] is much different than what I saw at the Castle Course.  Yes, the greens are severe, but the rest of it is totally natural ... it is anything but overcooked.

[Adam Lawrence]

Castle is in the same category as Machrihanish Dunes.  Right next door to an amazing and historic true links course.   Makes zero sense to build a modern  "fake links" course under such circumstances.  Further, DMK repeated the Castle formula at Mach Dunes, which makes Castle all the more clear as a failure.  Both deserve a zero. 

Mach Dunes may be many things, but fake is not one of them. Part of the same dune system as Mach GC, and almost entirely natural contours. I have to question whether you've even seen the course to make such a bizarre statement.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Now I liked The Castle Course...

But Mach Dunes I absolutely loved....

Scott, tell me.... You talk about all of the changes going on each year at The Castle Course and monies put aside to make those changes... But what are they? Softening of greens, mowing Don Kings I have heard of.... You could argue these changes are reactions to public opinion (and not necessarily the majority either)... Are there any significant changes occurring because of technical defaults? Drainage, grasses, soils etc...

Really, I'd hate to think now Tom has damned the course with a "zero" that it will affect peoples' opinion when they visit... But of course, it will... Because too few of us are able to think for ourselves...

I played it twice and walked it once, early on... I remember the par-5 fifth as one of the best modern three shotters I'd seen... I believe it has been changed - probably for the worse - since I saw it...

[Sean_A]

I kinda liked the Castle because it does have some very fine holes and I like the boldness, but I recall being disgusted by the drainage issues.  The raised greens were relentless, which makes sense given how poor the fairway drainage is.  Still, I think that if 4 or 5 greens were toned down (maybe already done?) the course would be much better off.  For me, at the price they charge and with other good options down the hill, the Castle is a one and done. 

I spose my bottom line is I don't think the 0 rating is very helpful for the traveller especially when there are arguably several other courses which fit the description (hello, Kingbarns is down the road, was it needed? was it expensive? is it contrived?).  If 0 is on the cards, it should be dealt in a more even handed manner. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Out of interest, were Alister MacKezie's greens at Sitwell Park any more radical when built than those by DMK at the Castle Course? What about his greens as Pasatiempo? More radical when built than those at the Castle Course?

And unlike the 1920's/30's these days we play with golf balls that are actually round and clubs made from the likes of titanium, graphite and steel, not with clubs with animal skin grips, with shafts cut from trees, with low spec golf balls and a jacket and tie!

Just asking?
atb

A couple of random photos - greens more or less radical than the Castle Course?

[Sean_A]

atb

The big difference I note is the two examples you offer are essentially back to front greens.  One can play to them relatively easily, then try to cope with the putting.  At Castle, there are many raised/plateau greens which are more difficult to hit...then factor in wind.  Plus, the greens are firmer than the fairways which makes it difficult to bump shots in even if one wanted to try these very difficult shots, but sometimes with wind, that is all one can do.  I recall several approaches at Castle where I thought my aerial approach wouldn't hold, yet my ground option wasn't terribly enticing.  Sort the drainage out and more open front greens could be designed.  This, btw, is also one of my criticisms of the Trump Aberdeen (not drainage issues though).  I don't think enough consideration was given to the the guy who is paying green fees. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

I have not seen the Castle Course for a couple of years now but certainly in its opening form Sean has hit the nail on the head. It gave you no realistic playing options. Considering the money spent and the flatness (not levelness) of the land at the start it was poorly done. Getting the drainage right should have been really easy but apparently it was under done.

As for James' comments on MD. MD suffered at the start the same as many new courses by being very severe, especially the rough. Now they have cut it back and I believe the course has bedded in fine. It certainly looked every bit the true links and a perfect companion to its older neighbour

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Sean & Jon,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The two photos were just a couple that were easy to access! I nearly posted and commented in comparison to Perranporth, but held back not being brave enough to go down that route!

Progress/developments/new initiatives, whatever term you wish to use, often go in big steps and then become watered down by little steps. It'll be interesting to see what GCA minded folk think of the course in the years/decades to come. Radicalism sometimes mellows with time into something more acceptable. We'll see.

atb

[Tom Kelly]

I don't think the issue with the greens is the internal contour so much as the run-offs and approaches that as Sean states often push the ball away from the putting surface, I guess partly due to the soil, drainage issues and therefore push-up nature of a few of the greens. The 9th and 4th are the most obvious examples, though I believe the 4th has been changed since I was there. With the underlying soil and the desire for f&f surfaces the greens are always likely to play firmer than the fairways so the lack of leeway to run the ball in means it is almost impossible to get close to some pins or even in some cases keep the ball on the green from certain spots.

For the record, despite some superfluous features I really like the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 14th and 17th. The 6th has the potential to be a really good hole as well, as do the 7th & 9th. I don't like 4, 15, 16 or 18 though.