Kingsbarn 'sea aspect'

[peter_p]

An essay in Paul Daley's volume one Golf Architecture deals with Kingbarn, and it's dedication to highlighting it's sea aspect. Mark Parsinen, the developer, talks about building dunes to mask uninspiring views of flat farmlands, etc and designing and grading holes to accentuate the water views.
While these are not new practices, did they take it to the
ultimate. I haven't played the course, so I don't know the answers.

Maybe this week's Dunhill Links Challenge coverage will provide some insight, especially if they show both golfer and birdseye views.

[THuckaby2]

Peter:

I've played the course, but haven't read the essay (I'm still waiting for amazon to send me the book, a year after ordering it), so I don't really know how best to respond...

I will say this:  one gets very little view of the "inland" areas at Kingsbarns, and the ocean is damn near constantly in view.  It really is visually stunning.  I gather it was flat featureless farmland before... which makes the architectural effort to me even that much more impressive.

TH

[NAF]

Peter,

I've read the Parsinen piece (and his second one which is also interesting) and played the course.  I think he is a good writer and visionary but I must take issue with a few things.

First the sea aspect- K-Barns was essentially from the essay created for the views, maximize the views etc from what was an uninspiring piece of land.  Now if you are going to move all of this dirt, logic at first might dictate to maximize the sea views and thus the "happy" factor of your client base i.e. the golfer.  But what about the architecture???  Shouldnt you maximize the design of the golf course first taking into account whatever natural features you can and then where the two jibe maximize the views?   Would Dr. Mac or someone like Tillie build a course to maximize the "sea aspect".  I've never played a links course that tries to max out its views in all of the British Isles.  The holes fall where they fall.  There arent many people who play TOC for the views but why in every review I see of Kingsbarns do people compare the two.  I saw no similarities at all despite reading some great essays by Mark Parsinen.

As per the course, I've argued with Huck on another thread about it. In fact get yourself a copy of GolfWorld and there is a fluff piece about it in the October Issue.  I believe K-Barns doesnt look natural at all, I realize the limitations of the bulldozer and we'll see what time and erosion do but I think it looks like Whistling Straits which is the hand of man.  It is a manufactured aesthetic and I don't find that to be inspiring golf and why should I pay $200 for the "Sea Aspect" and views when TOC, New Course, Crail, Lundin etc are so close.  The locals won't play K-Barns for that exact factor (money plus not inspiring) but your average American Yahoo on vaca with his buddies will rave about it and won't remember more than one or two holes.  In fact I reckon there are only 4 or 5 good holes on the course.  I didnt find K-Barns to be very strategic, it did not play firm and fast and the green contours didnt do anything for me.  I enjoyed the walk and the scenery but they turned nature into a landscaped park here.  The hand of man is just so evident.

You can't even compare K-Barns to Pac Dunes and there is no way K-Barns belongs in the top 100 in the World.  I'd play 10 rounds at Deal, Rye, St. Enodoc and a place like Burnham before playing one at K-Barns despite the views.

[THuckaby2]

NAF:

No hassles re our disagreement with this, but for my own education I would request clarification on one thing:

If it was flat featureless farmland before, why would you want it to look "natural"?

The natural sucked....

TH

[NAF]

Huck, in even the most spiritless piece of land lies something an archie can use and you can't tell me that in designing the place they couldnt have maximized what they thought were the best holes first and put them together to bring about the best strategic architecture. Furthermore when you don't have much to deal with I think you try and imitate nature the best you can without making things look manufactured.  Get the hand shapers in there, go low profile like TOC.  I saw nothing like those man created dunes at K-Barns on the landscape on the drive from St. Andrews nor at St. Andrews.  Didnt they have a historic course once on the land at K-Barns, was nothing there salvagable?

Finally, IMHO, the sea aspect should have been the second factor to focus on not the first (good archie and natural landscaping).

[THuckaby2]

NAF:

Perhaps you didn't see the same pictures of the Kingsbarns "before" that I did.  To me, this was a construction effort almost to the scale that Shadow Creek was.

I'm all for minimalist and natural, sure - that is, when there's something there that merits having a natural, minimalist golf hole.

I just didn't see from the pics that such existed.

If you want a golf course on that kinda land with nothing moved, well... enjoy it, to each his own.

I'll take what was created, at Kingsbarns and at Shadow Creek.

As for what ought to be the primary focus, as I say, I haven't read the article, so I can't comment.

TH

[NAF]

Huck,

I saw some of the pix, it was a farm-fair dinkum as the Aussies say.  They had to move dirt-fair enough.  And this was the best they could do, maximize the views.  Well if they wanted to do that they should have brought in Tom Fazio!

[THuckaby2]

NAF:

I have no axe to grind against any particular architect.  Maybe Fazio would have done great things with that site - I don't know, and more importantly, I don't care.

He did one hell of a great job at Shadow Creek.

In any case, we will continue to disagree on the quality of Kingsbarns.  That's ok, it's no fun if we all constantly agree, no matter what certain other posters want...

I still do find it interesting that one would complain about the un-natural qualities on a putrid natural site.  But hey, whatever turns you on!  

I'd play Kingsbarns again in a heartbeat, and I believe it deserves the accolades it has received.

To each his own!

TH

ps - you tell me what's un-natural about #12, which ought to be on the shortest list of the world's greatest par 5 holes.

[Dave_Wilber]

From my "Architectural Turfhead" perspective....a key thing gets missed in the discussion of Natural vs. Un-natural at Kingsbarns.

The previous history of the ground was that a really interesting piece of linksland was worked over to better suit agricultural use. The heavy soils from the upper steppe of the property had been used to cover much of the good sandy ground.

The first part of the whole construction job was really reclamation of the property and reformation of the landforms that represent links ground. That included getting the amazing sands and sandy soils uncovered and dealing with the heavy soils that were pulled onto the linksland soils. Then there was the extensive old drainage system that was there to get the water off the upper steppe and down so as not to make the agricultrual soils on the lower portion a big mud pit. It was impressive and extensive engineering--especialy when you consider that the work was done by hand so many years before.

Essentially we had to "turn the cake upside down" to reclaim that land that had been lost. All of that had to occur before any shaping of golf could happen.

To me that is incrediblly different than Pacific Dunes, where we had some reformation  to do...but we certainly didn't have to turn the entire property upside down. These really are two different sites and there isn't much good in making a comparision of construction technique. Especially as it relates to soil management. And certainly we had to put some drainage in Pacific Dunes, had to cross the property with a couple big drainage structures and some of the dunes you all know and love were definitely reformed to suit the situation.

And without question there is absolutely no likeness of what happened at Kingsbarns to what happened at Shadow Creek.

My humble (ha ha!) opinion is this: If the "Old School" guys could have moved that kind of dirt to get a site back to what it once was and maybe even better as it pertains to doing good golf...they would have. Enough of them were Engineer blooded enough to understand that if some properties didn't receive radical reformation...those properties wouldn't be good for golf. So they had to pick and choose sites with those limitations in mind.

Our limitations today are less imposing, and that shouldn't mean that we blew it if we moved dirt to get something good. I'd love another reclmation job and an opportunity to reclaim some linksland---I learned a ton of stuff at Kingsbarns. We all should be interested in taking properties in positive direction because it is going to be rare that we stumble across pure linksland dunes like at Barnbougle. And even if we do, it is good to know that we have the ability to reform some land if need be and leave stuff alone if need be and make the two end meet.

You all can say what you will about the Routing and the Shaping at Kingsbarns and that will continue to be a good topic of discussion...but in my heart it is an engineering masterpiece. One of a breed of uniqueness and certainly nothing liie a Shadow Creek or a Texas Tech which are also amazing examples of sitework.

I can't tell you how easy it would have been to screw up the ground Kingsbarns is on.  M. Parsinen, K. Phillips, W. Woods, R. Price, P. Miller, B Cooper, S. McColm and D. Wilber all knew that there was a ton at stake when they were grinding out how to do the work. I was lucky to be sitting in such good company and the game is lucky to have that piece of ground back.

[Todd_Eckenrode]

Great insight Dave, and really interesting.  However, you are starting to speak of Dave Wilber in the third person as often as Karl Malone, and it's got me worried.  Looking forward to Dave Wilber buying me lunch tomorrow, though.

[Dave_Wilber]

Heh...

We'll see if Dave Wilber has any American Cash in his wallet...otherwise maybe Dave Wilber might owe Todd Eckenrode lunch X 2!

(That is if Dave Wilber can actually stop hacking his lungs out from his case of Barbougle Bronchitis long enough to actually eat lunch... )

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Wilbur:

Thanks for your comments on Kingsbarn. Russell Talley told me several years ago that I should make a point of seeing it and hopefully I'll make the journey before too long.

I can't speak to how well the project team did, but the photos Tom Huckaby referred to do suggest you guys had a challenge on your hands.

NAF:

Based on pre construction photos only, I'm wondering how well another project team might have done. Is the Whistling Straits problem - the hand of man being too obvious - inevitable? Or could another team take the same kind of land and build something more appealing to your taste?

I'm very interested in your thoughts on this issue.

[ForkaB]

Thanks too, Dave, for your fine exposition of the Kingsbarns construction process.  Too often on this site it has been simplified as some sort of "terraforming" exercise a la Shadow Creek, rather than the discovery process that you describe.  Also good to hear it confirmed that some dune "shaping" was done at Pacific Dunes.  Too often we believe, or want to believe that PD was some sort of mystical "find the nautral holes and do nothing to them" exercise.  We continue to believe that the course is comparable to Pacific Dunes in overall "quality," but will again reconsider when we walk the course today or tomorrow following the good, the bad and the ugly golfers at the Dunhill.  We also very much prefer the Royal "we" form of affectation than the thrid person one which we find to be largely confined to the world of sport, for some odd reason.

Keep posting, Mr. soil.com, please.

[NAF]

I am not a turf head (I'll reduce myself to asking my agronomy expert pal RT about that).  I liked Dave Wilbur's post and never said anything about the engineering aspect of K-Barns.  And I don't have a K. Phillips bias, his work and pix of The Grove look interesting and K-Barns is the only one of his courses I've knowingly played (dont know which of the RTJ II he has input in that I have seen).

My comments were on the "sea aspect" and how it worked out architectually into the design.  I don't think they max-ed out what they could have vis a vis the golf course architecture.  Look I don't love certain artforms but that does not mean I don't respect the work ethic and time the artist spent in doing it.  I've played a Gil Hanse design called Tallgrass that is a faux links course on a former sod farm in Shoreham LI.   This site was dead flat and had nada, no views, nothing.  Gil crafted a course that you know is artificial (there are no dunes in this part of LI) but has wonderful strategic bunkering and bumpy, undulating links style greens.  I felt charged playing the course despite the fact it has no views.  And this was due to the strategy of the course by a designer who had no "sea aspect" to work with  I wonder what Gil would have created on the K-Barns site.  I know this, it would have been lower profile and more in harmony with the land that was there and the sea.  Just my opinion.

As per the comments on Pac Dunes, I for one could not see where Doak's team shaped things.  It melded into the natural landscape in my view.  I am not saying course designers shouldnt move things around but a "keep it natural" theme is something I like best in golf and when I looked at the K-Barns pix in all of the magazines I at first said "Wow, I have to get there" and when I got there I said, "Whoa, this is Disney like!" It doesnt look real.

It does not diminish what the designers did.  It is my minimalist bias. I admit it.  

[Tim_Weiman]

NAF:

Thanks. I take your reference to Tallgrass to mean one CAN take dead flat farmland, make something interesting to play and not suffer from the "disney like" feeling.

As for Pacific Dunes, I couldn't tell where things were shaped. Isn't Tom supposed to tell us that in his book?

[THuckaby2]

Gentleman:

I just used Shadow Creek as a convenient example of shitty land being made into a great golf course.  In the end, the same thing occurred at Kingsbarns, though as Dave so perfectly explains, the process was different and if anything more difficult.  But the bottom line remains you had crappy land before, great golf course after.

And NAF, that's ok, we all have our biases I suppose.

And Kingsbarns remains one hell of a great golf course, deserving of the accolades it has received.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

For the life of me I cannot understand the carping about Kingsbarns. I saw the potato field that was there and the course is a tour de force. Just last week I had the good fortune to talk to the local laird and owner of the land, one Peter Erskine. His take on the construction and the attention to detail in making the course would make a wonderful lecture. I do wish NAF would tell me which holes are not worthy of his approval.

Not fast and firm? My God man, even I drove the ball almost 270 yards, which as the contributors here know, is an impossibilty on American fairways.

Not in the first hundred, you have to be joking!

[THuckaby2]

Concur completely, Bob.  I just wonder what those who complain about Kingsbarns want from a golf course.  To each his own, I guess.

Tour de Force is a great way to put it.

I can't wait to play it again, some day.

TH

[ForkaB]

Went out to Kingsbarns for a couple of hours this morning and have the following observations:

1.  Regardless of comment/quibbles below, I still think that this is a seriously good golf course--not demonstrably better or worse that the other top "new" courses I have played (i.e. Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes and Applebrook)

2.  When I first played the course a couple of years ago I really did not notice the "containment mounding" even though I had had a fairly thorough tutorial in the construction history and techniques used given to me by one of the owners of the course.  This time, walking rather than playing, and being more cognizant of the facts (based on posts on this DG) I found the mounding to be much more obvious, but still not jarring.  What has been done has been done so with a proper sense of proportion, and the artificially created dunelets seem to be bedding in well.  Of course, time will tell....

3.  I'm not sure where Parsinen got this theory of 'sea aspect," but I really don't see it at Kinsgbarns (or maybe he just didn't execute what he thought he wanted!?).  Most of the holes run parallel to the seashore, and if you are at all concentrating on your golf, the ocean will come only into your peripheral vision.

4.  Depsite the warm, dry summer, the course played only moderately fast and firm.  Perhaps it was some recent rains, or perhaps they have been watering the course this summer to help the new grass settle down.

5.  Possibly in part due to the relatively benign grass conditions (there was a decent strength (2 club) and difficult cross wind today), the players (pro and am alike) didn't seem to have huge amounts of trouble with the course.  I only noticed one obvious bogey by any of the pros (from a guy who hit it into the burn on 18) and few big numbers from the ams.  The rough was very thin, which probably contributed to the low scoring, or perhaps these guys are just good (they were scoring well at Carnoustie today, too)!

6.  I noticed some gorse plantations in some of the dead areas between fairways (i.e. 7 and 9).  I've never seen gorse actually planted before, but there's always a first time, and I also think that it will improve the esthetics and playing challenge of the course.  Of course, gorse has a nasty habit of replicating itself, and grose attracts rabbits, so I'm sure the greenskeeper will be kept busy over the next few years.......

7.  I may have been hallucinating, but I could swear that I saw a "natural" bunker developing, in utero, as it were, in the side of one of the "manufactured" hillocks.  This could be scarier than GM crops, methinks.....

Overall, I really enjoy seeing the course as it develops.  I continue to think it is one of the best built in recent years.  How good, well I really do think that we won''t be able to know until it begins to mature, 5-10 years from now, just as with other new courses.  Nevertheless, however it matures, it will continue to be memorable.

PS--Bob H.  If you drove it 270 at Kingsbarns, you wouldn't have had any trouble getting it over 300 at Dornoch in August, at least.  We all know, of course, that when Tom Paul talks about "Ideal Maintenecne Meld" he is talking golf Viagra for the middle aged and above........

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Nice report. I found point #2 especially interesting. I always see more of golf course by walking it rather than playing it. Playing gets in the way - too much concern about how I'm playing.

[ForkaB]

Tim

I very much agree that you see "more" watching a course, but I'm not sure that the "more" that you see is necessarily relevant, or often even interesting!

For example, the fact that I now know that the mounds to the right of 13 at Kingsbarns were (ostensibnly) put there to shield golfers from a view of the abutting field really has absolutely nothing to contribute to how I play the hole next time I do.  At the very worst, it's just a form of sensory neutralizing camouflage, much like the fairway bunkers on #4 at CPC.

No matter what you think you can "see" when you walk a course, you can never "feel" what the actual players feel as they walk up to a shot they have hit thinking about which club to put in their hand next and how to play that club in a few minutes.  Looking is really just a very poor substitue for playing, if you really want to know what the architecture of any golf course means, IMHO.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich,

Let me take a page from my experience at Whistling Straits. For me this was one of the most anticipated projects in the past ten years. So, I scheduled myself for a three day visit which included four trips around the course.

I plead guilty to misbehaving: the first three rounds were with a camera in my bag and little concern how I actually played. I really wanted to get to know the course and document my findings.

On the final day I finally left the camera in the car and tried to play some decent golf. After teeing off on #1, my friend and I each had shots of about 145 yards to the green, but into a pretty stiff wind. My freind selected an 8 iron and hit it pretty well, but it balloned and fell short in the front bunker.

Feeling a bit cocky I explained I would play a little "real" Irish golf. I selected a five iron and hit it about 75-80 yards in the air. The ball proceed to bounce off a green side mound right onto the middle of the green.

Okay, maybe I generally like that kind of thing. But, honestly, my three previous trips around the course taking pictures gave me the idea. When I turned to my caddy - a guy who seemed pretty experienced (the resort had him caddy for Tim Finchem) - I asked how many people playing Whistling Straits even recognized the shot was there to be played.

He shook his head and said maybe two percent.

If we all had the luxury to spend a few days at a site, I'd favor at least one trip around the course without playing. The sheer volume of details about such things as green complexes suggest to me that some real focus is required to take it all in.

Some people may be able to do that while playing, but I can't.

Getting back to your experience at Kingbarns, I'm not surprised you saw it a bit differently while walking verses playing. You may even have seen some "interesting" things......maybe?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Kingsbarns is a very good golf course. Is it in the top 100?  NO!. Yet, It is a well desiged course with good solid holes which are well routed. I cannot think of a poor hole. I sometimes have trouble with the lengths they went to to create the course but it was done on such a scale and with such attention to detail that one would not notice it if you were beemed there. Eye Captain, I will beem him up from the course now. Scotty out.

[NAF]

Mr. Huntley:

I respect your opinion very much and this is how I would retort:

How can I prove to you that K-Barns was not firm and fast? I played there on May Day, May 1.  It had rained every day I was in Scotland the previous 6 days but every other links course I played was firm and fast.  If I can find my friend Jim Reilly who is on tour in Central America to back me up I'd get him on the site.  My other friend who was with me and who is not a GCAer and doesnt know firm and fast vs. slow and green asked me why this course was playing like the ones back at home (i.e. don't run the ball up and shoot for the pins).  Hey, it could of been the day we were there but A is A as Ayn Rand said and it was not firm and fast.

To you other point: I never critiqued one specific hole at K-Barns.  To take the opposite tact there are several I liked including 1,2,6,13,15 for example.  But there are magazines that are comparing #15 with #16 at Cypress Point for god's sake.  That just isnt a worthy comparison. Other people compare K-Barns to Pebble Beach or TOC, I don't see it.  My basis for saying the course is not top 100 in the world comes from my experience of playing over 50 of those top 100 and I've done almost half the Golf World Top 100 in the list.  Given my experience playing these courses, I just didnt think Kingsbarns belonged there given it didnt inspire me, the holes were not memorable and I didnt like the look-containment mounding etc.  It is just my opinion.  When I stand on the 4th tee at Rye, hell yes I am inspired.  When I tee off at #16 at Deal I can't wait to play the hole.  Ditto a hole like #1 or #16 at St. Enodoc.

You and I can look at modern art and disagree, I might say I don't fancy the brushstrokes and you see that as ludicrous but that is my view.

Perhaps then if you think K-Barns is top 100 in the world you can tell me why a course like Deal or Rye is behind it?  I'd like to see the logic in that.

If I am wrong on K-Barns why is it already falling in the Golf magazine ratings?

I am open minded, I'll let the course mature and see if I am wrong and I am man enough to admit that but I am not rushing back there to see. But perhaps as Ben Crenshaw once adroitly pointed out, a golf course needs age and lets see how KBarns matures.. Fair enough?

[THuckaby2]

NAF:

Excellent retort, just do realize that if you're basing this on a comparison of experience in terms of courses played, well... you'll lose against Mr. Huntley.  Yes, EVEN YOU.  Big time.  He'll likely be too modest to say that, so I'm saying it for him.

 

A comparison of 15 Kingsbarns to 16 Cypress is silly, yes.  But still, it is a damn fine hole.  And as I say above, 12 is among the world's great par fives.  Do you mean to leave that out of your list of holes you like?

Inspiration is a tough thing to base greatness on also, as it is SO subjective.  For example, I found myself plenty inspired at Kingsbarns, in many places.  To each his own if you did not...

As for placement in Top 100 lists, well.. so much goes into that, as you know, that it's not the best judge of greatness either.  All it does show is certain groups of people did like the course more than you did.

So heck, in the end, lots of people like the course, you don't as much.  No hassles.

Just don't go saying it's any foregone conclusion it's better or worse than any other course - that NEVER can be said with absolute certainty!

TH