BUDA Redux / Continuation: Have and should links courses become not-a-links courses?

[Mark Bourgeois]

"Have" and "should": two different questions, courtesy of former Golf World editor Malcolm Campbell.

He spoke about links being both a bellwether and a lesson for sustainability. How links course are maintained therefore carries implications for all courses. It's important.

Out of all the courses in the world, he said just 170 are links. Less than one half of 1 percent. So they're rare, too. But all those other courses should be maintained more like links, so every time a links becomes a not-a-links, then that's like taking two steps backward. There are fewer courses to emulate and fewer to learn from.

So...
Does anyone have instances of where a links course became a not-a-links course? Is this a material problem?

What is the standard to determine when a links course becomes a not-a-links course?

Personally, I had thought all you needed to qualify was sandy seaside dunesland deposited there by a river.

Loss of firm and fast is an obvious and probably uninteresting criterion.

What about the standard of doing anything at all to a course, as opposed to playing it if you will as nature finds it? Does that get us down to...Rye?

Elie ran perhaps not as fast and firm due to weather, Cruden Bay's rough was in June form, Lundin Links's fairways were tanning nicely and TOC's rough already has advanced to "The Wispy."

It would appear these states are nature's doing...

On the other hand, Elie divots showed black earth and don't all these have irrigation systems; does that mean they have moved over to the credit side of the ledger, that each now is a not-a-links and therefore not to be emulated?

Campbell received a spirited rejoinder - not quite utterly cryit doon but still impressive to watch - citing Lundin's installation of an irrigation system, presumably to return as a qualifier course.
 A show-me-the-money type of ad hominem argument.

What about the black earth of Elie?

By the way, Campbell fingered ANGC as the culprit, triggering another rejoinder.

Interesting to bookend his remarks to those we heard from R&A & Hoylake at dinner in 2006 regarding the presentation of Hoylake in the Open. Hoylake was a step in the right direction but Campbell's comments seem to indicate we still are off the path, namely the path to sustainability.

It's also not clear whose job it is to steer us back onto the path. In a sense, we have met the enemy and it is us: ignorant golfers / club members make for implacable enemies of change.

What is to be done and who is to do it?

[Mark Pearce]

As a regular visitor to Elie I have to say that I had never noticed the black earth until you pointed it out on Tuesday morning.  I was, of course, far too focussed on the grudge match at hand to give it further thought at the time.  I was struck, however, by how much less firm and fast Elie was in June than I am used to in August.  The sight of the UCal girls spinning the ball back on the 6th green was not one you'd have seen in August or September, I'm sure.

Elie gets fast and firm and, playing as I tend to in August first thing in the morning I've had several conversations about maintenance with the ground staff.  Their obsession (not entirely healthy, I believe) is with green speed.  I don't recall seeing the irrigation system actually in use and suspect it will only get used if there's a danger of the grass dieing.  I don't think they resort to it easily but would suspect that they'd water before, say Hoylake would. 

Why?  Because, as a club, they make a very solid income from visitor play and that, effectively, subsidises member play.  Their fear, which may well be justified, is that "conditioning" is a factor in visitor numbers and that very brown fairways and particularly greens would lead to a reduction in visitor income.  That comes down to education, of course and Malcolm's point about Augusta

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wouldn't this point the responsibility then, Mark, to the R&A for how they choose to present the Open course each year, and not Augusta?

Who the heck really flies over from America looking for The Masters?

Mark

[Mark Pearce]

That's part of it, I guess, but Hoylake was no sea of green.  In fact, the conditioning of Hoylake took some stick here.  If a board of wing nuts like us contain people who didn't like Hoylake's condition then I'm going to guess that a very large proportion of US visitors to the UK will share that dislike of brown.  I think that golf magazines with their front to back pictures of bright green golf courses are as much to blame as anyone.  If I'd considered that on Monday I might have put it to Malcolm Campbell.....

[Rich Goodale]

Marks

I played Monifieth over the past two days in a stiff breeze , and it was so "linksy" it was nigh unplayable.  Downwind, most holes were rescue clubs then sand wedges which could only get one close to the pin (or even stay on the green) if both distance and micro-undulations were calculated properly.  The hardest hole into the wind was unreachable in either day by me and my two (lowe handicap) playing companions, until today when at the top of my backswing I decided the try to power hook a 4-iron under the tree limbs and it rolled onto the green.

To me, the point of links/not links is that properly designed and maintained course over linksland is like Her Majesty in the Beatles song at he end of Abbey Road, i.e. "they change from day to day."

As I think Mark said above, Lundin Links went from yellow to brown over the 3 days we were there.  When I played it two weeks before, it was green.  These are just part of the cycles of life.

Bottom line, I think that Malcolm has a point, but it is rhetorical rather than probative.  There are more "true" links now than there were when I frist played golf in Scotland in 1978.  They do change more often than they used to, but that is just the result of tehcnology and greenkeeping methodology.  In any case, what is wrong with change?  The Greek god Proteus could change his shape at will, but if you were lucky enough to catch him he would foretell your future.  Sounds like a links golf course to me.....

rfg

[Michael Whitaker]

Mark - I talked with Malcolm about this subject for a good while after our dinner and during our round on Wednesday.

Two courses we discussed that have been accused of "losing" their links pedigree are Formby and Cinque Ports. Evidently, both courses were over fertilized for years resulting in soft, green, "clovery" turf that did not lend itself to true links play. It should be noted that Cinque Ports has stopped the overuse of fertilizer for some time and is in the midst of a major recovery of its turf. Formby, however, still offers a mostly nappy turf that more resembles something found on an American fairway than a seaside UK course.

[Craig Disher]

Two courses we discussed that have been accused of "losing" their links pedigree are Formby and Cinque Ports. Evidently, both courses were over fertilized for years resulting in soft, green, "clovery" turf that did not lend itself to true links play. It should be noted that Cinque Ports has stopped the overuse of fertilizer for some time and is in the midst of a major recovery of its turf. Formby, however, still offers a mostly nappy turf that more resembles something found on an American fairway than a seaside UK course.

I haven't played Deal this year but will soon. However, the improvement last year over previous years was dramatic. The hollows that had been damp and in some cases soggy were nearly as firm as the ridge tops. It was clear that the club had decided to cut back on the watering and I expect the transition to Malcom's ideal will continue. Lundin seemed a perfect example of how to use fairway irrigation wisely. The turf was consistent throughout the course - firm, tan to light green, grassed, but always giving nice, tight lies.

During our drive south, Peter and I talked about Littlestone and what we decided was the not-a-links feature of knee to waist-high rough bordering the fairways and in many cases fronting or surrounding hazards. We played the course on Thursday and came away discouraged after comparing LGC to what we saw at Lundin and Elie. MacKenzie doesn't mention long grass (he does excoriate having to search for lost golf balls) but citing hazards as mounds, bunkers and streams I think he implies that grass long enough to disappear a ball doesn't belong on a golf course. Some hay in areas visited only by the truly wild is acceptable I guess, but on a course where wind is common, shouldn't fairways be bordered by something that doesn't lead to a lost ball 95% of the time. As we played, we noticed that about 1/3 of the groups on the course were walking back and forth off the fairway looking for someone's ball.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Is crazy rough intentional on most links, in the sense it is somehow "encouraged" or heaven forfend even "managed," or is it just what happens sometimes in unmaintained areas, owing to the rhythms and vagaries of sun, rain, etc.?

I would have thought the latter, but reading first Craig's comment here and then Sean's on one of his Irish threads, combined with seeing penal rough on some courses but not others this last trip, makes me wonder.

[David_Tepper]

Mark B. -

My guess is the condition of the rough at many, if not most, links golf courses is dependent upon the time of year and "the rhythms and vagaries of the sun, rain, etc." as you have noted.

I doubt there are many links golf clubs with a maintenance budget large enough to actively manage the condition of their rough.

DT 

[Tony_Muldoon]

 Good point David.

In my experience the worst rough is not fescue, but claggy, heavy, meadowy stuff that swallows balls.  Deal has it and Saunton too.  Could they be the side product of years of careless overwatering and fertilising of the fairways? 

[Sean_A]

Like Deal, Burnham & Berrow is in the process of encouraging bents and fescues to grow on the greens.  After years of feed & water the greens were excellent, some of the best on the planet, but they no longer played like links.  Meaning, the greens were running slower than the fairways in high summer.  Its not a good combination of fast fairways with slower greens.  The club has also cleared much of the buckthorn that was taking over and is encouraging fescues to take over.  This is a very important aspect of of getting rough that is much more managable for the player.  Not many clubs want to start cutting down the rough especially in the case of Burnham which has dunes either side of the fairway on many holes - its just not practical to get machines up these slopes.  I have been very supportive of the idea, but I will say that many members lament losing the old greens and some lament the idea of losing the punishing rough. 

I will say that I believe some of the premiere clubs in the GB&I keep high rough because the courses have a rep for being difficult.  Many of these clubs get plenty of visitor cash to do a cut or two of the most problematic roughs areas in the spring.  Combine this attitude with what I think are shrinking fairways and the rough has become much more in play in recent years.  I don't believe this trend will stop anytime soon.  Regardless of rep, many, many people in the UK believe in narrow fairways and nasty rough for the top courses and their cousins.

Ciao

[Craig Disher]

Littlestone has cut some of the 3' rough to about 4". Unfortunately it's infested with a broad-leafed grass very different from the first cut of the mostly fescue semi.  A ball can now be found in spots where it would have been lost but advancing it more than 50 yards is a terrific shot.

The club did the cut-back with reluctance, fearing it would "take the teeth out of the course." Members have told me that the course is protected by wind and rough - they don't mention hazards and greens as I assume MacKenzie would have preferred. They are right, but does that make for a true links or the best links? Tacking around hazards and running up a higher score because of the longer or more awkward route to the hole is quite different than losing 3-4 balls/round. As some of the rough has been moved back, old bunkers have appeared which show how much width the course used to have. And at least center-line bunkers on 3 holes were removed long ago - I suspect because they saw a lot of action. 

A British architect came to LGC a few years ago to design new back tees so it could continue hosting the final qualifying round for the Open. He pointed out a couple of places where the fairways should be tightened. The members took that as encouragement to narrow the fairways and grow the rough. A bunker or two would give the same result but that's a costlier route than letting grass grow. On the other hand, we've lost some visitor play because of the penal rough and it's possible that the bunkers could have payed for themselves.

[Mark Bourgeois]

During our drive south, Peter and I talked about Littlestone and what we decided was the not-a-links feature of knee to waist-high rough bordering the fairways and in many cases fronting or surrounding hazards. We played the course on Thursday and came away discouraged after comparing LGC to what we saw at Lundin and Elie. MacKenzie doesn't mention long grass (he does excoriate having to search for lost golf balls) but citing hazards as mounds, bunkers and streams I think he implies that grass long enough to disappear a ball doesn't belong on a golf course.

Craig, with luck you will see this -- so you can print out and wave in the faces of Oldest Members!

From "Golf Architecture," p 47:

In this connection it may be pointed out that rough grass is of little interest as a hazard.  It is frequently much more difficult than a fearsome-looking bunker or belt of whins or rushes, but it causes considerable annoyance in lost balls, and no one ever gets the same thrills in driving over a stretch of rough as over a fearsome-looking bunker, which in reality may not be so severe.

Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers.  They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom of play.

There is no defined line between the fairways in the great schools of golf like St Andrews or Hoylake.

Mark

[Mark Chaplin]

For years Deal had a reputation of having ultra quick (by UK standards) greens, this was based on water, chemicals & cutting to 2.6mm, leaving the greens very exposed to disease. We were frankly heading for disaster. Now the greens are cut at 5mm they are slightly slower (10'ish) and the fescues are returning. Not only is the grass quality rapidly improving but the sustainability of the greens is soaring alongside.

Rough is slightly more complicated, Tony is right that fertilisation assisted in developing patches of non fescue in the rough, this was caused by amateurs (read member) fertilising the rough at one time! Swathes of rough may look like the club is reducing maintainance and trying to toughen up the course. In our case the land is an SSSI (site special scientific interest?) were are instructed how the manage the rough for the benefit of flora and fauna. Break the rules and we could face fines. If we use 20 sq yards of dune area to build a tee 20 sq yards of cultivated land must be returned to rough dune land.

[Mark Pearce]

Having just spent a fortnight, in August, playing at Crail (mostly) and Elie I was struck by how, in this wettest of wet British summers, both were substantially softer than I had ever seen before.  Indeed Elie was significantly softer than in June and players in the Links Championship on Saturday were hitting and holding greens downwind, normally unheard of.  Crail was very damp (though the Balcomie Links remained open when the Craighead Course was shut on several days).  On the 5th hole in particular the fairway was almost parkland like and was very soggy indeed, the ball often leaving a deep pitchmark in the fairway.  The soil was, as Mark noticed at Elie, very dark in places.

Now it must be said that all this was in two of the wettest weeks of a summer with record rainfall but I couldn't help feeling that at Balcomie, at least, there's a danger that the drying, firm nature of the soil might be getting lost.

[Mark Bourgeois]

You know, Mark, the question is bigger I think than grass types but I do wonder how much is, "Who's afraid of fescue?"

On the heels of your post, I wonder how long before Chambers Bay's fescues come under attack. It's not like there's any legacy of fescue to ack as a bulwark against inevitable complaints.

Also, not too long after Chambers I played Pinehurst #2, whose bent grass greens were being kept in a state of softness and tucked beneath nitrogen treatments to protect them from the July heat and perhaps to sustain them to the Amateur.

Will be interesting if the Golf Digest criteria changes make a difference. I guess its a step in the right direction...

And I still find intriguing Campbell's notion of an international links organization. Anyone have an update?

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

And I still find intriguing Campbell's notion of an international links organization. Anyone have an update?

Mark

Marks

Malcolm wrote an article in the August edition of "Golf Monthly" describing what he calls "The Links Association," and solicting support for it.  As much as I love and support links golf, I am as yet unconvinced that it needs any sort of organisational "champion."  From what I can see of the links courses I know and play fairly regularly (e.g. Elie and Lundin), they are doing just fine by themselves.  This is not to say that they have not changed over the 30+ years I have known some of them, just that these changes are not necessarily deleterious, on balance.  When dealing with a protean medium such as linksland, change is inevitable, even necessary.

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark B -

not really related to your questions, but a few months ago the superintendent at TOC (I've forgotten his name) came to talk to the students of a turf grass institute here in town. The local newspaper  covered it (maybe because the town is on well water, and every summer has quite stringent water resrtrictions). The super outlined how little water and fertilizer etc he uses, and described his overall philosophy. Judging from the green-ness and lush-ness of the sample greens and fairways the turf institute has scatttred across its property, that philosophy did not immediately take hold. But I find it an interesting indication of the many ways in which a certain ethos can filter out and eventually manifest itself...

Peter   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rich

I don't think the links really need it, either.

I see an association as potentially valuable not so much as an internal binding but as a podium loud and legitimate enough to present the anti-Augusta view, to promote the links side of the argument to the media, to the general public, etc.

I guess it is a role best suited to an org like a greenkeepers association, but if a group of high profile links were to espouse some sort of code or set of principles it might have a greater impact.

This group might carry greater moral authority, and this argument must be carried on moral authority first (maybe some will be receptive to economic arguments, but for many that's probably down the road), than say the R&A, Golf Digest, or Hoylake.

An association would ensure links spoke with a common voice. No idea if the agronomy world needs an international links agronomy / sustainability clearinghouse of networking, best practices, etc, but if it did this is another role this assoc could play.

Whaddya think?

Mark

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,

I don't think moral authority has much to do with it.  In the end, it seems to me, it comes down to finding a way to make brown courses acceptable, or even desirable, to most golfers and that's down to Augusta, the USGA, the R&A, USPGA and the tours and the way they have their courses set up and to those who sell golf.  I hate to be a cynic but I don't see moral authority as a major driver for any of those.

Mark

[Sean_A]

Mark

While I agree that moral authority has nothing to do with the issue, it is clear to me that if big name courses get behind the idea of more sustainable fairways & greens then other clubs are more likely to take hold.  I know the R&A is doing something like this by awarding comps to clubs who are actively striving for lower maintenance sustainability by encouraging bents and fescues to take over.  I am all for it even though I know my course is suffering badly at the moment with slower greens. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Moral authority has everything to do with it as Sean's conditional statement in his first sentence indicates.

Mark

[Sean_A]

Moral authority has everything to do with it as Sean's conditional statement in his first sentence indicates.

Mark

Mark

I would categorize it as rying to improve playing conditions while remaining fiscally responsible.  I spose you could get down to brass tacks and say the environment is at stake (though I believe this to be very dubious in most cases), but I don't think this is the reason for the this push. 

Ciao

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I'm still a cynic here, I'm afraid.  The reasons courses like Elie and Crail water or fertilise is to achieve conditions that will maximise their income, mostly through visitor play.  I believe most local members will understand that these courses are most fun (and perhaps challenging) in fast and firm conditions, probably when they're brown or approaching brown.  They'll stop when they realise that that is the way to maximise income.  That will happen when golf tourists understand that green is not the same as good when it comes to the condition of links. 

Ironically there's probably more pressure on the second tier courses to water and fertilise because visitors will visit rota courses simply because that's what they are.

Anyway, I've just booked a B&B in Crail for tomorrow night as my home course is shut at least untiltomorrow lunchtime and is likely to still be boggy on Saturday and I'm pretty confident that with a decent day tomorrow and Saturday Crail will be in decent nick for the Autumn Meeting, so all isn't lost.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm still a cynic here, I'm afraid.  The reasons courses like Elie and Crail water or fertilise is to achieve conditions that will maximise their income, mostly through visitor play.  I believe most local members will understand that these courses are most fun (and perhaps challenging) in fast and firm conditions, probably when they're brown or approaching brown.  They'll stop when they realise that that is the way to maximise income.  That will happen when golf tourists understand that green is not the same as good when it comes to the condition of links. 

Ironically there's probably more pressure on the second tier courses to water and fertilise because visitors will visit rota courses simply because that's what they are.

Anyway, I've just booked a B&B in Crail for tomorrow night as my home course is shut at least untiltomorrow lunchtime and is likely to still be boggy on Saturday and I'm pretty confident that with a decent day tomorrow and Saturday Crail will be in decent nick for the Autumn Meeting, so all isn't lost.

I've searched in vain for a "jealousy" emoticon.  You'll just have to take my word for it.

Does Elie have an overseas membership??