News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Royal Birkdale = Shinnecock Hills?
« on: July 18, 2008, 12:47:59 PM »
I was listening in to the broadcast this morning before work and IBF claimed that Birkdale was a hybrid links course of sorts and that it was most similar to Shinnecock Hills.

He didn't explain in what way he meant this, but I can only speculate in terms of how the course plays as to how it looks.  While I've been to neither in person I've seen them on TV, and views many pics, and I doubt I would ever confuse the two as being similar looking.

Do they actually have similar shot requirements on many holes, or is this just IBF being IBF??

Kalen

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Royal Birkdale = Shinnecock Hills?
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2008, 12:53:01 PM »
I was listening in to the broadcast this morning before work and IBF claimed that Birkdale was a hybrid links course of sorts and that it was most similar to Shinnecock Hills.

He didn't explain in what way he meant this, but I can only speculate in terms of how the course plays as to how it looks.  While I've been to neither in person I've seen them on TV, and views many pics, and I doubt I would ever confuse the two as being similar looking.

Do they actually have similar shot requirements on many holes, or is this just IBF being IBF??

Kalen

I thought he explained it nicely. He said Birkdale is a links course, that in some ways is like an American-syle course. He called it an "in between" course.

And then he said that Shinnecock was like that--it had characteristics of both links and American-style courses.

Whether anyone agrees with him or not is another matter.

Ken
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

CJ Carder

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Royal Birkdale = Shinnecock Hills?
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2008, 01:32:07 PM »
Wasn't his primary reasoning based on the fact that Birkdale's holes seem to be very well defined as compared to most links courses where you sort of feel like you don't really have any topographical features to guide you down the hole? 

I thought it made sense the way he explained it, but I think it also might be rooted in a bit of false impressions, geared mostly for the American audience.  For example, before I ever played a round on a links course, I was concerned about how to play that type of golf because pictures always made it look like standing on the tee, there was no defined "route" to the hole.  I was used to courses here in the US where you usually have trees or mounding or something to guide you and holes are often separated individually rather than clumped next to each other like a lot of links courses (TOC for example).  However, when I actually found myself in Scotland, just about every course I played (Turnberry, Muirfield, Dornoch, Kingsbarns, Nairn, Cruden Bay) seemed to have well-defined layouts such that I had no problem navigating the holes, with the sole exceptions being TOC, Troon on occasion, and a couple holes at Carnoustie.

So, while I completely understand what I think it was IBF was trying to say, I'm not sure I agree with what I understood him to say, particularly from my now-links-experienced point of view.