[J Sadowsky]

Mike Strantz said he built Royal New Kent because he realized most golfers wouldn't ever have a real chance to go to the Emerald Island.  But living in the DC area, there are only a few courses that even claim to be "linksy" courses, and those courses are a pretty pathetic Americanized links version.  For me, other than RNK (itself a 3 hour drive), it's really going over to Scotland, Oregon, or Nebraska - not exactly day trips.

Would golfers (particularly daily fee golfers) be better served if more architects built true-links styled courses, even in decidedly nondune, inland topography?  Is it too artificial?  Is it any more artificial than an Augusta-styled manicured course in the woods or on a farm?  Should golf courses - particularly daily fee courses - be about giving people variety and options, even if the course isn't natural or even if the architect feels a slightly better 18 holes (but similar to its neighbors) may be out there?

Just throwing out things for conversation purposes.

[Steve Lang]

   I believe:

1) daily fee golfers want easy access, some quality and challenge, and value for their $ .. and

2) that esoteric "golf in the kingdom" is competing for a limited market..  and

3) if its a good experience it will draw folks back, be it links, parkland, mountian, desert or cow pasture golf.. and

4) its hard to draw people to more expensive or more sophiticated golf venues when they have no confidence in their basic game and that's the bottom line to their decisions.

[Sean Eidson]

I really enjoy a course we have here in Dallas called The Tribute.  It's a "tribute" course with facscimilies of 18 holes from Scotland.  We have a 1/18 from TOC, as well as the Road Hole, Postage Stamp, and others from Dornoch, Macranhanish, Turnberry, Muirfield, and Carnoustie.

The course is set on flat, former farmland on a man-made reservoir.  It is very windy, which helps defend the course appropriately and has neat "coastal" views, but it is definitely not linksland.  The soil is very dark, rich, and spongy.  The fairways and rough are bermuda and the greens are bent.

Until this summer when I visited Bandon, it was the closest I got to links golf.  And it was my first introduction to design concepts like central hazzards and pot bunkers.  I also really enjoy the very large, undulating greens that are pretty unsual in other courses I play regularly.

I think having more of these courses that introduce these concepts and style of play is a great idea.  However, returning to the Tribute after playing Bandon really highlighted the differences in the turf - which is one of the things I enjoyed most about the Oregon links. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Would it be possible to create linksy playing conditions by sandcapping? How does, for example, Whistling Straits play?

Ulrich

[Kirk Gill]

In some cases I'm convinced that "links style" is a euphemism for "no trees."

[Jud_T]

lets' all pause this thread, go play 72 holes at lawsonia and then restart....

[Scott Weersing]

Mike Strantz said he built Royal New Kent because he realized most golfers wouldn't ever have a real chance to go to the Emerald Island.  But living in the DC area, there are only a few courses that even claim to be "linksy" courses, and those courses are a pretty pathetic Americanized links version.  For me, other than RNK (itself a 3 hour drive), it's really going over to Scotland, Oregon, or Nebraska - not exactly day trips.

Would golfers (particularly daily fee golfers) be better served if more architects built true-links styled courses, even in decidedly nondune, inland topography?  Is it too artificial?  Is it any more artificial than an Augusta-styled manicured course in the woods or on a farm?  Should golf courses - particularly daily fee courses - be about giving people variety and options, even if the course isn't natural or even if the architect feels a slightly better 18 holes (but similar to its neighbors) may be out there?

Just throwing out things for conversation purposes.

Justin: What are the characteristics of "true-links styled courses"? Can those characteristics be recreated on inland topography?

I think fast and firm is one characteristic that can be recreated but it is up to the superintendent rather than the architect.
I think wind is part of links style course and that depends on where the course is built.
I think wide fairways are part of links golf and that can be built inland but it takes a lot of acres.
I think greens that slope from front to back are part of links golf. Those can be built almost anywhere too.

[Ronald Montesano]

Good points.  There is a new (three years old) course across from the Buffalo International Airport called Diamond Hawk.  It has a fair number of holes where shots to areas short of greens are optimal.  It has shaved chipping areas to the sides and backs of many greens, so the optimal play is to the front, followed by release.  Not all holes on the course play this way, but they might, had the designers (Hurdzan/Fry) opted to do so.  The fifth hole, a par five, has a principal's nose complex in the middle of the hole.  I might be the only one in western New York, other than GCA's Scott Witter, to note this.

[Michael Huber]

In some cases I'm convinced that "links style" is a euphemism for "no trees."

In a lot of cases, "links style" is a euphemism for "no trees" and "tall grass"

[Steve Wilson]

There's no question that wind is integral to the links golf paradigm, but the aspect of wind as a primary defense that cannot be recreated on an inland course is that the wind is ever changing. 

My experience on inland courses is that the wind is a virtual constant.  At a given time of day the wind will blow in a given direction at a given velocity almost all of the time.  If a long par five plays into the wind today, it will play into the wind tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.  Often times when the wind direction or velocity changes it means golf is about over for the time being as a storm is blowing in. 

On a links the winds are more capricious, and bunkers that can be blithely ignored today must be reckoned with tomorrow, or even better  bunkers that are out of mind in the morning are lurking basilisks in the afternoon. 

It's not the wind that is integral to links golf, its the winds.

[Anthony Gray]

  Rustic Canyon plays as fast and firm as any course I have played on nontraditional links land. You can bounce the ball in at putt from over 50 yards.

  Anthony

[Stewart Abramson]

In some cases I'm convinced that "links style" is a euphemism for "no trees."

In a lot of cases, "links style" is a euphemism for "no trees" and "tall grass"

In a lot of cases, "links style" is a euphemism for "no trees, tall grass and artificial mounds."

[Steve Lang]

  may i suggest both Ganton in Yorkshire and Ballyneal in Colorado?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Why do we have to copy, why just not accept the land for what it is and build accordingly, then the game reflects the land, not some far of stretch of coast thousand of miles away.

All the new courses in Scotland in the 19th Century from the 1880 to 1900 were not a copies of TOC. So why should courses in America or the rest of the world be any different. Each course sets out to achieve the best from the land available, yes they did not have heavy earth moving equipment in the 19th century, but quite frankly they did not need it to produce good quality and fun courses. Reason for selecting the land with care, remembering not to be sacred to decline a site if it is not right or just too much has to be done to make it into a golf course.

The only important item IMHO is to remember the quality and location of the land asking my favorite question, is this land fit for purpose. The game is reliant on the land, its contours, the surrounding landscape and climate.

The difference between the TOC, Elie, Cruden and the Castle Course is the quality of the land to support golf. I certainly do not want to see more courses worldwide based upon the format of the Castle Course. For me it fails to live up to its anything, its not links or for that matter any other type of course, its just there and God do I wish it wasn’t.

Build courses to honour the land, stop ripping it to bits then remodeling it into something it is not. Stop overcomplicating the process, after all is not the idea to play over the land available, otherwise we would have 16,000 copies of TOC, with matching each hole in length and design, boy would that kill golf quickly by the repetitiveness of only a choice of the same 18 holes no matter where you go.

Fake is not good, it’s usually sub standard copy of the original and can cost nearly as much if sold as the real thing or is cheaply done causing its own problems. I am not advocating mountain golf or Cart Ball as those are sites that are not really fit for the game of golf (IMHO) and we should use real common sense in our site selection. After all you the golfer pays for the course via Green fees.

Build the courses that compliment the land, lets it live and allows it to breath, my only suggestion i(basic requirement) always make it walkable.

Melvyn 

[Sean Eidson]

I'm not sure that I'm worthy of an argument with Melvyn, but here it goes...

I think that copies/tributes to great courses are vital to the evangelicism of the game.

The first time I played the copied version of TOC here, my playing partner got a taste of the experience.  He hit 6 iron off the tee to 130, then SW (long hitter, that Lama).  He flew to the far back edge of the green and because they were running very firm and fast, he putted OFF the green into our version of the swilken burn.  Three more putts from there and he scored a 7.  A week later, we were still talking about it with other golfing friends.

In my case, I had never experienced, and came to enjoy central hazards like those on our copy of  Carnoustie #6.  I hadn't experienced fairways and greens that run away from the player like our copy of Prestwick #9.  Our copy of Nairn #15, with its wild mounding in the fairway showed me how those features work with a hole where you're likely driving the green or chipping in.

Experiencing these INFERIOR copies was important education that helped me find a passion for golf and golf architecture that led me to Bandon, to this site, and hopefully soon to Ireland and Scotland.

Upon return to my copy course, I've certainly seen some shortcomings that are primarily due to imposing that design on the land.  These are turf conditions preventing some of the ground game shots, and obvious manipulation of the land to build things like the hill on the left side of the Postage Stamp and the aforementioned Nairn copy.

BUT, they were vital to my growth as an appreciator of golf courses.  I think they are inferior, but in a way more like the LA Coliseum is an inferior copy of the Roman Coliseum.  It is not authentic, but bring many, many more people to enjoy aspects that bare the soul of the experience of competitive spectating.

Do you condemn NGLA for reproducing concepts? 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean E

Well put and I understand, perhaps I just don’t agree with the last sentence of your post “Do you condemn NGLA for reproducing concepts”. I don’t condemn, but are they actual copies of the originals ?
.
The point I was trying to make is that the land is what is important, it dictates the course and the quality of experience. Unless one has more money than sense, selecting the land as ideal, then go about changing it completely, ripping out the guts to replace it with God knows what.

Varity is the spice of life, however I understand the copy cat policy, just feel it’s a cop out and may not really reflect the real thing in a good light.

I have always loved playing a links course,  it is different from any other form of golf course, the freshness off the sea, the wind and weather adds to the unknown, in the morning the course is a pussycat, come the afternoon you have a Tiger by the tail and your game takes a turn for the better. Remind you of the 2008 Open at Royal Birkdale with Greg Norman. Greg took control and knew how to play in the conditions, he for most of the time out played all the others because he knew the links game in all conditions. Can these condition as well as the hole be reproduced in any part of the world? The other point is how much of the ground game is taught on these copy holes/courses, I expect very little so you continue to play in your normal way, not perhaps fully understand the contours, bumps and hazards.

I am just advocating that we use the land as it was in the beginning, we work with the land and enjoy the result. The magic of the game is that each course is different, I love the unknown course, being on it for the first time with just the scorecard as my reference point, what more can a golfer ask for?

As for copies, well that’s for others, not for me. However, I understand your point of view. When I do finally travel and get a chance to play again it will not be at the NGLA but hopefully a traditional US home grown course (as long as it allows walking). I want to experience your game and how it works with the land, I certainly will not be playing up in the Mountains, that I leave for the skiing and cart ballers.

Thanks for your informative view.

Melvyn
 

[Sean Eidson]

I only know a bit about NGLA - most of which I've learned from this site.  I don't think they're copies in the same way our tribute course is, but my impression is that he tried and succeeded in copying the best aspects. I also think the filtering concept of let me take the best concepts of the best holes at the best courses and put it all in one course is sort of anti-thetical to the take the land as it lies POV.  And my impression is that NGLA is perhaps the most important course we have.

Luckily for you, we also have many wonderful home-grown courses that were laid gently on the land for you to enjoy when you return.

I just returned from a course which is just what you described - Black Mesa. It is in the high mountain desert, has a very minimalist design, and is walkable.  It's unlike anything you'd ever see in the UK/Ireland.  Just don't avoid it because the marketing materials tout a "Wild Irish Links" style.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()