Sean is of course correct when he says the definition of links courses was set more than a century ago. Interestingly they had a similar discussion then when the first golf boom happened and inland courses started popping up.
Really? Can you quote that definition for us?
There is no one, clear, coherent, set in stone definition. Some definitions claim it must be by the sea, others state it is mainly by the sea. Many of the attempts to define a "links" are replete with words like "typically," "usually" and "often." Even Peper and Campbell discuss having to generate their own definition to produce their list. To show this ambiguity, here is one commonly cited definition that dares to bring into the conversation the thought that a links could be on "parkland:"
The word "links" comes via the Scots language from the Old English word hlinc: "rising ground, ridge" and refers to an area of coastal sand dunes and sometimes to open parkland.Even on this thread the debate rises as to whether the land in question must have been formed by a receding sea, or if it could be on dunes that were formed by the wind blowing sand away from the sea. If you determined the latter didn't qualify you'd have to take a good number of courses out of the links category.
The massaging of the term that takes place has one goal, and that is to exclude on technicality. What is important is the combination of sandy soil and grasses that produces a firm playing surface. Whether that sand was formed 100,000 years ago or 100 does not matter to me, nor does the continued presence of the body of water that was its genesis.
The rest of the oft-cited criteria are just things that are commonly found in the areas where these firm surfaces are produced, namely wind, dunes and often times the sea.
When you can find nearly identical playing surfaces on the coast of the North Sea, in the high plains of Nebraska or on Melbourne's sand belt, any attempt to delineate amongst them seems disingenuous.
Sven