Links

[Thomas Dai]

Is there a tendency when considering links to think big dunes and big contours when in many ways it is the subtle features like the micro-undulations, the washboards, the variable stances and lies etc that present a great deal of the interest and challenge of links golf?
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is there a tendency when considering links to think big dunes and big contours when in many ways it is the subtle features like the micro-undulations, the washboards, the variable stances and lies etc that present a great deal of the interest and challenge of links golf?
Atb

I think there’s sometimes a tendency to get wowed by the beauty of short-grass contour, regardless of how - or if - it really affects the hole.

[Scott Warren]

I have not designed a links golf course, but I’ve played a lot of very good ones and some less good ones and tried to pay attention to my surroundings.


Thomas D and Ally, I think you’re oversimplifying the relationship between the dunes and the golf, and flattering TEC in the process.


Big dunes or small dunes, what I look for is the shaping of the golf being done with consideration for the surrounding landforms.


That’s what makes Cinque Ports and St George’s work so well in their respective environments. The man made shaping and greensites are speaking the same language as the surrounding land. At Cinque Ports it’s evident even in how the bunkering and greensites vary between the heavy dunes of 3-6 and 15-17 and the flat land of 8-13. In all cases they echo the spirit of the land they’re laid in.


It’s what makes the study between Ballyneal and Sand Hills so interesting for me, the types of dunes on the two sites vary greatly and so does the spirit of the architecture.


At The European Club, some huge dunes and a bold landscape are nothing more than a stadium of sorts through which a very flattened and engineered series of golf holes has been built.


If some people find joy in that, I’m happy for them. But it’s not an elite example of links architecture and for mine there’s not even nearly enough very good holes to begin to excuse the heavy-handed built form.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I thought I would write a few things about The European Club. I know it well and love it. It is one of my favorite places to play in the world. I might have played The European Club more than anyone on GCA. Over the past thirty-five years I have played it well over fifty times. It is my wife's favorite course in the world. It can be a brute of a course at 7400 yards or more playable at 6700 and 6200 yards for mere mortals. Recently I have moved up to 6200 and is very enjoyable for me. Only 12-15 run in a similar direction and that only because they are all along the sea. Otherwise, there no two consecutive holes go the same direction. The wind generally blows so you never really get comfortable. The terrain is varied, from undulating on most of the inland holes to flatter along the sea. The fairways run and are generally pretty firm. The bunkers are sleepered like some of the old Scottish courses. They have become an identifiable feature of the course and are easier to maintain than other bunkers designs. Over the years Pat has mowed the rough down so finding severely offline tee balls is much easier.

The course begins with three kind handshakes. The par four first hole has a generous landing area, but the sloping undulating green and bunkers short and left of the green will get your attention.

The second is a wonderful short par three with a small undulating green. I get to the tee and think birdie but walk off with a three or sometimes four because the wind, generally from the left, seems to buffet my ball around even a punched little shot. There is plenty of room left. It is easy to be short on this hole, so I always take one more club.

The third is a wonderful reachable par five, generally into the wind. The farther you hit the tee ball the narrower the landing area, but this hole is reachable in two, even for older players like me, because I have moved up to the old men's tee box. The preferred second shot is a draw to a left to right sloping fairway and a green that has false front. I can't run up my second shot anymore, so I generally leave myself with a delicate little pitch to a green that slopes from back to front. Stay below the hole because above the hole leaves a scary downhiller.

Four and five are strong par fours that demand the player to pay attention. Five is a tricky tee shot. From the tee it looks as though there is no place to hit the tee ball but get out there and the fairway is miles wide. There are optical illusions all over the course. Trust your yardage because sometimes the yardage you eyeball isn’t correct. Pat can get into your head.

A few years ago, Pat widened the green on the mid-range par three sixth. With water left I generally aimed for the right fringe, but now I take on the green.

Number seven is a wonderful par four and the most difficult hole on the course. The best tee ball is down the right side but with wetlands to the right I generally bail out left and have a more difficult second shot. From the right you can run the shot up but from the left side the bunker on the left side of the green gets in the way. Yet I can aim for either the front part of the green or go left and long of the bunker and pitch on for my par. The green is the most benign on the course. It should be. The first two shots are hard enough without punishing you and the green. I very happily walk off with five. It is my understanding that during the pandemic some of the trees and brush have been cut down along the right side of the fairway and now you can see all the way to the sea.

7a is one of the delightful bonus holes on the course. There is a tee far back, but I play it at about 120 yards. The green is surrounded by huge dunes. The green is not exactly a fishbowl because there is a false front, but you certainly can play for the contours left, right, and long. I always play it because I think two on the tee and it is on the way to the 8^th tee box.

I love the second shot on 8 over the valley to a front to back sloping green. There is plenty of room around the green for an errant second shot. Nine is a strong par four that brings you to the clubhouse. I generally run up my second shot because it plays long for me and the left to right wind isn’t friendly.

Ten Is another hole where Pat gets onto your head. The drive is straightforward but there are two large dunes that pinch the fairway about 50 yards short of the green. The landing area at the green looks tiny from the fairway but is huge and is farther than it appears.

Eleven brings you to the sea. It is a medium length par four that is wide off the tee. It is generally into the wind. Pat has widened many of the landing areas in the past dozen years, including this one. It is the second shot that is testing. Depending on the wind, I will have anywhere from a six iron to a hybrid. I also try to hit it right to left. It holds the green better than a fade because of the wind. The green slopes front to back a from the right. It is relatively small but there is plenty of room if you miss the green left to get up and down.

As soon as you get to 12^th tee you reach for the camera before you reach for the driver. This begins a four hole stretch along the sea that has wonderful holes and stunning scenery. On 12, Pat also has a bit of fun for folks. Originally the 13^th tee was along the beach, but he wanted to build an “extra” par 3, called 12a. This made getting to the original 13^th tee to long a walk, so he put the 13^th tee back in the dunes near the new 12a green. This freed up the 13^th fairway beyond the old 13^th tee. As he began to build the new green, it occurred to him to keep the old green and join them up. Now the green is some 125 yards long. 90% of the time the pin is in the first half of the green, but that doesn’t stop folks from walking all the way back and putting to a front pin.

12a is my favorite par three on the course. It’s kind of a mirror image of Calamity at Portrush. For me it is anywhere from a five iron to a three wood, depending on the wind. For whatever reason I hit the green most of the time because it gets your attention.



13 is a big par five at 600 yards from the back tee. I play it at about 485 so occasionally I can get close to the green in two because the wind is generally at my back and off the right. The hole is well bunkered but will accept a runup shot from the right side of the fairway.

14 is an excellent one-shot hole. It is tucked in a large dune. You don’t feel the wind on the tee but above the dune there usually is plenty of wind there. Again, the hole plays longer than it looks.



15 is an excellent par four and my favorite one on the course. The second shot on 15 is devilishly tricky. The green is elevated and hard by some bushes high about the sea. When the pin is all the way back your nerves and skill are tested. push the shot and it is quick six. Left of the green has plenty of room to get up and down.

16 heads us back inland. The fairway is miles wide but hugging the right shortens the dogleg right and gives you the best angle into a relatively benign green. Think three.

17 looks like a saddleback from the tee. It is plenty wide, but the green has a lot of slope, which keeps you on your toes. Standing on the tee you think that the hole designed itself.

18 is the most controversial hole on the course. It is a long par four that doglegs a bit left. The tee ball needs to be on the right side of the fairway but left of the bunkers. There is a water feature fronting the green. Over the years it has taken on different shapes and sizes. It is now a snaky little stream. The green is very receptive, but you need to hit shot that carries the water.

I generally will play 36 a day when I am there and always can’t wait to get there the next day. Having a cup of coffee with Pat is always a plus. I was there once a couple of years ago in the pro shop talking with Pat’s son Patrick. It was raining but two guys from Iowa showed up. They had a tee time but didn’t want to play in the rain. They mentioned that this was the only day their wives were going to let them play. Suddenly, the rain stopped. We knew it would only be a short reprieve, but Patrick told them to play ten and as much of the back nine as they could get in. It was his gift to them. They came in filled with joy and gratitude. It was a great gesture.
I have been going to a Cistercian Monastery in County Kildare for 35 years. I go anywhere from two weeks to three months. I love the solitude and singing the Office. I know, it’s weird. I will take an extra week to play golf and have played all over the island. I always make time for TEC. I wouldn’t miss it. I figure that mixed in with my Norwegian blood is some Irish. After all the Vikings founded Dublin.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Scott,


I can assure you I do not oversimplify the relationship between the landscape and the shaping. You’d be quite surprised at how much time can be spent on the tiniest of details until it is “right”.


However, what I was trying to imply above is that people often overplay the affect of the tie-ins & contours on the golf. Really, you are talking about aesthetics and your preference - understandably - is to have a golf course that looks completely natural, as if the hand of man hasn’t touched it. Some people either don’t put the same onus on that or don’t notice at all. Bear in mind that on many courses, a lot of work will actually have been done (far more than at The European) but that is ok for you because you won’t be able to tell.


So regardless of whether you feel The European fits in to the landscape or not, others will disagree and more to the point, it doesn’t tackle whether the golf is actually good.


The European actually has more than its fair share of excellent holes so I think you are wrong there. On top of that, Tommy, who has played it 50 times (far more than I have) has just stated why he loves it and why he thinks it is a top course. How many times have you played it and when was the last time?


Considering Pat has lived and breathed the course for 30 years, I’ve got to think that any perceived imperfections he thought it had at the beginning have now been ironed out. So even if you don’t like his style (or detail), he is happy. As are many customers and competitive golfers. It sounds from Tommy that there are also a share of contours, strategies and illusions that can affect play. I can’t remember all that he talks about which really does remind us that the only way you can actually judge a course is by repeat play. For that reason alone, I have become much more reticent these days in dissing a course after one or two plays. But another reason is that there is always - on every single course - something that I would have “done different”. That in itself shows that there is never one right answer.


I go back to my original point about The European: It is unlike any other course I know. It is unique. It should be celebrated.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy W -- thank you, that was a terrific post. (And Scott's post before and Ally's afterwards made for an excellent discussion.) You've been rather hiding your light under a bushel lately -- your description/analysis of the golf course is interesting & valuable because of how you combine the good golfer's perspective with an appreciation of good golf course architecture, ie the relationship between playability & design.

[Scott Warren]

what I was trying to imply above is that people often overplay the affect of the tie-ins & contours on the golf. Really, you are talking about aesthetics and your preference - understandably - is to have a golf course that looks completely natural, as if the hand of man hasn’t touched it. Some people either don’t put the same onus on that or don’t notice at all. Bear in mind that on many courses, a lot of work will actually have been done (far more than at The European) but that is ok for you because you won’t be able to tell.

I disagree that the shaping of the playing areas is a predominantly aesthetic factor. Playing off uneven lies and utilising ground shaping around greens are key aspects of links golf.


Also note that nowhere did I make comment on how much earth is moved. I don’t greatly care, provided the finishing product is coherent with the site. TEC is not.


I am very comfortable with people thoroughly enjoying Pat’s runway-flat golf course through the dunes. I’m happy that they’re happy. I don’t need to play it 50 times to be clear that it’s a well-marketed Doak 5.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I agree that in a lot of links golf there are humpy bumpy lies in the fairway and that is one thing you are looking for. I don't necessarily agree that it is a mandatory. There are plenty of other things that can get into a players head at TEC to keep it interesting. Around the greens at TEC there is plenty of movement that keeps the player off balance. The green complexes at TEC are exceptional and you better be skilled if you want to score well.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Scott, absolutely shaping could and should affect the game and shots. That’s not what I’m saying.

My first point is that certain people connect wild contours (on the fairways and approach) to the ground game which in turn they connect to strategy and good golf. I dispute that first connection. My experience tells me that I spend more time using the ground when the outcome of my shot has an element of predictability. That includes kick-plates and bumps that feed the ball one way or another. But if I have a whole bunch of random movement before a green site, I’ll often try and fly it. Common sense. Therefore big fairway movement is overplayed as “good golf”. It is undeniably beautiful and I love it. But I find I use the ground more on flatter, more subtle links than I do on the wild ones.


Second point is that tie-ins to make any movement / green sites look “natural” are of the utmost importance to me. But again, that is primarily aesthetic. Their effect on the golf can be overplayed. Movement round a green that affects the golf can tie-in well or look out of tune with the landscape whilst having the same result on how the hole plays.


I gave a “first impression” of St Patricks: I loved the look, the feel, the variety of golf holes, the wonderful ground movement, the cool greens, the routing, the way the shaping ties to the surrounds, the “naturalness” of it all. It is undoubtedly going to be a great course. I can even see certain areas where I know I will use kick-plates and bumps to feed shots in. But I’ve no idea - yet - if it will ask me to play a wider range of shot types or ask me to make more mental decisions than Portmarnock or Portrush or The European if a match or a card depended on it. I’d need to play it more to find out.


I’m only saying these things to question why you seem to have so categorically written off The European. Same could be directed at Sean. It just seemed a poor target for a thread on poor links courses.


EDIT - I see Tommy has posted in the interim with a couple of points that are close to mine above.

[Thomas Dai]

Somewhat unsure why Scott included me in the comments above as I haven’t commented on TEC. Nevertheless
I will mention a comment made to me by a member at Ballyliffin about their two courses …. that the Old was laid out by a man with a mower while the Glashedy was built by lots of men with lots of big machines.
Can I also mention that George Waters book ‘Sand and golf’ is a fine read on this general subject.
Atb

[Sean_A]

There some links that rank toward the bottom of the heap and I won't return to them. Off the top of head:  Ashburnham and Bude & North Cornwall. Some estimates put the number of links courses at almost 300. I have played about 90 and there are some courses of questionable merit. The percentage of poor links courses is a good deal lower than parkland courses.

I very much enjoyed Bude & N.Cornwall. Some really excellent holes there. I can think of quite a few poorer links than that.

I agree with Ally. I did a photo tour of Bude & N. Cornwall.

Interesting. Maybe this proves Ira's point that there are very few poorly designed links courses because the land is so good.

A lot of links were the first courses in the area with histories that stretch back prior to the advent of the famous British archies. Some of that lay of the land architecture still exists in one form or another, built before codification started. So we are often left with a design mishmash that even on no name courses will provide a handful of very good holes, but be inconsistent in terms of quality and interest.

I just played Cullen and it fits the above perfectly. It's far from a good course and many of the links holes are dull, not to mention the high holes. It's fame is derived from the few sea stack holes, but it in no way came close to holding my attention for 9 holes let alone 18. It's a classic case of more holes making for an uncompelling course. But, those few highly unique holes means Cullen gets away with being a 4 and having cult status.

Ciao