[Ben Sims]

I left out under cover of darkness yesterday morning and made the 5 hour drive to visit Don Mahaffey and his son down at Wolf Point.  I needed some windy links preparation for my upcoming trip to a windy locale.  Nowhere in Texas can replicate the conditions (undulation and wind wise) that I'll see next weekend except Wolf Point.  After some vaca cabeza tacos mas fina, Don and our group headed out to an 80 degree, 25mph wind, bluebird fall day.  The greens were predictably hard and quick, with the beginnings of linksy dormant bermuda.  

Everyone was hitting the ball pretty well.  I was hitting the driver as good as I have in months, and Don was hitting some salaciously good wedge shots.  We had a match going against Don's assistant and his girlfriend.  But even with Don and I playing fairly well, after 9 holes or so, I looked at our scorecard and noticed that we weren't running away with it.

Upon further inspection, Heather (the assistant sup's girlfriend), was keeping pace without any help from her better half.  And then, as Don and I dissected our opponent's game, we realized she hadn't been in trouble all day.  In the tough wind and hard conditions, she was simply controlling her ball, getting it down when it counted.  On the back nine, I started bombing the ball.  It didn't matter, she neutralized our length advantage with solid striking and "good misses".   No 50 foot putts, no spinning wedges, no power game to speak of.  Just solid striking and hitting it where the course helped her.  

Over a beer after the round, Don and I talked about what makes a good golf course.  We concluded that watching Heather (she was good, but not a spectacular golfer) beat wholesale ass against me and Don confirmed why links golf is better.  It doesn't prefer one type of game over another, it doesn't discriminate like many penal TOUR layouts.  

The fallacy of the modern game--and in my mind, many low 'cap "core" golfers--is that power equals good.  High, soft darts are what makes a good player.  But that kind of golf is exclusionary.  The golf I played yesterday, is not.  And there is the point about why links golf is better.

Thought and reattacks?

[Tom_Doak]

Oh, Ben.  All of those great players who can spin the ball will tell you that the course was at fault if it does not REWARD their superior power and skill by overwhelming "lesser" players.  Heck, the jury for the Olympic design competition are probably trying to quantify that very thing so they can judge whose design is superior.

But, I forgive you ... after all you are have never won a major championship, so you can't understand shot values at the highest level.

P.S.  Playing in 80 degree weather was most likely poor preparation for next weekend.

[Mark Chaplin]

Simple - throw down four balls anywhere on the course take four players and each may hit a totally different shot. Links golf rewards imagination.

[Philippe Binette]

because links courses drain faster.

the rest is only a consequence of that fact

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

As Meatloaf once said, "two out of three ain't bad."  So wind and undulation was the best I could do to practice.  As for temperature, well, I've got long sleeve shirts and gortex. 

Mark,

I think you're missing the boat if you talk only of "options."  I am a mid-handicap golfer, and it chaps me when mid to poor golfers talk about "options" to mean that they can miss the crap out of a golf shot.  I think a good AND playable golf course should demand a specific position or target every now and then.  The trick is that there should be multiple ways to get there. 

I say all that to say that there should be a delineation between width and forgiveness of a golf course vs. options of shots to get to a target.  Many don't make that distinction. 

Philippe,

I think your attempt at simplifying the driving force behind links' golf superiority ignores several key areas.  Slopes, counter-slopes, hazard positioning, designing for differing weather conditions; all of these have a profound impact on why links style golf is what it is.  There are loads of penal golf courses designed on good drainage.

[Mark Pearce]

Ben,

Chappers is no "poor golfer".  He's also played more links golf than almost anyone on this site.  So he knows that plenty of real links courses (rather than courses which are fast and firm and play in a way similar to links courses) have plenty of shots that require "specific position or target".  With respect, your response suggest you don't fully get the way great links courses offer options. 

Let's take 13 at Muirfield as an example.  Playing from the regular tees, on a stillish day, I can fly a 7 iron straight on.  Or try to land a choked down 5 iron short and run it up the slope.  Get either shot wrong, though, and I'm in trouble.  I have options but I have to execute the one I choose.  The list of links holes that require good execution of your plan but offer options as to what plan to go with is very, very long.  That's one of the great things about links golf.

[Mark Chaplin]

Ben simply I answered your question as to why links golf is better. I'm also a mid handicapper and play 90% + of my golf on links courses abet ones that are a little tighter than Wolf Point. What else to do want, variation of wind speed and direction,  undulating fairways, uneven bounces, firm greens, variation of firmness, bunkers that punish.......and I forgot the Kümmel!

[Philippe Binette]

ben:  .you wrote: ..Slopes, counter-slopes, hazard positioning, designing for differing weather conditions; all of these have a profound impact on why links style golf is what it is...

all this make sense if the ground is firm.... if not the impact of the slopes, the hazards etc is greatly reduced... there is effectively more to this, integration to the landscape, use of strong features, unique elements... but all this would be weak on a muddy and soft field

[Mark Chaplin]

Bonjour moi ami Pearce, allez les Toute Noirs!!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Links golf is where it all started. The twin challenge of the course (Nature with her natural landscape) and the climatic conditions made the experience a real test, requiring the player to delve deep into his reserves to complete the course (as some had 22 Holes).

A links course is prone to react to the different weather conditions, more so than many inland course due to their raw exposure to the elements. Travel approx. 10-12 miles from the coast and note the variation in both temperature and the gusting of the wind. There is also something special about the turf on links courses that makes playing them just so much more enjoyable IMHO.

I have never experienced the same contentment from inland courses that I get from a links courses and I must say that I also notice that I feel fresher after a round on a links course.

My golf started on links courses and while I have played many inland yet no matter how good some are, they never raise my spirit as high as playing upon a links course.

I suppose that the joy comes from playing 36 holes in a day noting the different light and weather conditions on the links from the morning to the afternoon round. At time you thing you are playing a different course from the one you played AM. A links forces the golfer to navigate the course, to play the ground game more so that the long boring aerial game, pushing and promoting what I believe is the basis of developing skill by having to read (unaided) both the course and the conditions. The reliance upon oneself and one’s ability to master the unexpected without resorting to complaining to the club regards certain part of a course because its hurts ones score or should that read one’s pride.

Finally for me a links course offers a big sky, which seem to be in short supply further inland, but that may be down to where one choses to play.

I am a man of the Links and have seen no reason to even consider changing.

Melvyn

[Bill Gayne]

It's the nooks and crannies found on links land.

[Ben Sims]

Mark P.,

I never said Mr. Chaplin was a poor golfer or hadn't played links. I was simply stating that I think poor golfers sometimes misunderstand links-style golf and his reply to my OP was analogous to what I hear not-so-good golfers say about links-style golf.  Not that he is a poor golfer; I've heard the contrary before.  

As I said before, here at GCA, too many lump width and recovery into the term "options."  I don't like that there isn't a distinction between width and and playability.

In the case of Heather--who beat Don and I--it wasn't about "throwing 4 balls down anywhere."  In fact I don't remember finding myself anywhere near her all day, except at the green.  Though I was in play, she was rarely out of position A.  She managed the course better than I did, even though I thought I was hitting good shots.  That's the crux of links-style golf.  

Philippe,

I understand your take on this, but I don't think it's simply the drainage/soil.  It is my firm belief that the golf agronomy business needs to figure out firm/playable conditions again.  The excuse is generally centered around the juxtaposition of green grass vs. drainage capacity vs. customer expectations.  Play some brown bermuda grass in January in Atlanta that hasn't seen precipitation or been overwatered.  It's pretty fast, and it's on clay!

Mark Chaplin,

Oh the magic of the internet.  I am sorry if my response was spiked.  Tonal inflection, mood, and humor are often lost.  I am not attacking your stance at all, just looking for more.  I agree it is imagination.  But for me it is so much more.  That's all I was trying to say.  And hopefully continue the debate!

By the way, Wolf Point is manufactured.  At least to the extent that the humps and rolls weren't there before.  The creek and drainage provided by that creek are natural.  But I implore you not to start a debate on what is "true links."  WP yesterday played as "links-style" as any course I've ever played.   It is really quite remarkable.

[Kyle Harris]

It's because the best marksmen are not necessarily the best hunters. Links golf - and really any golf course of merit - simply offers a problem, or series of problems, the answer to which is not assessable on the driving range or the putting green.

The golf course must offer the golfer the ability to take the all the shots in the golfer's tool box in pursuit of the hole while spending the fewest shots possible. I think the issue Tom alluded to with better players is that the measure of a golfer's ability has a hard floor (AT LEAST one shot per hole) with no ceiling. As scores approach the 3-5/hole range, it becomes the consistency and ability of the golfer to make those scores that is the measure of ability as opposed to the range. A scratch golfer making a series of 4s in a row will probably tie a 10-handicap once or twice during that stretch.

Better golfers have skewed expectations of how to measure their ability against golfers of lesser ability.

P.S. Got your message, Ben... will return call tomorrow.

[Ben Sims]

I really didn't answer my own question yet, but playability is the answer.  I have often wondered why I love the golf courses I do.  Yesterday was as close to a full answer as I have gotten.  That is, everyone can compete and also be challenged, but mostly, have fun. 

[Keith OHalloran]

Ben,
You have said that Heather was a good golfer, managed the course better than you, and was rarely out of position A. Can you tell my why she would not have won on any course? Why is this a celebration on links golf and not a celebration of general course management and match play?

[Sean_A]

Ben

I would be interested to know what the distinction is between playability and width.  Playability through width has always been one of my pet peeves and often what the so called great links lack - therefore not making many of them so great in my estimation.  Links golf should be better because of its natural attributes, but because the design of some links doesn't take full advantage of the natural attributes there are many links which aren't better.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

Keith,

Good question.  I don't think she could have played a course like TPC Sawgrass and scored well, even from the ladies tees.  I hope that is a fair characterization of why links-style golf is better.  It is more accessible.  

Sure her course management was good, but that's because the course was manageable for her skills.  There are plenty of courses out there that are considered great courses that she could not have had the same result.  I hope that makes sense.  

[Ben Sims]

Sean,

I don't think I follow.  Are you saying that playability must have width? 

For me it is a combination of many things.  Features like forced carries near the green, greens defended on all sides by rough/hazards, lightning fast greens, sloppy approach areas, etc. etc.  These are among the things that can destroy course playability for the masses, no matter how wide the corridor is.  Width is but one facet of the larger equation, IMO. 

[JNC Lyon]

1. Sandy Soil (meaning both firm conditions and ease for bunkering)
2. Interesting Ground Contours
3. No Trees
4. Ever-changing winds
5. NO TREES!

As much as I like a good parkland course, I will find it hard to place that type of course in the same league as a links course, or a near links course in the vein of Ballyneal or Dismal.

[Chris DeNigris]

Ben,

I was thinking the same thing as Keith..your premise of links golf being better (best) is probably a good one...but your use of Heather doesn't quite make your point very well. In fact I bet her game is quite analogous to many senior players who might only hit it 200 yds off the tee, never miss fairways and chip and one putt like Lee Trevino...

When I was a kid with some game I used to get whooped by some of these "grandpas" regularly....on a mountain course in PA that's a distant reach from anything links-like. I can't think of too many course where that wouldn't occur if using the correct tees.

[Kyle Harris]

Keith,

Good question.  I don't think she could have played a course like TPC Sawgrass and scored well, even from the ladies tees.  I hope that is a fair characterization of why links-style golf is better.  It is more accessible.  

Sure her course management was good, but that's because the course was manageable for her skills.  There are plenty of courses out there that are considered great courses that she could not have had the same result.  I hope that makes sense.  

But Ben...

I think we can accept that TPC Sawgrass IS a worthwhile test of golfing skill. Her course management is still an asset there and it is entirely possible that by staying out of trouble she would be able to beat you a few times if not as frequently as at Wolf Point. I think you're committing the same fallacy the tour player in Tom's example is committing but to the opposite end.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,
The food might have been better then the golf. Pit roasted cabeza, along withfresh totillas, salsa, and Nopalitos was quite the meal. I could have just kept eating!

As for the golf. Heather was very good at following Robert's advice, so she stayed out of trouble, knew when to be conservative and just keep the ball in play, and she made some putts. Her most impressive shots, to me, was the 60-80 yard approaches that she bumped in with a flat faced club. The rest of us were trying to do sort of the same, but she never tried to get too greedy. We could have scored better, but play around the greens was very tough, and she had a better knack that day. I'm with you, just as I was yesterday, in that most courses would not have suited her style. The firm turf paid off her controlled drives with some roll, and the firm approaches gave her confidence that her shots would come off as planned. One thing we tried very hard to do when we built WP, and in the way we care for the course, is to make the greens and the areas around the greens play the same. We built them out of the same soil, and when we verticut the greens, we verticut around the greens. When we top dress the greens, we top dress around the greens.

The course was far from easy yesterday, but Heather took advantage of Robert's knowledge to leave herself in a position where she could stay in the hole. She rarely reached a green in regulation, and when she couldn't, she hit it to a spot where she could have a go with the next shot.  

As for playing other courses as well, maybe, but I'm with Ben on this one. She really doesn't hit the ball in the air a lot, especially with irons. It was a credit to her that she played to her strengths. But, she would struggle on courses that favor the aerial game, or at the very least, courses that take away the ground game.

[Sean_A]

Ben

Not having fronting bunkers or nearby rough is essentially a function of width - no?  To me width isn't merely about corridor width, its how that space in the corridor is used.  I can buy the speed of greens argument as an argument about playability, but it would be quite a rare case.  In my experience, links greens don't get very fast.  I can't recall ever playing a links and thinking the greens were too fast.  

By far the biggest issue, in terms of playability, that links suffer with is purely lack of fairway width.  Specifically, some fairways not being designed to cope with unusual winds and or the grade of the cut grass.  Sometimes it is down to punishing rough, sometimes it is down to excessive bunkering and sometimes fairways just aren't wide enough.  As an example, I wouldn't think a 40 yard wide fairway with some lean rough on either side as terribly wide.  Lets call that 45-50 yards of width before real trouble is found.  Now how many links fairways do you see with at least that much space?  Of course, there is nothing wrong with narrowed sections to tempt or even the a few narrow fairways to separate the men from the boys, but in the mian you get my point.

Ciao    

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, links courses don't reward poor golfers, in fact they often brutalise poor players. What they do is to some extent neutralise length advantages. Shorter hitters can compete if they are straight, because they are getting a huge amount of roll out of their low-trajectory shots. And on the other side the power hitters cannot play target golf, they have to roll it on just like the shorter hitters. They may have a few clubs less in their hands, but they'll still have to judge the ground contours correctly.

Ulrich

[Ben Sims]

Chris and Kyle,

No way she beats the two of us on a "normal" course yesterday.  Don't get me wrong, she wasn't the worlds worst golfer.  But her game would not translate to what most American golfers consider as "good."  The golf course was accessible to her BECAUSE of its architecture. 

Open approaches, firm conditions, slopes that she could use.  These are just a few of the features that she managed well to win.  I firmly believe that forced carries and lush rough would have completely changed the playing field.  The playing conditions and architecture promoted on older and modern links style courses are more accessible to everyone.  That's why it is better. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()