[Kyle Harris]

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. 

The question is how many times she could beat you under similar conditions. One round does not a golfer make.

Furthermore, those "normal" golf course would also expose potential weaknesses or faults in your round that may not defeat her ability to under-power the same. It can be downright maddening to play a golfer that will always tie you with a 5 on a golf course where it is difficult to make a 4.

[Don_Mahaffey]

PS to my post above. Ben's message is not that WP is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it's courses like WP offer the greatest amount of enjoyment to the widest swath of players. WP is by no means easy to score on. We played with some very good players yesterday and the challenge is all you want. We spent quite a bit of time walking in the hay looking for balls, because width or not, the better players needed to challenge the edges to get home in two on par 5s have short clubs on long 4s etc.
But, a lady golfer who is probably a 20 handicap shot an 83 because she used her head, hit good shots, and her smile was ear to ear.

[Ben Sims]

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    

Sean,

Width for width's sake is my issue.  Just being big isn't the point.  (as an aside I'd love to know the acreage of irrigated turf on the Dunes Course at Prairie Dunes) Having a point to the width and/or being smart about where to add and take away width is a hard dance.  I like Stone Eagle for this reason.  It's not huge by any means, but misses are recoverable because Tom had a good idea of where it needed size and where it didn't.  

But I don't think that width automatically equals options.  There has to be conditioning and contours that allow for options as well.  

[Jud_T]

 It doesn't prefer one type of game over another, it doesn't discriminate like many penal TOUR layouts.  

This gets to the heart of the matter IMO.  It's simply more fun for more players in more conditions. 

[Ben Sims]

Furthermore, those "normal" golf course would also expose potential weaknesses or faults in your round that may not defeat her ability to under-power the same. It can be downright maddening to play a golfer that will always tie you with a 5 on a golf course where it is difficult to make a 4.

Disagree here friend.  On those "normal" golf courses, my game would be much more well suited to making pars and bogies than hers.  And it's really not debatable due to her lack of an aerial ability and conditioning that we have grown accustomed to and expect in the US.  Yesterday's round was so remarkable because I have never played a match where the golf course evened the field to the extent that WP did yesterday.  

I don't think the typical American golf course is capable of that.  

[Kyle Harris]

Furthermore, those "normal" golf course would also expose potential weaknesses or faults in your round that may not defeat her ability to under-power the same. It can be downright maddening to play a golfer that will always tie you with a 5 on a golf course where it is difficult to make a 4.

Disagree here friend.  On those "normal" golf courses, my game would be much more well suited to making pars and bogies than hers.  And it's really not debatable due to her lack of an aerial ability and conditioning that we have grown accustomed to and expect in the US.  Yesterday's round was so remarkable because I have never played a match where the golf course evened the field to the extent that WP did yesterday. 

I don't think the typical American golf course is capable of that. 

But here is the question for you then:

Is the ability to loft a shot a reasonable distance not something that should be in a golfer's basic repertoire.

Links golf DOES require this from time to time (see: Carnoustie).

Furthermore, while your game may be better suited to making 4s and 5s, a compelling golf course will force you to take on hazards that turn those 4s and 5s into 6s and 7s when you fail to execute. That mental aspect of the game cannot be divorced from the discussion either. Assuming your TPC example, imagine if you plunked one in the water on 17 with honor... her shot from the forward tee would probably become slightly easier to grasp mentally, etc. etc.

Furthermore, this is one of the few cases where the Match play v. Stroke discussion actually has some depth, and in my opinion this is where Match play falls short of the dogmatic superiority some give it on here. Your opponent yesterday, in a match, could simply concede an entire hole after a failed attempt and only lose 1/18th of her chances to defeat you. In stroke play, she absolutely could not remove herself from the situation and would need to rely on strategy to complete the hole. 

We'll also have to explore typical American golf course since I believe the vast majority are not laden with forced carries.

[Ben Sims]

But here is the question for you then:

Is the ability to loft a shot a reasonable distance not something that should be in a golfer's basic repertoire.

Yes.  But(!), the downfall of the idea of "ladies tees" on a penal golf course is that they often are positioned where female golfers drives land where men's do.  Wrong idea.  That leaves an approach for the lady that is the same distance but not the same shot value.  Hence why conditioning found on links style golf courses favors the masses over one type of game

Furthermore, while your game may be better suited to making 4s and 5s, a compelling golf course will force you to take on hazards that turn those 4s and 5s into 6s and 7s when you fail to execute. That mental aspect of the game cannot be divorced from the discussion either.

Hmm.  Tough one here.  I agree that any good golf course should require you to manage hazards.  But I don't think you should have to engage or take on a hazard if you're smart enough to stay away from it.  In that vein, the mental aspect MUST be considered as a variable in the debate of why links style is better  In effect, I agree with the statement above, but for differing reasons.  Compelling golf--to me--isn't conquering a hazard to make a score.  It means managing your limitations.  That may involve not risking anything.  Sun Tsu??

Your opponent yesterday, in a match, could simply concede an entire hole after a failed attempt and only lose 1/18th of her chances to defeat you. In stroke play, she absolutely could not remove herself from the situation and would need to rely on strategy to complete the hole. 

Which is why match play is better than stroke play.   

We'll also have to explore typical American golf course since I believe the vast majority are not laden with forced carries.

Forced carries aren't the only issue.  Much of it has to do with unnatural water as a hazard, lush rough, soft approaches, and small playing areas. 

[Tim Martin]

Furthermore, those "normal" golf course would also expose potential weaknesses or faults in your round that may not defeat her ability to under-power the same. It can be downright maddening to play a golfer that will always tie you with a 5 on a golf course where it is difficult to make a 4.

Disagree here friend.  On those "normal" golf courses, my game would be much more well suited to making pars and bogies than hers.  And it's really not debatable due to her lack of an aerial ability and conditioning that we have grown accustomed to and expect in the US.  Yesterday's round was so remarkable because I have never played a match where the golf course evened the field to the extent that WP did yesterday.  

I don't think the typical American golf course is capable of that.  

Ben-First of all you are a lucky guy to play a golf course that I never tire of hearing about. I am wondering what would prevent Heather from plodding along on a parkland style course that gives her a ground game option into the greens if she employs the correct angles? Finally from your description of the round are you sure you didn`t get careered?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you for sharing Ben & Don
How long was Heather's course?
Guys, next time don't plan a party on my birthday... or at least not without more notice.
Cheers

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Is the ability to loft a shot a reasonable distance not something that should be in a golfer's basic repertoire.

Links golf DOES require this from time to time (see: Carnoustie).

First IMHO the answer is no, ‘loft a shot a reasonable distance’ is not necessary, links courses by their very nature run to the ground game unless weather is excellent. To prove my point over the last few Opens Norman and Watson outshone the younger players because they knew how to master the poor conditions, losing out when the weather gauge returned to fair allowing the rest to resort to their natural fair-weather game. However the ground game is very suited to Links courses and was more or less the norm for many years pre the Haskell,

Second, as for Carnoustie again I do not agree it is not required but I do agree that many do so from time to time.

I cannot comment upon a manufactured links course (sounds much better than calling it fake) vs a true links, but I have some doubts that our Designers/Contractors can as yet match Nature and her little quirks as many like to call them on tis site.

The difficulty is defining the links game, clearly you are looking at it from the American point of view, but with all due respect is this the right approach as links golf is not a natural phenomenon in the US.

Melvyn

[Don_Mahaffey]

Thank you for sharing Ben & Don
How long was Heather's course?
Guys, next time don't plan a party on my birthday... or at least not without more notice.
Cheers

Mike,
You know how we pick tees, but this is close
Men 280, 395, 515, 330, 465, 235, 285, 190, 530, 290, 415, 170, 460, 580, 200, 365, 440, 390

Heather 240, 350, 460, 270, 410, 150, 285, 170, 470, 290, 350, 160, 420, 500, 145, 345, 375, 350

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

Then why carry anything other than various length putters? What was the most lofted club in Old Tom Morris's bag?

Surely the inherent friction to the surface requires some form of aerial game. I'm not talking about throwing a dart to the green from 180 yards out but simply a lofted pitch of 50 yards or so - the darn thing can even roll out. This shot is required from time to time on the links course if the golfer has any idea to score more efficiently.

There are also the instances where any of the number of variables inherent to golf require a shot lofted over a hazard - be it bunker or burn. How does a golfer play to the first green on The Old Course without employing some form of lofted shot to carry the burn? Similarly with Barry Burn on the Carnoustie Links.

Ben,

I feel as though your issue is more with maintenance and presentation of the golf course as opposed to architecture in this case. Was your opponent to get the ball in the air at all? What provided the momentum to the golf ball?

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I feel as though your issue is more with maintenance and presentation of the golf course as opposed to architecture in this case. Was your opponent to get the ball in the air at all? What provided the momentum to the golf ball?

Come on Kyle.  Concede the idea that the links style architecture and maintenance create more accessible golf for all.  I know you're not delusional enough to think that Heather could have played her same game at TPC Wherever and had the same result.  It's about the total package.  

You can thunder away about match play vs. stroke play, friction of the surface, etc., if you'd like.  It doesn't change the fact that the most prevalent forms of golf architecture on the good to great courses in the US are not accessible to a game like Heather's.  That's why the tenets of links golf are so important, and why they are--still--the best forms of golf architecture.  

PS--Don, we did NOT play #6 at 235.  I distinctly remember 250+ into a 20mph south wind.  Mike designed a good par 4 from back there. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben, pretty sure it was 230ish, that tee was placed as a forward tee for 8 more then a back tee for 6, but I thought it might be fun from back there...we'll play it a little up next time around.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know - sounds to me that a 'straw man/woman' has been created here, and that, simply put, Heather is a much better golfer than anyone is giving her credit for. That her game may not 'translate' to another kind of course doesn't mean much in and of itself - neither does Phil Mickleson's game translate very well at the Open. So I guess I could conclude that WP is an excellent design and very good golf course in that it tested - and identified - the better player on that day.

Peter

[Don_Mahaffey]

Peter,
She was the best player yesterday. She hits it good, and can hit it with some force, but she hits it low, which was good for a course where the ball is going to move on the ground, and you have some room to let it do so.

Maybe our premise is flawed, because she can play and she's smart, but most, not all but most, courses require a much more aerial approach, and I'm not sure that's her strength.

Ben and I are seeking a rematch.

[Scott Warren]

The best golfer is the one who holes their ball in the fewest strokes, and that being so -- IMO -- I favour a course that allows a golfer to do so whichever way they see fit, by playing one of any number of different shots.

I don't look at is as a case of "links courses are the best because they give you that". For me it's more a case of any course that overly limits the number of different shots that can be played -- from the tee, the fairway or around the green -- is falling short of what a golf course should offer, ie. the opportunity for a smart golfer to choose the shot strategy that will help them hole the ball in the fewest strokes.

But it certainly isn't a links/non-links thing in my mind.

National, Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, Fishers Island, Valley Club, Walton Heath and others all provide this just as much as any links.

One of my issues with Rye is that is gets so baked that a ball bouncing at least 20 yards short of the green is the only play in many cases and that is just as bad as prescribing an aerial shot that lands at the hole.

I have noticed -- on the topic of fast and firm golf courses and lady golfers -- that often a fast/firm course will favour a lady as I believe ladies get a greater % of their distance from roll than men do, and so a course where a straight shot can roll out 60 yards or more will reward accuracy without demanding brute power and will bring ladies more into the game more.

[Mark Pearce]

Come on Kyle.  Concede the idea that the links style architecture and maintenance create more accessible golf for all.  

You haven't played Carnoustie, have you?

[Mark Chaplin]

I expect it's just because I'm thick but I still haven't fully got this thread. All the clubs I play have legendary seniors who are unbeatable when the courses dry out and they hit every shot 200 yards dead straight and bimble their approach onto the green. I also play mixed foursomes with ladies for whom rough is purely a mixed foursomes hazard and place to pick wild asparagus from. But that isn't what makes links golf great although the asparagus is!

Scott I've not played Fishers or Valley Club but all the others you name encourage the player to manufacture shots as does any good links course. Rye is rare even amongst the links as they do not have fairway watering, what you get there is what nature provides.

[Ben Sims]

Come on Kyle.  Concede the idea that the links style architecture and maintenance create more accessible golf for all.  

You haven't played Carnoustie, have you?

One course cannot undo a theory.  And I'd be happy to debate the merits of what defines links-style and whether Carnoustie meets the definition once I see her one day.  But at this point, based solely on what I know of Carnoustie through pictures, brief study, television, and hearsay; I'd say that there are a half dozen courses in the US that I've played that are more links-style than Carnoustie.  (I hear the rattling of pitchforks  )

Mark, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the positioning of the course or the soil its built on, but just the architecture.  To me, a links is much more about the tenets of the ground and its playability than where it is located.

[Bill_McBride]

Peter,
She was the best player yesterday. She hits it good, and can hit it with some force, but she hits it low, which was good for a course where the ball is going to move on the ground, and you have some room to let it do so.

Maybe our premise is flawed, because she can play and she's smart, but most, not all but most, courses require a much more aerial approach, and I'm not sure that's her strength.

Ben and I are seeking a rematch.

How did she play 14, the par 5 with the creek in front?   I guess that would be the only forced carry if there's a tee on 18 across the junk.  I play quite often with my short hitting wife.  I always enjoy watching her tack her way around the course, laying up in front of obstacles without ego getting in her way. 

Wolf Point is really the only US course I've played that approximates the conditions of the great links of the UK.  I haven't played Maidstone.   It's a completely different game. 

[Anthony Gray]

  Simply.....Experience. Links golf is a better experience. It even smells better.

  Anthony

[Michael Goldstein]

Ben, intrigued to hear about the half dozen courses in the US..

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - just to be clear, you and Ben won't get ay argument from me that the style at WP - and the underlying design principles and ethos -- make for more fun for more (and a wider range of) golfers than other types of courses, and that in this sense represents the best of what most great architects from throughout the game's history have valued.  I just don't think it's best -- for either the sake of argument or for promotional reasons -- to start tying-in so directly and equating the playing characteristics as experienced by any individual golfer to overall architectural merit/value and to the "ideal" principles that out to be honoured.   

Peter

[Don_Mahaffey]

Peter,
I guess the thread has over reached a bit. It all started with a simple conversation about how one type of golf course allows a wider variety of players (provided they can execute somewhat consistently and think their way around) to compete, vs what we think is the more common modern style of hit it here or your screwed. It was never about promotion, and we were both very impressed with how Heather played.
I knew as soon as the links word was used a can of worms would open.

My mother is 71 and plays golf three times a week. I've played enough golf with her to form an opinion about what sort of courses are fun for her. My point has always been you can build a course that is fun for her, and also challenge low handicap players.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()