Why links(style) golf is better?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Clearly until you mentioned 50 yards I presumed you were talking of shots outside the realms of the ground game. But lets again look to the understanding of the aerial/ground game. 

I believe I qualified by comment by saying that you may have been looking at the course from an American point of view. By that I mean the aerial game is by definition the American approach to the game of golf. We on the other hand tend to play the course in front of us, the aerial shot is certainly there but not necessary in the same content as we see state side.

It is all alas subject to definition, by that does the use of a Sand Wedge constitute the aerial game, perhaps in the same vein does the use of a 9 Iron chip to the Green also define the aerial game. Where is the demarcation line between the aerial and the ground game? After all both encompass and include the ball being airborne.

Links golf is different, can a links course be superimposed on to any site, the answer is yes but want it to plat like a real links course then the designer/Contractor have a big problem as further features need to be develop i.e. the wind turbine and general seaside weather conditions, however they will work against the natural condition of the region where the course is located.

I spent the afternoon at Southwold (http://www.southwoldgolfclub.co.uk/index.php) and the wind made a tremendous difference yet it was otherwise a wonderful afternoon. The wind acts as a two edge sword demanding respect, yet on one or two Holes it played to the golfer.

Now that you have qualified your aerial shot to 50 yards +/- it opens up more questions than answers, but I still maintain that links golf does not need the aerial games as defined by you guys over the pond. In fact it detracts from the pleasure of playing a links course IMHO.

Melvyn

[Mark Chaplin]

Parts of Vegas are in the style of Paris but it ain't no Paris!

[Tom_Doak]

This really has been a discussion about TRAJECTORY.

Links courses generally allow for low-trajectory shots to be played under the wind.  That just happens to be the same trajectory that ladies and seniors play by necessity, so as Melvyn would say, the course comes to them. 

Indeed, there are times on links courses where a shot is harder for a pro than for a woman amateur.  The last time I was in St. Andrews, the wind was blowing on the Eden hole -- 170 yards -- and I saw a bunch of reasonable male players swing wildly away at their long clubs trying to get home.  After several groups, a 50-year-old Scottish lady stepped up with her driver, banged it at the entrance of the green, and watched the ball feed around to the pin.  That's a shot Jack Nicklaus would never try to play, but it was a more effective shot in those conditions than any of the various options he might try.

American courses, with a few exceptions, rarely give you a shot where the low-trajectory approach is better than the high-trajectory approach.  It still CAN be done.  Most architects just wouldn't think to try.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The modern clubs (equipment) dont suit the ground game and the better players and best competition rarely play on links golf courses. I had lunch today with a former Ryder Cupper he said Links Golf is virtually dead, the games moved on, he has got a point. Links golf is played by a tiny minority globally. Personally I like links golf but its not easy to convince the newer golfers coming through who want 'numbers' rather than relying on a friendly or bastard bounce.

[Ben Sims]

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

Peter,

I think you're grasping here.  Nothing is underlying or subversive.  Take the assertion at face value and in the same mood you would have a beer and a burger with a friend.  It's not some intellectual theory that needs disproving through control and variable.  And why the mention of promotion?  What's the point of that?

There was a variety of individual styles in play Saturday.  Don and I had a casual three minute conversation about what makes a good golf course and playability by a greater variety of players was a the center of the conversation.  The course was accessible to not just the games of Ryan (a big hitting college player), me (an eratic bomb or slice mid 'capper), or Don (short game wizard); but of Heather as well.  I think you're missing the point about accessibility when comparing different golfers.

[Bill_McBride]

The modern clubs (equipment) dont suit the ground game and the better players and best competition rarely play on links golf courses. I had lunch today with a former Ryder Cupper he said Links Golf is virtually dead, the games moved on, he has got a point. Links golf is played by a tiny minority globally. Personally I like links golf but its not easy to convince the newer golfers coming through who want 'numbers' rather than relying on a friendly or bastard bounce.

Adrian, has he been to Deal or Rye and tried to play the modern aerial game all the way around?  Lots of luck!    Clarke's victory at Sandwich was so much fun to watch because of his mastery of the links game.

[Terry Lavin]

Better or worse is surely a subjective exercise in this regard.  I think it comes down to familiarity and comfort levels.  I'll use a gca experience as an example.  Mark Pearce came over to Chicago for a convention a couple years ago and we played Olympia Fields together.  He enjoyed himself and liked the golf course just fine, but his major feeling for the day seemed to be that he liked playing a golf course that is just about as far from anything that he usually gets to play.  Sort of a diversity argument in a golf setting.  That's the way that I feel when I play a links course.  I enjoy it.  I'm charmed by it.  And I want to do it again, but it's so utterly foreign to me and my game that I don't know that I'll ever prefer it to parkland golf, which I grew up playing.

[Niall C]

The modern clubs (equipment) dont suit the ground game and the better players and best competition rarely play on links golf courses. I had lunch today with a former Ryder Cupper he said Links Golf is virtually dead, the games moved on, he has got a point. Links golf is played by a tiny minority globally. Personally I like links golf but its not easy to convince the newer golfers coming through who want 'numbers' rather than relying on a friendly or bastard bounce.

Adrian

I think he could be talking about the gamer as a whole, at least the game we used to play. Technology has changed the way golf is played irrespective of what type of course you play on. Arguably links golf has suffered/changed less than inland golf. But one thing is for sure, links golf is played by a much smaller percentage of golfers than years gone by simply because of the spread of the game.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - grasping, underlying, subversive?  No.  It's just a very old and well-worn topic, one that I was trying to keep interesting for myself by thinking it through just a bit more. Folks smarter and more insightful than I have been loudly singing the praises of links golf for 100 years; we can all agree on its strengths and virtues.  So, if that's all you meant to raise with your thread, that's fine with me -- but then there's not much of a thread there, just more unanimous agreement (and what's the fun in that?).  So I raised the simple point that when you phrase it "why links golf is better", an argument could be made - on a discussion board dedicated to gca -- that many a venerable and top-ranked golf course in America and GB&I would not qualify as such in the least, and so perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye. As I say, just trying to keep myself interested.  I used the word 'promotion' inadvertently and wrongly -- my pen ran away with me. As I think Don and I hope you know, I am very pleased with the success/acclaim of WP, and it would never occur to me that either of you would be trying to 'promote' the course (though I was probably thinking of the many owners/architects who use "links" in just that way).  Apologies if it came out that way.

Peter  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Niall & Bill - I should add he loves links golf himself. There just seems to be a level (barring the Open championship) where links golf is not played again. I do think links golf has sufferred more with 'the progress', Links courses rely on deception and the partial blindness and intimate knowledge you might only know by learning the course. Knowing the yardage kinda ruins it.

[Eric Smith]

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.  

I understand where Ben is coming from. I think if there is an over reach it is probably more towards the idea that if it isn't links style in America than it's a TPC type course. We here see so many of the name resorts and clubs that we tend to default to that type of budget and over manicuring when thinking of American golf courses. There are some 'regular' golf courses out there in small towns and surely in the big ones as well, that didn't have budgets to dig out multiple ponds, so the greens and tees there are of the more low profile variety. There has to be more than a few owners, managers and supers out there who subscribe to the tenets of a firm, dry and fast playing surface. Quite possibly, out of necessity? Just here where I live, I've played golf courses that don't charge a whole lot to play that are basic in form and in function that the f&f crowd would smile about. My old employers built a 9 holer with a mix of water holes and 'linksy' holes, and the super at the time kept it dry and tight, where my good friends, the guys I worked with there, took advantage of the course's playability each and every day. It was always great fun to see them worm-burn, bounce and roll them onto the 9th green from my office window. A 65 year old, a 75 year old and an 80 year old. Played every weekday if it wasn't raining. I miss those guys.

[Brett Hochstein]

Here is another way of simplifying everything that has already been said. 

Links-type conditions of the fast and firm firm variety simply add more golf course to every shot.  Golf courses, especially good ones, have important undulations and hazards en route to the hole.  Links-type conditions put these features directly in play and in turn, "add more golf course."  Soft conditions, however, make these features null, and for a given single shot A to B (the hole), totally irrelevant.  (They can be somewhat more relevant as varying the stance and distance to point B, but it is still a direct aerial shot to the hole.  With soft parkland conditions, you might only have to think about 10%, or more often less (Tour pros: <1%), of the shot distance.  With links-type conditions, one can have to interact with up to 100% (putter) of the shot distance.  That to me is far more interesting and challenging and what will get me to choose playing most modest links courses over most top-rated parkland courses.

Also, I do believe from my experience and studies that links-type conditions can be achieved, or at least maximized, nearly anywhere given cooperation with the weather (that's a big if though in most places, understandably).  However, I have not seen anything that can match the sparse, tight turf of the older links of Scotland.

[Kyle Harris]

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.  

Nor can one round make one.

It seems that it was more the case that Heather was playing at her best, and you were likely not. If you're so good - how come you didn't adapt your game to the course and opponent to overcome?

Melvyn,

My position is strictly that an aerial shot of such distance (50 yards) is a basic requirement for a golfer's repertoire. A player such as Heather in this example may place herself in the position to use this shot and outwit an opponent with a more athletic approach to the game.

[Ben Sims]

It seems that it was more the case that Heather was playing at her best, and you were likely not. If you're so good - how come you didn't adapt your game to the course and opponent to overcome?

Kyle,

I missed you Saturday!  I had no idea you were hiding in the bushes disecting our round.  Now I know why you didn't answer your phone when I called.  You were afraid to give up your hiding spot!   

Don and I were playing pretty solidly.  In fact, other than two specific shots on the back nine, I can't think of anytime I didn't do very close to what I was intending to do.  The course was accessible to all in our grouping.

I'll stick with my assertion that links style architecture allows a wider variety of players to enjoy and compete on the golf course.  I've seen it time and time again just this year at a dozen or so matches at Wolf Point and at Ballyneal. 

[Bill_McBride]

Niall & Bill - I should add he loves links golf himself. There just seems to be a level (barring the Open championship) where links golf is not played again. I do think links golf has sufferred more with 'the progress', Links courses rely on deception and the partial blindness and intimate knowledge you might only know by learning the course. Knowing the yardage kinda ruins it.

Adrian, knowing the exact distance might be the least important piece of information in planning a shot in real links conditions.

It always kills me to watch my US buddies carefully scoping each shot, then looking for their balls behind the green!

[Kyle Harris]

Ben,

A lot of these sorts of analyses tend to be seen through rose tinted glasses. Furthermore, when I envisioned your round, I figured Heather couldn't get the ball off the ground... as in... she bladed or topped the ball a lot, not that she simply had a low trajectory. I won't buy into your notion about links golf... but I will say it applies to the concept of the ideal maintenance meld. That is, the ground is suitably firm when a well struck 8 iron will lightly dent and check. This is achievable on many golf courses of different variety and is the chief method by which the maintenance integrates the golfer to the architecture.

Ever see a tour pro hit a wedge shot? I'd venture to say that on a daily basis most professional golfers hit the ball lower than most single-digit amateurs. Oddly enough, the highest ball trajectory I've ever seen on tour (Stewart Cink) beat Tom Watson in that legendary Open Championship a few years ago.

I also believe it to be a bit of contradiction to say that overcoming the conditions of the links is a "good" skill, but having to adapt the game to softer or firmer conditions is "bad." A good golfer is able to adapt their game to any condition that is found on the golf course. Sometimes, bad golfers are just going to be bad golfers. That's what makes the game interesting - you practice to overcome your weakness.

[Mark Chaplin]

Adrian - the level your man is talking about is pro tour level where links golf is off the agenda mainly because links courses tend to be member clubs, less accessible and unwilling to pay to host an event.

At top amateur level links golf is very much on the agenda with the Lytham, South East Links, West of England, St Andrews Links Trophy and The Amateur just to name a few big annual events. Then go down to county golf and then open weeks and open events so links golf is open to all.

So he is talking about golf played by 0.0001% of the golfing population hardly representative.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark, yes thats correct, but that tiny percentage is what gets aired on TV. Thats becoming the game everyone plays. Its hard to make new links courses and true firm and fast conditions are so hard to achieve in other parts of the world.

[Mark Pearce]

Kyle,

I think you've got it spot on.  Ben isn't talking about "links style" (whatever that is, it appears to mean something other than "in the style of genuine links"), he's talking about fast and firm.  For me it is self evident that all courses should be fast and firm.  It makes life easier for the short player who benefits from the roll but harder for the bomber who has to have excellent control not to run into trouble.  It brings hazards into play at the same time as it rewards accuracy.

[Matthew Mollica]

To answer the original question - why is links golf better?

As the lady in the opening post demonstrated - tam arte quam marte.

MM