News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ancient Links vs Parkland courses New
« on: March 27, 2012, 10:31:55 PM »
The esteemed Mr. Morrow continously preaches his "land fit for purpose" theory and in a perfect world I think we all share love for links golf, "golf as it's meant to be" or "golf in the beginning."

But I am absolutely positive that at some point in the history of time the demand for golf and suitable golf courses out grew the availability of ideal "linksland."

So, golf course developers, architects and heady groups such as those that founded Pine Valley were forced to look elsewhere for "land fit for purpose."

My questions are:

Did they ever find it?
Besides linksland, what other type of land is "fit for purpose?"
Are all parkland courses inferior to ancient links?
What amount of "construction" is acceptable according to Morrow's "land fit for purpose" theory?
Was building on parkland the worst decision golf course designers and developers ever made?

Discuss...

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 02:51:50 PM by Michael Dugger »
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2012, 03:25:23 AM »
They found it anywhere with suitable topography and suitable soil.

Those are the only two variables if you exclude the social, economic & environmental element of golf course development.

Heathlands usually have the best of both but pure parklands by their nature rarely have ideal soil. So are they "fit for purpose"? I don't know. They were playing "garden golf" - which basically amounts to very rudimentary parkland golf - right from the beginning, weren't they? So I guess someone decided it was fit for purpose... The same way that your local neighbourhood cul-de-sac is fit for purpose for a kick around when you're 10 years old and have no access to Wembley Stadium...

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2012, 06:44:00 AM »

At least I have been able to get some to talk about some of the issues facing the game today.

Melvyn

Kris Shreiner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2012, 07:43:13 AM »
Dormie Club...has it all, except the ownership/management that understands how to present it properly. There is NO REASON that facility shouldn't be solid in either members or daily play numbers. ANY scenario, private, semi-private, or daily fee...it has the goods if they would tie up the loose ends and knew how to market the product.

That Sandhills region of North Carolina has some wonderful ground for inland golf. The surrounding communities have a subtle charm to them and the weather is certainly not too beastly in either extreme, though it can get a bit warm in the Summer. That's what the beach, mountains and travel elsewhere during those those days are for!

Cheers,
Kris 8)
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 08:18:45 AM by Kris Shreiner »
"I said in a talk at the Dunhill Tournament in St. Andrews a few years back that I thought any of the caddies I'd had that week would probably make a good golf course architect. We all want to ask golfers of all abilities to get more out of their games -caddies do that for a living." T.Doak

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2012, 07:53:10 AM »
I don't know how you would classify the land that Kington is on but I'd certainly say that it is fit for purpose.  I'd also think that Southerndown is on a decent piece of land for a golf course, so downland should be added to the list.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2012, 11:33:31 AM »
Is there enough "land fit for purpose" to adequately address modern day demands for golf?
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2012, 11:40:40 AM »
Yes.  But not in the right places would be my guess.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2012, 11:55:42 AM »

Michael/Mark

After the long process of selecting land for a modern course does the client utilise care during construction, say in the form of Keyhole Surgery or does he strip the ground does to bedrock then reform it in his preferred image irrespective what was already there?

If you are seeking land fit for purpose and utilising the sustainable features provided by Nature then there is an abundance of land fit for purpose, however if it’s the intention of terraforming then watch the alien landscape being rejected by the nature of that region, well then the fun begins and maintenance cost start to rise.

Because we have had the ability to nearly move mountains with our modern machinery we tend to try to do so instead of just shaping the odd corners of an existing site. Then of course we have in GB many an old site left to the farmer again or just left to let Nature to full reclaim it, yet there are sites just waiting to be turned back again into golf courses. However in Scotland that just requires some infrastructure too, in the form of accommodation and restaurants for the visitors.

A fundamental relook as to how to build golf courses is what I believe we need to address to really take at sites fit for purpose or we will quickly revert to the strip back, destroy the original reason for selecting that land before building an alien structure upon land which was once fit for the purpose of play golf.

Melvyn

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2012, 01:55:05 PM »
The vast majority of  new golf courses seek a different checklist. Land fit for purpose is not top of the list for site selection at all. Location is the master. Its not about educating designers to seek out the best lands, the client offers his parcel to the architect for his discussion, only an idiot would try and convince the client to dump his land and try to persuade him to seek some remote sandy site, almost certainly the client would deem you insane and you would not get a second chance.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jim Tang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ancient Links vs Parkland courses
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2012, 02:14:37 PM »
I thought Kingsley Club had some of the best turf I've ever seen.

The entire chop hills region of NE and CO is fantastic and ideal for great golf.

If given the choice, I would always choose a links style course/turf over parkland.  However, I live in Illinois, so parkland courses are all about I ever play.  Having the opportunity to tee it up on linksland is very special and I'm making a conscious effort to play more rounds in those environments.

With that said, I feel there are many wonderful parkland courses out there and well worth a golfer's time.

I think building parkland layouts was inevitable, since there are so very few true links sites around the world.  Partly why I love golf so much is the game can be played in a multitude of different environments and on varied playing surfaces.