[Sean_A]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

Get rid of it!!!!

Si!!!

Ciao

[David Davis]

It all depends on your definition. They didn't make Peper's book, probably because of grasses.

There is only one correct definition as far as all the research I've done on this shows, as I've already mentioned above. I'd love to hear anyones thoughts on why Astoria for example would not be a true links course.

It fits all points as far as I'm aware. I'd be interested to hear G. Peper's reasoning.

[Jon Wiggett]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

Get rid of it!!!!

Si!!!

Ciao

You could always just reroute the course

[Bill_McBride]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

It's a nice "bush" (and a bloody big one if you ask me) on 13, until you've lost a ball in it.   Then it's a forest. 

[Sean_A]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

Get rid of it!!!!

Si!!!

Ciao

You could always just reroute the course

Yes you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush 

Ciao

[David Davis]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

Get rid of it!!!!

Si!!!

Ciao

You could always just reroute the course

Yes you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush  

Ciao

I can't remember said bush, it must not be in the middle of the fairway?

[Paul Gray]

It all depends on your definition. They didn't make Peper's book, probably because of grasses.

There is only one correct definition as far as all the research I've done on this shows, as I've already mentioned above. I'd love to hear anyones thoughts on why Astoria for example would not be a true links course.

It fits all points as far as I'm aware. I'd be interested to hear G. Peper's reasoning.

I can vouch for the fact that Peper is wrong about at least one of the entries in his book and I know others have said similar so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

As far as I'm concerned, if both the courses referenced have millennia worth of sand blown in from the sea and a history of being covered in ice during the last ice age then you have links golf. 

[Garland Bayley]

It all depends on your definition. They didn't make Peper's book, probably because of grasses.

There is only one correct definition as far as all the research I've done on this shows, as I've already mentioned above. I'd love to hear anyones thoughts on why Astoria for example would not be a true links course.

It fits all points as far as I'm aware. I'd be interested to hear G. Peper's reasoning.

I can vouch for the fact that Peper is wrong about at least one of the entries in his book and I know others have said similar so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

As far as I'm concerned, if both the courses referenced have millennia worth of sand blown in from the sea and a history of being covered in ice during the last ice age then you have links golf. 

I reviewed his reasoning from the book. He seems pretty selective about applying his principles as Pac Dunes has trees, but doesn't get excluded even though he says it is one of the biggest disqualifiers. He says Chambers Bay is disqualified as it is too far from the ocean, never mind that there is ocean water a few feet from the course. Weston-super-mare is a links to him even though it is often referred to as Weston-super-mud. I'd say he is actually pretty subjective.

[Paul Gray]

It all depends on your definition. They didn't make Peper's book, probably because of grasses.

There is only one correct definition as far as all the research I've done on this shows, as I've already mentioned above. I'd love to hear anyones thoughts on why Astoria for example would not be a true links course.

It fits all points as far as I'm aware. I'd be interested to hear G. Peper's reasoning.

I can vouch for the fact that Peper is wrong about at least one of the entries in his book and I know others have said similar so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

As far as I'm concerned, if both the courses referenced have millennia worth of sand blown in from the sea and a history of being covered in ice during the last ice age then you have links golf. 

I reviewed his reasoning from the book. He seems pretty selective about applying his principles as Pac Dunes has trees, but doesn't get excluded even though he says it is one of the biggest disqualifiers. He says Chambers Bay is disqualified as it is too far from the ocean, never mind that there is ocean water a few feet from the course. Weston-super-mare is a links to him even though it is often referred to as Weston-super-mud. I'd say he is actually pretty subjective.

Yep, the tree argument always struck me as a very dumb argument; the sort I'd expect to here from someone with precious little knowledge of the subject. It's a unique landscape but not one trees are incapable of growing on.

[Brent Hutto]

I do not think the primary transport for the sand that creates links land was wind.

[Rich Goodale]

This "is it links/is it not links?" discussion could dance on the head of any pin forever.  (George) Peper and Malcolm Campbell's book is a good attempt by two experienced golf writers (both of whom I know casually, and have played golf with, once all together) to square the circle of this "debate" but their work is more a commercial product than an academic treatise.  The best analysis of this issue that I have seen is here:

http://www.finegolf.co.uk/books/true-links/

I've known Lorne for a long time and last played golf and shared a few pints with him only a couple of months ago, up in Dornoch, which we both visit regularly and love.  Please read his thoughts and then continue this conversation.


Rich

[Thomas Dai]

Question -

I have been told that sheep arn't keen on nibbling gorse, but would other sorts of bushes and general scrub have arisen on a links if sheep were still grazing there and the new growth shoots were not nibbled away as soon as they popped their heads up? I imagine the same applies to inland golf as well.

atb

PS - one aspect of some of the older US courses profiled herein recently, Myopia Hunt and Garden City being the two phototours that immediately come to mind, is the relatively small amount of trees/scrub within the course area but how trees frame the boundaries of the course from the outside world. Just a general observation.

[Niall C]

It's been a wee while since I read True Links but from memory the authors make a decent fist of trying to define a links course (as opposed to links turf) and I think discuss some of the anomalies that can occur. Lorne Smith mentions Golspie and Powfoot as two courses that aren't included even though they have some fine links turf however in terms of the criteria put forward by Pepper and Campbell, courses had to be predominantly links to be considered.

Powfoot and Golspie on the other hand have large parts of the course that aren't links. Other examples might be Longniddry (although I think the amount of links turf there is probably a lot less than Golspie/Powfoot) and Garmouth & Kingston.

Niall

[Paul Gray]

I've never met Lorne but do have a lot of time for his Finegolf efforts. And he's right in picking up 'True Links' for some of its empathise on style rather than turf. As I said, trees just shouldn't be considered an issue. And nor should sea views. Ultimately, this issue can only truly be resolved with the input of golf playing geologists, since this discussion isn't simply about what makes fine golf but actually about something more specific.

Somebody please tell me when exactly a sand dune by the sea isn't a sand dune by the sea. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

Get rid of it!!!!

Si!!!

Ciao

You could always just reroute the course

Yes you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush 

Ciao

Or just abandon the hole altogether and split the 16th into a par four and par three. This would give the golfer a nice relaxing walk after playing the 12th and end the discussions on 16 a better par 4 or par 5?  Just incase you thought I was being serious

[Sean_A]

Deal has a bush on the 13th and Sheehy wants to remove it, despite it being at least 100 years old!!

Get rid of it!!!!

Si!!!

Ciao

You could always just reroute the course

Yes you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush 

Ciao

Or just abandon the hole altogether and split the 16th into a par four and par three. This would give the golfer a nice relaxing walk after playing the 12th and end the discussions on 16 a better par 4 or par 5?  Just incase you thought I was being serious

Yes, you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush  

Paul

From memory, Peper doesn't state that the lack of trees and sea views are necessary for links, that was a "purist" PoV which is essentially rejected. 

Though I agree with Lorne, Peper somewhat confuses style of design with the terrain, location, turf and grasses.  It shouldn't matter a jot if a links is predominately an aerial or ground game allowance design.  Its the location, land, turf and grasses which matter, not the design.  That said, I agree that Sand Hills etc are not links.  They may look and play like links, but to be divorced from the sea by that much distance negates the claim.  I can understand clubs wanting to cash in on the links marketing, but they are better off creating a distinct marketing which reflects the distinct type of courses they are.  In the long run, they will all be better off.

Ciao       

[Jon Wiggett]

Yes, you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush  

But why go to all that trouble and surely its under a TPO or has some sort of hysterical value

[Jon Wiggett]

Yes, you could, but it would be easier and better to remove the offending bush  

But why go to all that trouble and surely its under a TPO or has some sort of hysterical value

The only historical value I can see it having is that it's been there a long time. Hardly reason not to chop it down.

It is unsightly, slows down play and pisses golfers off as it entails instant lost ball if you go in it. Chopping it down would hardly be a large undertaking. It makes absolutely no sense for it to be there in my view. I also would like to see a lot more width added to the course more generally. It's an amazing course but it eats up far too many golf balls for my liking.

Brian,

did I say historical?? Look at what I actually wrote, then go lie down in a dark room and think about it. Gee, my tongue is stuck so hard in my cheek it is beginning to hurt.  
GET IT

[Sean_A]

GET IT  

Ahhhh, an appropriate emoticon.  I am not sure how you thought anybody was meant to get the foot in mouth deal with  

Anyway Sheehy, I am with you.  Deal is a victim of a lack of width, but the bush situation is very weird.  It is hard to believe anybody woul want that thing around.    

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

abandon the hole or redesign the course, you really took that seriously? As far as I know, foot in mouth is not the same as tongue in cheek Sean so no I did not expect anyone to think foot in mouth but it is not unknown to roll your eyes when hearing or saying something slightly unbelievable. What do you use  for?

anyway I too agree the bush should go so all our ducks are nicely in a row. Now off to get on with my life  ( :-*is for sarcasm)

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Though I agree with Lorne, Peper somewhat confuses style of design with the terrain, location, turf and grasses.  It shouldn't matter a jot if a links is predominately an aerial or ground game allowance design.  Its the location, land, turf and grasses which matter, not the design.  That said, I agree that Sand Hills etc are not links.  They may look and play like links, but to be divorced from the sea by that much distance negates the claim.  I can understand clubs wanting to cash in on the links marketing, but they are better off creating a distinct marketing which reflects the distinct type of courses they are.  In the long run, they will all be better off.

Ciao       

100%

Perfectly put.

[Niall C]

Somebody please tell me when exactly a sand dune by the sea isn't a sand dune by the sea. 

Oh, that's easy. When the dune has been created by nature it's a dune, and when the "dune" has been created by the hand of man it's just a pile of sand 

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Somebody please tell me when exactly a sand dune by the sea isn't a sand dune by the sea. 

Oh, that's easy. When the dune has been created by nature it's a dune, and when the "dune" has been created by the hand of man it's just a pile of sand 
Niall

I asked this question once of someone who's knowledable of coastal kinda stuff and was advised that sometimes it's the sea/waves washing sand/other wee particles ashore, sometimes it's a river washing sandy/silty stuff downstream and sometimes it's a bit of both.

atb

[Garland Bayley]

...
From memory, Peper doesn't state that the lack of trees and sea views are necessary for links, that was a "purist" PoV which is essentially rejected. 
...
Ciao       

With respect to sea views, his criteria is closeness, not views.

"Is there a freedom from trees?" is in his criteria. However, he seems to grade a course on several of these criteria, but does not specify exactly how many of them must be passed, making it somewhat a subjective exercise.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()