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.


Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Interesting exchange for an outsider re 'downsizing'.

After all these years I think I have a sense of Sean's golfing tastes. I think they are actually quite nuanced (more than just 'good value' and 'not too hard').

It seems to me that Sean likes to keep golf and golf courses in some kind of proper perspective -- the game, with grown men wandering around together in good fellowship for a good walk on good turf while swinging sticks, being mainly what golf is all about.

For Sean, I think, golf's tests and epiphanies and belt notches and sacred architectural fields of play are all secondary to that basic experience, to that game.  (He's like an old money man -- the belt notching he leaves to the nouveau riche).

All of which to say, I'd suggest that Sean's preference is not so much for downsized courses as for modest ones -- courses that support and engender and reflect a proper perspective, and that provide as many chances as possible (that is where cost comes in) for good walks on good turf with good companions while also providing some challenges and interest.

Peter



Peter - I agree with your analysis of Sean (I guess we'll see if he does)...

But in the above respect, I don't think it is a different perspective to that of Mark Bourgeois or Rich Goodale (to name but two) or my own....

Like those 20+ handicappers on greens committees who still look down on course amendments that might make it "too easy", I think there's a little pre-programming that has some of us - like automatons - equating fun to some nominal type of downsized course.

the game, with grown men wandering around together in good fellowship for a good walk on good turf while swinging sticks, being mainly what golf is all about can be the primary objective on a variety of playing fields, some tough, some easy, some large, some small.... But all of a certain quality that provides that joy to be alive factor... in other words, fun....

It is my belief that David Tepper has it spot on in the months he lives in Scotland... He is a member of Royal Dornoch and he is a member of Golspie... He divides his time about 7-3 to the former... he has all bases covered but I suspect he has fun at both courses equally...

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
I am possibly willing to stretch to Ganton being termed a links, but for the sake of argument, this sets precedent and guys like Humpty who then want to claim that courses in Nebraska or Colorado are links.  This to me is preposterous as they are so far removed from the sea that no exception could include them.  Instead of trying to ride the marketing coat tails of "links", these cllubs should come up wiith their own original term.  


Sean:

I generally don't call Ballyneal and Sand Hills and Dismal River "links" courses, but I believe I've read that all the dunes are there because there was a vast inland lake in prehistoric times, which eventually receded.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Cretaceous Sea.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Royal Birkdale
St Andrews
Western Gailes
Burnham and Berrow
Muirfield
Formby
Royal Liverpool
Royal St davids
North Berwick
Turnberry

I would include Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, Sand Hills and Ganton...if they were considered.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
"It is my belief that David Tepper has it spot on in the months he lives in Scotland... He is a member of Royal Dornoch and he is a member of Golspie... He divides his time about 7-3 to the former... he has all bases covered but I suspect he has fun at both courses equally..."

Ally -

I am indeed a very lucky guy. i get to enjoy my thoroughly mediocre golf on two wonderful (and different) courses. ;)

DT
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 12:56:18 PM by David_Tepper »

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
MWP,

Pac Dunes is considered a true links.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jud...then I cant get past that first hole at North Berwick and it gets cut.
I am sure there are others that love the quirk of that first hole, just not me.

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Cretaceous Sea.

It's the same reason we have all that sand in North Carolina and South Carolina.

"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Cretaceous Sea.

It's the same reason we have all that sand in North Carolina and South Carolina.



Michael:

Thanks for posting that map.  I couldn't find one yesterday, though I read a long research paper about wind-deposited sand in the Sand Hills of Nebraska.

Seems like that map identifies a lot of good places to look for sandy golf land [in the white areas I presume].  The one that intrigues me is the big area by the "an" in "European Islands" ... that would seem to be somewhere in eastern Europe.  I wonder where is all the sand there?

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0

Michael:

Thanks for posting that map.  I couldn't find one yesterday, though I read a long research paper about wind-deposited sand in the Sand Hills of Nebraska.

Seems like that map identifies a lot of good places to look for sandy golf land [in the white areas I presume].  The one that intrigues me is the big area by the "an" in "European Islands" ... that would seem to be somewhere in eastern Europe.  I wonder where is all the sand there?

Sometimes the sea deposits hundreds of feet of clay.  :P

As for the "an", my advice is to look for the potato fields!
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom - Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, you name it. Lots in Czech Republic and Slovakia. Much is very highly protected of course. But there are many opportunities around central and eastern Europe. Jonathan Davison of this parish is roaming all over the region looking at great sites - Penati in Slovakia, where Jonathan built the second course (opens last year) is as good a piece of pine and heather property as you could wish to see. If the original master plan had been done by someone with more knowledge of and sympathy for golf there would have been very few limits to the possibilities. As it is, Jonathan's course is still terrific.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Brent, when you asked about which course most resembled a downscale RSG, i thought about  Saunton on the basis that they have in common quite a dramatic dune-scape. But i think asking for a downscale course with the same amount of good holes is asking too much!

On Sean's general point about Dornoch v Brora and the latter being less demanding/more pleasurable - I agree with the general point but would make two observations:

- for the last 15 years, 8 of us have played an annual weekend of 36 holes at Brora and 54 at Dornoch. Average handicap is about 14 and includes 2-3 pretty irregular golfers. Although the general perception is that Brora is a bit easier - the warm-up course - i am not sure that the scores especially bear this out. Sure it is harder to lose balls at Brora, but that does not make it easy to score on.  To take one example - none of the last four holes is an easy par - indeed, they are all quite difficult in their different ways. I am not trying to argue that Brora is the match of Dornoch or as difficult, just the overall playability of the two courses is not, in our experience, as divergent as you might assume.
- and in relation to Dornoch in particular, most guests play it relatively short and although it obviously has more demanding greens/bunkering than Brora, it is not when played at this length a course that chews up the golfer. Indeed, i think that is  part of its appeal - you know you are playing a very good course, but it is not set up as a slog. Indeed, even a  modest 2-ball can get round in 3 hrs 15 or so which just adds to the pleasure.

Unrelated to the above: I recently played Birkdale and Deal within three days of each other, which was quite an interesting experience. It was really striking how different they were. To my mind Birkdale is a "faux" links - it has the attributes but not the character of a true links. I only had to play three holes at Deal though to be reminded what a real links is like - and it is pretty different to Birkdale!
Philip

Brent Hutto

Brent, when you asked about which course most resembled a downscale RSG, i thought about  Saunton on the basis that they have in common quite a dramatic dune-scape. But i think asking for a downscale course with the same amount of good holes is asking too much!

Probably just as well no such course exists. If it did, I'd be forced to move there.

Quote
Unrelated to the above: I recently played Birkdale and Deal within three days of each other, which was quite an interesting experience. It was really striking how different they were. To my mind Birkdale is a "faux" links - it has the attributes but not the character of a true links. I only had to play three holes at Deal though to be reminded what a real links is like - and it is pretty different to Birkdale!

I agree as to the nature of the two courses with the proviso that during my round at Birkdale for me it was on the most glorious feeling links turf I'd ever struck a 5-iron on.

But in many ways Royal Birkdale's actual routing and the holes themselves seem like an extremely well sorted inland "championship" course. Over the years I'd say much of the quirk, iffy bounces and randomness of links golf has been buffed down to a tournament player's type of perfection. I'd play there again any time, of course. Fine course. But you can tell it's been optimized very well as a big time competition course.

Peter Pallotta

re sandy soils

I'm just back from a couple of days on Lake Huron, at a little campground just north of Grand Bend Ontario. My wife tells me that, like parts of Wasaga Beach/Collingwood (on Huron's Georgian Bay), this area is a Carolinian ecosystem, which as the name implies is similar to that found in the U.S. Carolinas and is characterized by that certain kind/variety of vegetation and by sandy soil. But I can't think of any courses in either of these areas noted for their sandy soil/water side/linksy feel, save for Doug Carrick's rarely mentioned (and I've never played it) Cobble Beach, near Collingwood.

For those who know: why is that? All around the southern parts of the Great Lakes, is there not some kind of similarity to the conditions/soil that could make for courses with at least a few links like qualities?

Peter

Will Lozier

  • Karma: +0/-0

I'll prepare to be debated on CPC and BT being eligible!


I'll play the role of Patrick Mucci:

Which holes at either Cypress Point or Bandon Trails are on links land?  Bandon Trails has even more holes in the forest than CPC.  

CPC - 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17

BT - only 1, 2 & 18 but every hole plays firm & fast and the course is quite windy.  Of course, by any definition of a links having to do with trees, one can certainly claim BT does not qualify.

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Even though it doesn't say it in the directions, I am assuming you have to play the courses in the top ten:

1) Pac Dunes
2) Old course
3) North Berwick
4) Jubilee Course
5) Elie
6) Old Mac
7) Chambers Bay
8) Gullane #1
9) Lundin
10 a) New Course
10 b) Carnoustie

« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 09:36:44 PM by Matthew Essig »
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Just bumping this because I was really enjoying the twist it took around post 74.   It was impacting on a Question I've often asked myself.

Why do we enjoy some courses more than others.

A (obviously) because they are more fun to play.
It was this anwer that first drew me to studying GCA.

Yet when I chose my list of fun courses I went with mostly 'big' courses.  I have avoided the really obviously bunkered ones like Lytham and agree with Ally when he says bigger greens with wider run off areas can make for fun.   Deal (Hi Mark) plays like that and has only 40 bunkers,  it still fun to play.  But maybe I haven’t played the big courses enough to realise their smaller sisters can be more fun.  Personally I've not quite worked it all out.

I'm still at a bit of a loss as why such good ball strikers like Sean and Jeff have chosen downsized or even shorter courses as favourites, beyond that it takes all sorts.


Anyone else have opinions as to what makes for a fun and favourite links course?


(I’m thinking of you Mr Warne!)
Let's make GCA grate again!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Spangles

I am convinced that 6000 yards is all most golfers need, including myself.  There are so many wonderful examples of the type(s) that I am almost prejusticed against courses longer than 6200-6300.  I see all types and styles and have to wonder why is it so hard to create cool 6000 yard courses?  I wonder why the need for the yardage just as I wonder why the need for 100 bunkers.  Playing Cavendish recently confirmed my love for short, crafty courses.  I know you think I am crazy becaus eyou are more fond of the seaside than hills, but I would take Cavendish in a heart beat over the courses we saw in Donegal.  To my mind, the design is far more crafty, purposeful and more efficient than the often disjointed and inconsistent designs we saw in Donegal.  That could well be down to a superior archie working the land.  Its hard to put it in words, but I greatly admire the technically savvy and efficient course.  Maybe you will get an inkling of my meaning at Kington. 

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tony,

I think there's an element in what makes a favourite that depends on external factors.  When you play a course (I'm nearly always on holiday when I play Elie), who you played with and the circumstances (I first played Carnoustie with my wife shortly after we married in torrential rain) and club atmosphere (I love the atmosphere around HCEG).  That said, my ten is:

Elie
Muirfield
Dornoch
Silloth
Goswick
Eden
Carnoustie
TOC
Deal
Prestwick

I suspect Golspie might have a shout if I knew it better and both Cruden Bay and Hoylake, for  very different reasons, were in consideration.  Both are "better" courses than some on my 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.

Brent Hutto

I'm totally in favor of courses give or take from 6,000 yards as long as they are NOT short simply because they're squeezed onto a small parcel of land. Short and tight is no better than long and tight I guess I'm saying.

The shortest course that I've really, really enjoyed was probably Pitlochry. There's so much elevation change, on virtually every hole almost every shot, that you feel like you've played far more than 5,800 yards or whatever it was. The rough was quite deep in places but every single playing corridor except for that one ridiculously, squeeze-in downhill Par 3 on the back nine was amply wide. Which it needed to be given the awkward uphill/downhill/sidehill lies and bounces.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 06:09:20 AM by Brent Hutto »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Royal County Down
Ballybunion Old
Pacific Dunes
Portrush Dunluce
Lahinch
Barnbougle Dunes
County Louth
Ballyliffin Old
The Island
Waterville

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Spangles

I am convinced that 6000 yards is all most golfers need, including myself.  There are so many wonderful examples of the type(s) that I am almost prejusticed against courses longer than 6200-6300.  I see all types and styles and have to wonder why is it so hard to create cool 6000 yard courses?  I wonder why the need for the yardage just as I wonder why the need for 100 bunkers.  Playing Cavendish recently confirmed my love for short, crafty courses.  I know you think I am crazy becaus eyou are more fond of the seaside than hills, but I would take Cavendish in a heart beat over the courses we saw in Donegal.  To my mind, the design is far more crafty, purposeful and more efficient than the often disjointed and inconsistent designs we saw in Donegal.  That could well be down to a superior archie working the land.  Its hard to put it in words, but I greatly admire the technically savvy and efficient course.  Maybe you will get an inkling of my meaning at Kington. 

Ciao 

So now we have three proposals.

Mine
130 155 180 205 230 255 280 305 330 355 380 405 430 455 480 505 530 555 = 6165

Jason's
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 = 6525

Tom's in meters
130 160 190 220 250 280 310 340 370 400 430 460 490 520 550 580 610 640 = 7290


From another thread. Jason made a proposal that happened to fall between one I had done on a thread, and Tom Doak's proposal for the Olympics' course. So I'm happy with 6165, letting the big guns play to par 67 or 68, while old farts like me play it at par 72.

I think 6000 is a little short for par 72, but fine for par 70.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 07:59:35 PM by GJ Bailey »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Just bumping this because I was really enjoying the twist it took around post 74.   It was impacting on a Question I've often asked myself.

Why do we enjoy some courses more than others.

A (obviously) because they are more fun to play.
It was this anwer that first drew me to studying GCA.

Yet when I chose my list of fun courses I went with mostly 'big' courses.  I have avoided the really obviously bunkered ones like Lytham and agree with Ally when he says bigger greens with wider run off areas can make for fun.   Deal (Hi Mark) plays like that and has only 40 bunkers,  it still fun to play.  But maybe I haven’t played the big courses enough to realise their smaller sisters can be more fun.  Personally I've not quite worked it all out.

I'm still at a bit of a loss as why such good ball strikers like Sean and Jeff have chosen downsized or even shorter courses as favourites, beyond that it takes all sorts.


Anyone else have opinions as to what makes for a fun and favourite links course?


(I’m thinking of you Mr Warne!)

Tony,
Firm turf, scenery, wind, options, rawness, wildness, subtlety, vertical challenges, 1/2 par holes, absence of consistent deep lost ball gunch (one side OK), variety in width of playing corridors
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm totally in favor of courses give or take from 6,000 yards as long as they are short simply because they're squeezed onto a small parcel of land. Short and tight is no better than long and tight I guess I'm saying.

Brent

Thats just it.  Developers and owners won't consider building a course on the terms you state...health and safety and that crap you know.  Yet, the same target market they hope to attract will quite happily play older versions of this course.  There was a drastic shift in thinking on this matter long before "the big ball", yet new equipment etc gets the easy blame.  This is usually the case with health and safety excuses, its an easy thing to cite without folks actually properly looking into the matter. I think where there is a will there is a way and its quite obvious there is no will in this department.  Owners and archies want to be on the BIG is BETTER bandwagon partly because the marketing hype is already in place.  Why fight the stream marketing with an oddball course heaidng the other direction?  I remain hopeful that some smart guy like Kaiser figures out a way to make rolling the dice on smaller is better a viable money making option. Jeepers, these days we are meeant to get excited by a downsized course that is "only" 6800 yards from the tips...like that makes any difference to the daily hacker.  If the conversation ever truly turns away from back tees, pros and top amateurs, then perhaps a Kaiser look-alike has a chance.

Ciao
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 02:47:33 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm totally in favor of courses give or take from 6,000 yards as long as they are short simply because they're squeezed onto a small parcel of land. Short and tight is no better than long and tight I guess I'm saying.

Brent

Thats just it.  Developers and owners won't consider building a course on the terms you state...health and safety and that crap you know.  Yet, the same target market they hope to attract will quite happily play older versions of this course.  There was a drastic shift in thinking on this matter long before "the big ball", yet new equipment etc gets the easy blame.  This is usually the case with health and safety excuses, its an easy thing to cite without folks actually properly looking into the matter. I think where there is a will there is a way and its quite obvious there is no will in this department.  Owners and archies want to be on the BIG is BETTER bandwagon partly because the marketing hype is already in place.  Why fight the stream marketing with an oddball course heaidng the other direction?  I remain hopeful that some smart guy like Kaiser figures out a way to make rolling the dice on smaller is better a viable money making option. Jeepers, these days we are meeant to get excited by a downsized course that is "only" 6800 yards from the tips...like that makes any difference to the daily hacker.  If the conversation ever truly turns away from back tees, pros and top amateurs, then perhaps a Kaiser look-alike has a chance.

Ciao

Health and safety is not to do with the target market being happy to play it or not... After the primary - which is the genuine wellbeing of golfers - the secondary is to do with the club and / or architect being liable for an injury, something they are more so on a modern build and something they are less so on a 100 year old course that has been untouched....

However, I don't like architects using safety excuses as a thinly guised sales pitch to recommend wholesale changes to old courses...

I agree completely with Brent's premise which I think should have read short and spread out is no better than long and tight... It's about flow and making the course feel in scale and consistent in size.... You can still build short courses in relatively small spaces without resorting to safety problems - in fact, that's the point...

Sean - I haven't seen Cavendish yet but I know what you mean in relation to the Donegal courses... But that ain't really about size... It is about the quality of the design