So why do we love Links golf?

[Kalen Braley]

This has all gone a bit Woody Allen.
F.

C'mon Marty, surely you have not lost your mind...but I do wonder if you've lost your soul.. 

I put these kinds of chats squarely in this category.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS1esgRV4Rc

[Tommy Williamsen]

This doesn't have to be so esoteric and abstruse. We like links golf because the ball bounces and rolls, a lot. It is fun to figure out how far it will roll before it stops and then the shot required. The wind generally plays a factor. We have to figure out how much the wind will affect the flight of the ball. We like being near the sea. The turf has a special sound when you hit a crisp five iron. The smell of the sea is good for my Norwegian bones. I have played at least 200 rounds on links courses. I wish I could play them more.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Ben, I appreciate your position. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you. I hope I am focused on how we actually use the term, rather than the adjacent possibility of gatekeeping (related, but not the point), because I think we use the term to mean one thing, and at the same time, define it to mean something slightly different.

[Sean_A]

Ben, I appreciate this reply. 'Monolithic' does communicate a similar idea.

I use the term essentialist to refer to a concept of essence that it seems many folks confer to links golf. This carries a lot of philosophical baggage, but it just means there is something within links golf that is more than just the common characteristics one encounters while playing golf on a links. That is, if we took the characteristics of a course on linksland, and placed them somewhere not on linksland (say, on a reproduction of a links course in Sand Valley), we just can't replicate the same sense of links golf, because it's essential that links golf is played on a links. It is an idea that you echo here:

The experience of links golf is so much more than a collection of variables.

I just disagree with this. I can't argue with people who feel this way though; it's a feeling. I just don't share that feeling. I see it as both incorrect from my experience, and more than a bit sniffy, to tell people at Whistling Straits, Wild Horse, or the Links of North Dakota, that -- as similar as the experience may be -- they cannot be having the experience of links golf at those locations. It just seems a bit silly to me, but underneath that silliness is a real sense of gatekeeping that I think is bad for golf culture as a whole.

Matt

To me it’s not a feeling or gatekeeping. You can say links-like, or my favourite, first cousin to links, but that to me doesn’t mean less than. It’s an understanding that the course isn’t links. It seems to me you have introduced the concept of feeling by suggesting the experience is what is essential. That is your feeling and that’s fine.

Links do have other essential characteristics which are often overlooked. At its core, links is highly sustainable and open 12 months a year…which is really part of being sustainable. These are merely bi products of what links is. Many of the examples tossed around as links are not for at least one of the above reasons let alone not being on linksland. Sadly, many big name links are drifting away from cheap sustainability.

To me, it’s easier to stick to definitions rather than redefining terms every so often based on feelings or experience.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

Ben, I appreciate your position. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you. I hope I am focused on how we actually use the term, rather than the adjacent possibility of gatekeeping (related, but not the point), because I think we use the term to mean one thing, and at the same time, define it to mean something slightly different.

Matt,


I think I understand your position. I just don’t agree with it. I’ve played enough links-like courses and now enough seaside links to make the distinction. As golf courses I assure you I place several of the modern American gems above all of the links courses I’ve played in Scotland save for Royal Dornoch. To emphasize, as golf courses and works of art. 


But what you’re doing here is inferring a sense of cultural gatekeeping to the my idea of links golf. Arguing that the subjective feel a golfer experiences can actually be quantified through essential variables and therefore, that their feeling is silly, seems a bit aggressive for our conversation here. All I am arguing is that many links courses feel as if they have existence before essence. That’s it.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

I'd be interested in further details on the gatekeeping aspects as you see it in the context of this thread.

To my knowledge I only see 2 forms that have any real effect:

1)  The explicit American private model:  You shall not play here unless we say so.
2)  The implicit upscale/high daily fee model where people are effectively shut out due to unaffordability.

[Charlie Goerges]

I like the very strict definition of links that essentially only refers to a subset of the seaside courses in the British Isles that are on linksland. (this means that I've played no links courses as yet). But I also like having a very wide definition of links-like that would encompass a much larger number of courses that share a few certain values.

[Matt Schoolfield]

The only reason why I bring up gatekeeping is related to the concept of terroir. When a word is linked to a thing that provides an experience, and then that thing becomes intentionally restrictively locked up in language, many folks who would like the experience will be less likely to, or worse, get a crap substitute. When branded, or regional, or otherwise tightly defined words become generic, it can lead to weird issues. Many here may think that, yes, well we shouldn't use non-generic terms generically, we should say photocopy instead of xerox, but we don't do that, everything from frisbee, to dumpster, to videotape, and windbreaker were all trademarks.

I will again turn to the example of Champagne. Is there a noticeable difference between the sparkling wine in the Champagne regions and sparkling wine just across the border in Belgium? I would say no, I'm sure some would disagree with me. However, I'd probably say that few, if any of us have gone out of our way to get sparkling wine from across the border in Belgium. This is terroir, and the arguments for it are dubious, but reasonable. That we have likely had a hundred bottles of sparkling wine from the Champagne region, and none from Wallonia, is what I mean by gatekeeping. The generic term being renarrowed by law, has made life difficult for folks outside of Champagne.

Still, I'm generally fine with the concept of terroir. I am because they are tight regions. You know exactly what you're getting. I would have no problem, say, creating an appellation called Forth Links, that included the courses from Anstruther to North Berwick. I think that would be good for consumers, and good for golf. That is a specific region, with specific wind patterns, specific native grasses, and a specific experience. It would also be an experience that is substantially different than say a Dornoch/Murray Links region or a Hebrides Links region, and that's all within Scotland.

What I find rather frustrating about the loosely narrow term we use, is that courses along the Bass Strait are somehow lumped in with courses on the North Sea, even though the climate is completely different. Are there similarities? Of course there are, but my entire point is that these similarities are what we mean by links golf, because they are different. We might say we're playing twelve months per year, but we're definitely not playing all year at Highland Links outside of Provincetown, Mass, because there will be snow on the ground through much of the winter. Because we have a loose definition, in various climates, I find it extremely difficult to say that it's a tight enough definition to deserve a appellation-style term restriction.

I would prefer a brandy/cognac distinction for links golf. That is, yes, we have the generic brandy, for the thing that gives us the generic experience, but if you're talking about the place where that thing originated, the place you can get the authentic experience, you have a stronger term or appellation.

The reason why this is important is that, without a term for what we mean by links golf in an experiential sense, the term links-like is meaningless. Growing up in Austin, I played Roy Kizer, which is advertised as links-style... which is complete bullshit. Yet, when I play Metropolitan in Oakland, it is quite reminiscent of links courses. Lord knows that playing the Lido in Wisconsin seemed exactly like a links course. If we call all three of those courses links-like, the people at Roy Kizer are going to be completely misinformed.

I love links golf on links courses. I love "links golf" on non-links linksy courses. I like to see the links-link qualities in the parkland courses I play. Without the term being generally generic, the second two statements shouldn't make much sense, but they do. When we say sparkling wine, we can be drinking a sparkling Pinot noir (I've had one), but unless we nail down what we mean by Champagne, beyond the appellation, then people buying sparkling wine could be buying absolute crap. That's all well and good for the wine makers in Champagne, but it's bad for the folks buying sparkling wine in Texas.

[Craig Sweet]

Matt, I think YOUR definition of terroir is too broad. The terroir of a grape can be much different region by region and can also vary from one vineyard to another just down the road.  It mostly has to do with soils the vines are growing in. There's that word again "soil".  But it also has to do with environment...the air, the water. 


You can try and replicate the soil in Ohio, but it is not going to be the same terroir as as a golf course on the coast of Scotland anymore than a course on the coast of Ireland is going to have the same terroir as a course on the coast of Scotland.

[Ira Fishman]

Matt,


I agree with you when it comes to government designated/protected defintions. The French are particularly protective (Champagne is just one example). Those have some of the adverse consumer effects that you note.


However, there is no law that keeps owners/clubs from claiming a "links" designation. Your example of the course in Texas actually makes it sound as if you wish there were one.


My concerns about your posts are (a) how you compare links courses to parkland courses in your skill/luck construct and (b) your resistance to acknowledging that there is a difference between a links course and something similiar but different. I have not played Lido, but Ballyneal is one of my favorite courses anywhere. It plays and has many of the conditions of a links course, but it is not one. If you want to create a "terrior" of fast and firm courses where the wind often blows, cool.


Ira

[Jim Sherma]

I've been mulling over this question since it popped up and I think I finally have what I consider a reasonable take on it.


Objectively speaking:

• The turf - hitting irons on the links of St Andrews or other good links turf is wonderful
• The sea air, wind and views - what a day of golf should be (If I was told I had four hours to live I would want it to be at Balcomie)
• The much more complicated calculus of playing on bouncy turf in the wind versus shooting a number and knowing it'll stop quickly if you execute the shot well - if that doesn't mentally engage and inspire you than golf might not be for you
• The courses tend to be old and the playability has been worked out so that they are pleasant to play, or at least the unpleasant aspects have been adjusted out many decades ago

Subjectively speaking:

• Most of us playing links golf are on a trip where we are fully engaged with the game and in a unique environment that oozes golf - not a dissimilar experience you get when the generic rose on the Cote D'Azur with the wife that tasted so sublime in memory ends up being less so after buying it from your local and drinking it after work
• Camaraderie - I am one of two people I know that have gone to play overseas by ourselves and have played multiple rounds on links courses as a single. Most overseas travelers go as part of a group and this certainly adds to the pleasure and memories (Most of my trips have been with groups from 2 to 16 guys and personally the group aspect adds to the memories and pleasure for sure)

I think everyone that has enjoyed our ancient game on the links are interacting with it on the spectrum between the objective and the subjective. If that was the game that was available to all the world would be a better place. Otherwise we do what we can and greatness in the courses available to the rest of golf can be great, but it's not the equal of a club and a half wing on a sunny day on any of the true first, second or third tier links courses of the world.

[Ira Fishman]

Jim,


So superbly stated. My only caveat is that my one time as a single was sublime. Also, my wife would agree with you about Balcomie but in that neck of the woods, I think that I might go with Elie.


Ira

[Matt Schoolfield]

However, there is no law that keeps owners/clubs from claiming a "links" designation. Your example of the course in Texas actually makes it sound as if you wish there were one.

Yes, I would like an formal designation/definition (legally binding or not) for a true links course is, and more generally a formal definition of what we mean by an untrue links (where you can only get so far away before it becomes ridiculous), because I see the usage of the term as a style more a style than a place. Then when we talk about the National Golf Links of America, someone doesn't pipe up and say "well that's not actually a links."

My concerns about your posts are (a) how you compare links courses to parkland courses in your skill/luck construct and (b) your resistance to acknowledging that there is a difference between a links course and something similar but different. I have not played Lido, but Ballyneal is one of my favorite courses anywhere. It plays and has many of the conditions of a links course, but it is not one. If you want to create a "terrior" of fast and firm courses where the wind often blows, cool.

I don't want to start another thread where I say parkland is too broad of a term, but I think it is. When I say parkland, I generally am referring to tree-lined courses, often with near monostand rough. Courses like Augusta, Bethpage, or Harding Park (ironically, arguably on linksland). But again, if the term is so broad that Ballyneal or Sand Valley's Lido is are "parkland" courses, I think the term is so broad that it's borderline useless to many anything but "course that is not a links course."

If there are better terms for distinguishing these course from the others, I'd love to heard them. I just don't know what they are.

When I construct a view of luck and skill (I see them as complimenting, not opposing each other), I generally have Augusta/Harding/Bethpage style courses in the high-skill/low-luck category, because a challenging shot executed properly will likely not be heavily influenced by external or unpredictable forces, and challenging links courses in the high-skill/high-luck category because, even though shots take a lot of skill to execute properly, even if they are, there is a chance that external/unpredictable forces may still intervene and heavily influence the result.

[Craig Sweet]

Matt...why do you feel the need, when it comes to a "links course" to define everything to the nth degree? The sand beneath St Andrews is not the same sand that's beneath The Island Club. Yes, both are sand based but the composition of the sand, what a geologist would name the sand is probably different.  Where does the top dressing sand come from? How has the sward evolved over time. You talk about terroir as if it is universal....as if the grass, the sandy soils, are the same on every links course and you can make a definition that fits all courses that have sandy soil and sit next to a body of salt water. You simply can't say that if you have a broad definition of terroir because terroir is site specific.


One final thing...golf courses regardless of location have always been called the "links" in some circles.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt...why do you feel the need, when it comes to a "links course" to define everything to the nth degree?

Why do I feel the need? My background is in language. This is the stuff I think about, so it's the stuff I talk about.

I'm defining 'links golf' to the nth degree. I think we can all agree that a true links course is a course built on linksland with linksy characteristics. The difference here is the characteristics of the golf played on links courses, to me, does not seem inextricably tied to the land, it just seems like a style of golf created by the characteristics of the land. I think most of use don't use the term links golf to specifically mean golf on a course built on linksland with linksy characteristics, because we have places like NGLA which is very obviously meant to create the characteristics of playing on a links course. If we're recreating the characteristics of links courses -- not on linksland -- it very clearly signals that we don't actually mean just linksland.

You talk about terroir as if it is universal....as if the grass, the sandy soils, are the same on every links course and you can make a definition that fits all courses that have sandy soil and sit next to a body of salt water. You simply can't say that if you have a broad definition of terroir because terroir is site specific.

Your argument is aligned with mine. The idea of a golf course simply being built on linksland with linksy characteristic conferring a singular idea of playing experience is a too vague to imbue an idea of terroir between all the links courses, and we would do better to create golf appellations.

One final thing...golf courses regardless of location have always been called the "links" in some circles.

I understand this, but this isn't what we mean when we say 'links golf.' When we're using the term 'links' to mean 'golf course' it's a homonym to 'links' meaning 'golf course built on linksland with linksy characteristics.'

[Sean_A]

Matt

It seems to me that you have defined links, but you don’t seem to accept it for some reason. You are hung up on playing characteristics and style rather than location. As mentioned previously, some non links play more linksy than some links. Generally speaking this is due to what I consider poor  maintenance of links. While I agree that sometimes grass types can be so far out of line with fescue and bent to render a links as essentially non links…which is to say that playing characteristics do matter, but not imo as much as the location, if we are only concentrating on the definition of a links. If we are concentrating on how a links plays, well hell yes, the grass matters a ton. A links is defined by its location. The characteristics are vary depending on the links location and human inputs.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

As mentioned previously, some non links play more linksy than some links.

If we are define links golf by being 'golf on a links', this statement should not make sense. If we mean by 'more linksy' that we gave some conception of characteristics (characteristics that could be reproduced), than we don't actually mean linksland itself.

It would be as if we said: 'the plateau in Montreal is more Parisian than some parts of Paris'. While some, or most, might think this statement is nonsense, in saying this, we are taking the word 'Parisian' not to mean 'from Paris' but to mean, having the attributes of the stereotypical parts of Paris. If most people use this term in this way, then the meaning becomes detached from the rigid place (if folks want to push back with prescriptivism, that's fine, but I'm not going to have that debate).

I'm arguing that by 'links golf' all but the most ardent zealots have detached the term from the linksland itself, and associated it with the characteristics of a stereotypical links course, as you do yourself here. You can play links golf at NGLA, but you do not play it at Golden Gate Park Golf Course, even though NGLA is not on linksland and GGPGC is and is indistinguishable from a links course except in design.

I will say this forum is probably where lots of the zealots hang out, which is one of the reasons why I hang out here, so please don't take any offense to that term.

[Jeff Schley]

I’m curious….. how many golfers would say, “why do we love parkland golf?”  I guess they could even say American golf, as most of our courses are played in the air. I like the variety myself, which a links can do all by itself given the conditions are so weather dependent.

[Brian Finn]

Matt S - you have said a few times that Golden Gate Park is on linksland.  I don't believe that is the case.  Can you walk us through what elements it has (or lacks) that makes it so?  I think I can determine at least a few factors, but would love to hear from you directly.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt S - you have said a few times that Golden Gate Park is on linksland.  I don't believe that is the case.  Can you walk us through what elements it has (or lacks) that makes it so?  I think I can determine at least a few factors, but would love to hear from you directly.

Of course. Here I'm lucky enough to have studied Introduction to Beaches and Shoreline Processes as an elective in college, and it ended up being one of my favorite classes, so I have at least a semi-educated, naive view of the processes. When we say linksland, generally we mean semi- or mostly vegetated sand dunes between a beach and a fertile area farther inland (we could get more technical if some wanted to). This type of feature typically forms at the mouth of a large river (where beaches typically emerge from).

In San Francisco, because of the enormity of the bay that is the exit of multiple major rivers (Sacramento, San Joaquin, in addition to the smaller Napa River and Petaluma River), we should expect there to be an absolutely massive beach at the exit of the Golden Gate. And this is exactly what existed before the development of the city. The entire west side of the city of San Francisco was massive sand dunes. It is difficult to explain just how large this area was, but old photos reveal it.



Note here one of the windmills of Golden Gate Park can be seen in the distance.

Almost the entire Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods are just built on sand, because the entire area was just dunes.



This is 19th and Moraga.



This is Vicente at 39th.



An old view from the Cliff House where you can see the land where GGPGC now sits.

Golden Gate Park itself was just this type of semi-vegetated dunes until it was capped with soil and manure, so that it would be more palatable as a park. The only large section of the park that remains as it was is the small oak forest by Arguello and Fulton.

When Jay Blasi updated Golden Gate Park GC, he intentionally scraped away the artificial soil capping on the property to get down to the dunes below. Obviously this is somewhat constructed, but again, the giant dune and ridge that the course sits on and plays over is perfectly natural. It's linksland, it's linksland that was buried under a foot or two of dirt for a hundred years, but it's still there under the surface. With the exception of a few of the highest points where bedrock sticks out, it's the same with the entire western neighborhoods from Balboa to at least the Zoo, if not farther.

[Sean_A]

Wouldn’t it be the case that if a few feet of dirt cap the sand the land is no longer links because one, the grasses are wrong and two, the place isn’t worthless in terms of growing? Meaning the course could be used for crops. A links being on links is one requirement, the most obvious requirement, but not the requirement.

I find it odd that you think it’s beneficial to distort and water down the definition of links. It’s this type of watering down which has prompted the term “true links” to be in vogue. While I understand language is dynamic and ever evolving, I don’t grasp the argument…seemingly I am not the only one. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

BTW…it’s disappointing the Golden Gate course was capped. Heavy sigh.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

Wouldn’t it be the case that if a few feet of dirt cap the sand the land is no longer links because one, the grasses are wrong and two, the place isn’t worthless in terms of growing?

I mean, as long as the soil cap is in place, I don't think anyone can call it linksland.

The question is whether we think it remains non-linksland even after the soil cap is removed. I'd argue once the cap is removed, it reverts to being linksland again.

Another question is whether open dunes, surrounded by capped linksland counts as linksland... there I would say yes, because the main feature of linksland is it's ability to drain, not what surrounds it.

BTW…it’s disappointing the Golden Gate course was capped. Heavy sigh.

Was capped, past tense. I can't stress enough that this is why Blasi's update to the course is so important. Removing the soil capping, restoring the dunes... it's like night and day.

It's not up to me though, it's up to golf culture as a whole decides these things, which is why I want to present a convincing argument. But golf culture seems to say that GGPGC, even after Blasi restored the dunes, is still not a links... even when sitting on restored linksland, covered in fescue, less than 500 yards from the Pacific Ocean.

[Ben Sims]

Matt,


Overly academic definitions bug me. Which isn’t to say that I’m a “I know it when I see it” kind of person either. But GGP isn’t links. Doesn’t mean what Jay is doing isn’t cool or won’t be compelling. I’m sure it’s terrific. But it seems, to use your term, more than a bit sniffy to go the academic route on this.


I don’t understand the need for appropriation here. Links exists in a very specific environment for me. As I’ve said, existence before essence.

[Sean_A]

Wouldn’t it be the case that if a few feet of dirt cap the sand the land is no longer links because one, the grasses are wrong and two, the place isn’t worthless in terms of growing?

I mean, as long as the soil cap is in place, I don't think anyone can call it linksland.

The question is whether we think it remains non-linksland even after the soil cap is removed. I'd argue once the cap is removed, it reverts to being linksland again.

Another question is whether open dunes, surrounded by capped linksland counts as linksland... there I would say yes, because the main feature of linksland is it's ability to drain, not what surrounds it.

BTW…it’s disappointing the Golden Gate course was capped. Heavy sigh.

Was capped, past tense. I can't stress enough that this is why Blasi's update to the course is so important. Removing the soil capping, restoring the dunes... it's like night and day.

It's not up to me though, it's up to golf culture as a whole decides these things, which is why I want to present a convincing argument. But golf culture seems to say that GGPGC, even after Blasi restored the dunes, is still not a links... even when sitting on restored linksland, covered in fescue, less than 500 yards from the Pacific Ocean.

Maybe you are right? There is room for debate as to what is a links so long as a course is on linksland. Plenty of links have holes that one couldn’t really say are links, yet people call the course a links.


Ciao

[Charlie Goerges]

I thought that linksland only exists in the archipelago of the British Isles and that not all sea-side dunes were links. And that, by definition, anyplace not in the British Isles was necessarily not a links. Is that definition now discredited?