[Adam Lawrence]

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?

How could that possibly be the case? Linksland is defined by geology, and I'm not aware of anything about the UK that is wholly unique, geologically-speaking.

[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?

How could that possibly be the case? Linksland is defined by geology, and I'm not aware of anything about the UK that is wholly unique, geologically-speaking.

I had always thought of linksland as defined by a combination of geology and climate. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, it's just the definition I've always had in my head from somewhere.

[David Kelly]

I'm happy to go along with George Peper and Malcolm Campbell's definition of true golf links (246 as of 2010) that they cribbed from the British Golf Museum, "A links is a stretch of land near the coast, on which the game is played, characterized by undulating terrain, often associated with dunes, infertile sandy soil and indigenous grasses as marram, sea lyme, and the fescues and bents which, when properly managed, produce the fine textured tight turf for which links are famed.”

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have often wondered why some courses are classified as links and others are not. Linksy Westward Ho! has five holes on very heavy soil, while Fishers Island has several holes on sand, yet it isn't a links.

[Ally Mcintosh]

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?

How could that possibly be the case? Linksland is defined by geology, and I'm not aware of anything about the UK that is wholly unique, geologically-speaking.

I had always thought of linksland as defined by a combination of geology and climate. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, it's just the definition I've always had in my head from somewhere.

I’ve stayed out of this thread but… I have spent a lot of time studying sand dunes and linksland.


I’m kinda with Charlie.


It is geology, climate and weather conditions that firstly drive the shape and formation of dunes. It is that shape, the seral succession of the dune landscape and the particular vegetations and plants that occur with that succession, that really define what we call “linksland”.


All of those aspects are different in GB&I than in Nor-Cal or Australia or in an arid desert.


Doesn’t mean that you don’t have links golf courses in those places. They are just different to links in GB&I where the duneland is unique in its variety of types, hosting all the principle formations and a wider biodiversity of flora and fauna.

[Adam Lawrence]

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?

How could that possibly be the case? Linksland is defined by geology, and I'm not aware of anything about the UK that is wholly unique, geologically-speaking.

I had always thought of linksland as defined by a combination of geology and climate. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, it's just the definition I've always had in my head from somewhere.

Even if that is so, there is no real difference between (for example) the climate of southern England and pmif northern France or the Netherlands, just across the channel. And anyone trying to claim that Le Touquet or Kennemer are not on linksland would be away with the fairies.

[Sean_A]

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?

How could that possibly be the case? Linksland is defined by geology, and I'm not aware of anything about the UK that is wholly unique, geologically-speaking.

I had always thought of linksland as defined by a combination of geology and climate. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, it's just the definition I've always had in my head from somewhere.

Even if that is so, there is no real difference between (for example) the climate of southern England and pmif northern France or the Netherlands, just across the channel. And anyone trying to claim that Le Touquet or Kennemer are not on linksland would be away with the fairies.

Yes, there are many different kinds of links. Kennemer is nothing like Le Touquet, yet both are links. But Ally is right, they look different to many GB&I links because the vegetation is different. Maybe this is because the weather is slightly warmer at Kennemer and Le Touquet? Could also be partly due to maintenance decisions. don’t know.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think the idea that 'linksland' refers to this type of landform, but only when it is in Great Britain and/or Ireland, just doesn't make sense. The flora and fauna on different instances of linksland across GB&I differ significantly from region to region. If we are not going to go all the way use the terminology of niche, regional terroir, then this type of landform -- one that exists at the mouth of nearly every river in the world -- should be generally referred to as 'linksland'. Suggesting otherwise strains credulity.

It is like saying a stream can't be a 'burn' unless it's in Scotland because of flora and fauna reasons. We are talking about common geological landforms.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’m ok with that, Matt.


It’s just that links in different places have different dune formations (due to geology and climate) and different vegetation. And since the historic term links was first used in GB&I, it could be argued to refer to its type of land.


Links is a made up term. Every golf course was called “the links” for the first 50 or so years, even if it was on boggy inland soil, miles away from the sea.


It’s semantics. Is every “sand dune” golf course a links? Is every “links” golf course built on sand dunes?


Really links golf originated in GB&I so the narrowest argument can just take that area. The widest argument is very wide indeed. Most people choose somewhere in the middle.


But what I will say is that out of the 200 or so courses in GB&I we tend to classify as links, even the ones that feel furthest apart in character (let’s say Royal County Down to Dunfanaghy) still feel more closely linked to each other than either of them do to any courses elsewhere in the world (whether that be Bandon Dunes or Golden Gate Park).

[Jim Hoak]

As I read these comments on "links" courses, I am struck by how many courses out there are "pseudo-links" courses.  I think Ally is getting to this in the last post.  So many courses use "links" in their name or advertising, but they lack critical elements to be true links.
What are these critical elements?  I would offer up the first and probably most important one--All true links courses (100%!) are built on very sandy soil!  Just being next to the ocean is not the test--for example, Pebble Beach (which I am on the loving side) is definitely not a links.  True links are on soil that was fairly recently under water before the ocean receded, leaving truly sand-based soil.  Pebble Beach--for all its wonderful qualities--does not meet this test.
I see the term for these pseudo-links courses being "linksy," whatever that means.  I hate the term, which leads to all kinds of transgressions.

[Craig Sweet]

I will repeat what I wrote earlier: 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. [/size]You can try and replicate the soil in Ohio and call the course a "links" course, 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. 


It seems a bit snooty to claim the course has to be in GB&I to be called a links course when there is variation in soil, weather, and flora from course to course in GB&I.....








[/color]

[Ally Mcintosh]

Craig,


I was with you until the last paragraph (and the Scotland / Ireland comparison).


Generally speaking, all courses in GB&I sit within the same bracket when it comes to geology, climate, vegetation and flora and fauna.

[Matt Schoolfield]

It’s just that links in different places have different dune formations (due to geology and climate) and different vegetation. And since the historic term links was first used in GB&I, it could be argued to refer to its type of land.

I just want to have terms that make sense. I agree with you that they are completely arbitrary, but they can be arbitrary and useful, or arbitrary and confusing. Where we draw arbitrary boundaries around the term we affect that usefulness.

I will fully concede that if we start with the linksland of the Scottish lowlands and work outward, we will see slowly changing features as we move farther away. Some localized changes, however are dramatic, as the massive dunes of a Royal County Down will be non-trivially different from sand bar, like Portmarnock, which are just 56 miles apart.

If we then want to put an arbitrary line between say Rye and Wimereux, just 38 miles across the channel from each other, that's all well and good, but that line doesn't represent a substantial change in climate, flora, or fauna. I will concede that we have a Ship of Theseus problem here. If we want to make the definition essentialist or arbitrarily geofenced, contending with that is arbitrary. However, if we base the term around the collection of features themselves, what I've been arguing for this whole time, then we may have some quirks here and there, but we have a consistent and useful term.

I can let this go, I feel like I've already push this past the limit of even my patience. In the end, I'm a descriptivist, and the vast majority of people are already using the terms the way I think they ought to be used, so it's effectively moot anyway. I just think it might be helpful for the golf community to come up with useful terms to guide people to understand what they are getting when they play a links, links-style, links-like, or just linksy course.

Not all dunes are formed by this process. Inland sand dunes, even non-river mouth dunes found along the ocean, such as the Namib Desert (seen here), are formed by completely different processes.

[Craig Sweet]

Ally, perhaps I am use to Montana soils. You can dig three holes and have three different soil profiles on your 1000 acres ranch. Obviously, there are similarities in flora, weather/environment, and similarities in soil profiles, and that might be good enough to come up with a definition for "links course" but "similar" conditions exist outside GB & I so I don't think you can claim that "links course" only applies to a course in G B & I

[Mark Pearce]

Ally,


I'm not quite clear what you're saying.  By your definition, is the Dutch courses in the dunes (Royal Hague, Noordwijkse etc.) not links courses because they are not in GB&I?


Mark

[Thomas Dai]

Sand particles move and pretty much shift constantly. Not just sand either.
Wind and especially wave erosion via longshore drift and the resulting deposition can move large mounts of material and move it surprisingly quickly in stormy conditions. Same with river based material. Desert too.
Nature is powerful.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Craig, Mark,


I’m not claiming that in the slightest (if you look back at my two previous posts). I am saying that the geology, climate, vegetation and flora / fauna in GB&I is not replicated anywhere else.


But links can be quite a wide definition. As wide as you want really…. Plus I don’t want to over-emphasise the difference in British dune systems to others, especially those of North-West Europe which are quite similar in vegetation and the way they form.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I just want to add, Ally, I definitely appreciate your perspective. I want to make sure any disagreements are in good faith and good fun.

[Charlie Goerges]

I want to say that this difficulty of exactly where to draw the line is why I suggested and had thought it best to draw a very small and tight circle around what is considered a links. (And I'm not doing it to gatekeep, I've never played a links by the definition I've been using) But... I don't think "links-like" and similar terms are a bad thing, I never use it pejoratively. If everything from Kennemer to Pacific Dunes to Chambers Bay to Golden Gate Park is a links-like, is that a bad thing? There might even be room in that definition for places away from the water like Sand Hills, Ballyneal, and Dismal, I don't know.


But I'll go with the consensus either way.

[Kalen Braley]

I want to say that this difficulty of exactly where to draw the line is why I suggested and had thought it best to draw a very small and tight circle around what is considered a links. (And I'm not doing it to gatekeep, I've never played a links by the definition I've been using) But... I don't think "links-like" and similar terms are a bad thing, I never use it pejoratively. If everything from Kennemer to Pacific Dunes to Chambers Bay to Golden Gate Park is a links-like, is that a bad thing? There might even be room in that definition for places away from the water like Sand Hills, Ballyneal, and Dismal, I don't know.


But I'll go with the consensus either way.

Charlie,

Don't hold your breath on that one given even a small group of like-minded people can't seem to get there, much less an entire industry. 

Bringing this convo full circle, while this thread is mostly an academic pursuit in classification, the good news is and Matt hopefully you can sleep at night knowing that for the vast majority of golfers, courses are a commodity in nature. The masses prioritize where to play based on:

1) How much does it cost?
2) How close by is it?
3) How easily can I play it, aka get a tee time.

Then ensuing criteria often includes: is it 9 holes or 18?  What condition is the course in?  Does it have a cart snack girl? Does it have a range? Is it cart path only?  Etc, etc, etc.

And then somewhere near the bottom perhaps the question may arise on what kind of course is it Parks land, Links, etc, (not that most of them would actually know what a links should be, as opposed to what the course claims it is).  And its not just that, another dubious eye-rolling claim is the so-called "championship layout" gibberish.

Here in high-desert Utah, there's a course not far from here that claims to be a taste of Scotland which is obvious nonsense, but that's not why I haven't played it. Its because its yet another flat, boring, narrow course that plays thru McMansions.  If it was actually interesting I would certainly give it a go despite its absurd marketing.

P.S.  Regarding PacDunes and its links status, I recall TomD asking years ago for someone to show/prove that it is not given it seems to have all the attributes of one. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()