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.


Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Land for Links Courses
« on: May 29, 2007, 01:52:40 PM »
Oh, the debates that went on over dinner after a fun round at Chambers...there could be a lot more topics started on those discussions...but this one intrigued me the most...

Over dinner we started talking about Chambers Bay, and how it was designed to feel like a links course.  Obviously, there are no true links courses in America by the purest definition, however when we refer to links courses in America, generally that means a lot of dunes, fairway and green movement, and the course is very close to water (as in seas and oceans, not like a lake, for example).  By purest definition Pacific Dunes, or Bandon Dunes are not true links courses, and I can say that without even playing them.

However, that is a moo point really.  Generally, courses like Chambers Bay and BD, PD, etc are designed to look and play like links courses.  However, there was mention that Chambers Bay could not be a links course, ever, because of the severe elevation changes.  There were arguments that true links courses such as Ballybunion and RCD had big elevation changes, yet they are still links courses.



My question, which I feel is worthy of some discussion, is how much elevation change is too much, before a course cannot be classified as a links course?  

I cant really say too much on this topic because I have never played a true links course, and therefore cannot provide a worthy answer, however if there are any other related questions to further discussion bring em forward.  I thought it was an interesting debate with just six or seven people arguing (ie.  debating :) ), so I figured it would be fun to see what the whole GCA group has to say.

Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2007, 03:16:38 PM »
Jordan, you need one hell of a lawer to built on 'true linksland'
in the UK today.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2007, 03:23:53 PM »
Hey Matthew,

What is the extent of the elevation change at RCD?
"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

Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2007, 03:35:04 PM »
200ft drop on No 9.

The 10th tee on the No.2 is about 250ft up.

The Dunes behind the 3rd near 300ft

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2007, 03:50:09 PM »
200ft drop on No 9.

The 10th tee on the No.2 is about 250ft up.

The Dunes behind the 3rd near 300ft

Can anyone confirm that?

Because, that is a HUGE drop (over double #9 at Chambers!!!)

Peter_Herreid

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2007, 03:56:16 PM »
Had I been at dinner, my response would have been "What difference does it make, whether a course classifies itself or whether a golf writer or marketer or any of us GCA'ers classifies such and such a course as a links course???"""

Not to sound too much of a smart-aleck, but isn't it really the same thing as calling something a "sportscar" these days?  Most things called "sportscars" now never were and never will be "cars intended to participate in stock racing, competitive off-track or on track racing, etc."--does that mean it is somehow false advertising to call them such...

I think the phrase "links course" is so blatently overapplied in the US particularly that it has no meaning whatsoever.  Oakmont plays more like a British or Irish links course than all but a handful of US courses anyway.

Don't get hung up on having to apply a tag or name to something all the time, be it "penal", "links", "aerial" or whatever.  It should be good enough for Chambers Bay to be considered the "finest South Puget Sound, washed sand-based, nearly tree-less course of its kind", to paraphrase Gary Player...

By the way, I think the elevation business is nonsense in the sense that if one wishes to exclude Dornoch or Cruden Bay as "links courses" on the basis of inherent elevation change, then the discussion is pointless anyway...

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2007, 04:03:05 PM »
Matthew,

I am not sure what that second referrence in your post is, but I'd question the accuracy of the 200ft drop on #9, as well as the dunes behind #3 being 250ft. Where did you get those measurements?

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2007, 04:10:03 PM »
Matthew,

I am not sure what that second referrence in your post is, but I'd question the accuracy of the 200ft drop on #9, as well as the dunes behind #3 being 250ft. Where did you get those measurements?

From Ran's review, on #9 at RCD..

"From the summit, the 9th plunges sixty feet to a forty yard wide level fairway. "

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2007, 04:11:26 PM »
That sounds more like it Jordan, and using that same ratio, the dunes at #3 might fall in closer to what my guess would have been...but Mattew lives there...
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 04:11:51 PM by JES II »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2007, 04:30:24 PM »
As a reference point.

250 FT is more or less equivilant to a 20 story building, which is pretty darn tall. So I'm guessing 50-60 feet sounds about right.  The largest dune I've seen on a course is 13 at PD, and that was one was maybe 60 feet tall tops...

Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2007, 04:53:18 PM »
I do stand corrected on this. I dont know where I got the figure but its ovuisly wrong.(It could be distsance needed to walk down/ip it?

The other two are figure I probably got from the same incorrect sorse.

I might try measuring it with Trig. or I could be lazy and borrow a GPS. ;D

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2007, 04:54:48 PM »
Do the trig...there's only one or two on here that could possible correct you anyway...and I ain't one of'em...

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2007, 05:24:50 PM »
I do stand corrected on this. I dont know where I got the figure but its ovuisly wrong.(It could be distsance needed to walk down/ip it?

The other two are figure I probably got from the same incorrect sorse.

I might try measuring it with Trig. or I could be lazy and borrow a GPS. ;D

Perhaps you had the hypotenuse instead of the rise. Watch your trig, Brent Hutto and I are watching. :)
"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

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2007, 06:47:15 PM »
Matthew:

Don't feel bad about your misjudgment of elevation changes ... people exaggerate these all the time.  The tenth hole at Augusta has a 100-foot drop, and once you've seen that, everything else comes into perspective.

There are a couple of holes in America with 200-foot drops from tee to green, and they're just silly, really.

Jordan:

Pacific Dunes was built through existing sand dunes and on top of a sandy base.  Not everyone would classify that as a "true links", but it's a lot closer to true links than to manufactured.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2007, 07:27:56 PM »
I think Tom has captured what I was thinking as a primary determinant for "true links" with the requirement of "existing sand dunes". Perhaps we could call Chambers Bay a "faux links" on "constructed sand dunes".
"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

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2007, 07:41:26 PM »
Matthew:

Don't feel bad about your misjudgment of elevation changes ... people exaggerate these all the time.  The tenth hole at Augusta has a 100-foot drop, and once you've seen that, everything else comes into perspective.

There are a couple of holes in America with 200-foot drops from tee to green, and they're just silly, really.

Jordan:

Pacific Dunes was built through existing sand dunes and on top of a sandy base.  Not everyone would classify that as a "true links", but it's a lot closer to true links than to manufactured.

Tom,

From what people have said, PD is as close to a links course as any in the US.
In a book I read though, I think Grounds For Golf by Shackleford, it said that a true links course is seaside and only in Scotland and Ireland, or something on those lines..

I'll try and find it so I can get a more exact definition.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2007, 10:38:34 PM »
For what it is worth, I think of real links land as alluvial river joining sea, sand based, but with some loam, due to river wash.  Links, has been described as referring to the land that links a town as a people walkway easment to the beach.  I also think of true links as never too severe in elevation change, but with plenty of frequency of lower elevation humps and hollows.  I think the edge of Nebraska prairie at the base of the sand hills, somewhat like Wild Horse, is more links than the higher elevation sand hills found at SHGC or even Ballyneal.  The fact is that there are some very links like land out there that is not so severe in ele change yet a roller coaster of fun.  When you have a total elevation change on 300-400 acre property of no more than 40 ft, yet rollypolly throughout, then I think you have a golf course architect's routing paradise.  I'm guessing there are several 100 thousand acres of such out there asgood and better than SHGC or Bally, waiting...  ;) ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Evan_Smith

Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2007, 10:59:24 PM »
When I think of a real links course, it's because of the design of the course, the turf conditions, the playing conditions and the location.  The North American links style courses can usually only replicate 1 or 2 of these factors.  Carne may not fall under the title of a true links, but it sure as hell plays like one.  There is also quite a bit of elevation change on the back nine when the course goes through some huge dunes.  At Rosses Point there is a larger elevation change on the 3rd hole and from the 5th tee down to the fairway than at the 9th at RCD.  These holes are however on the headlands of the course and not down in the links area.

As for Giant Dunes, Enniscrone has some doozies, but the biggest grouping are probably at Portstewart.  There is one monster dune at Strandhill, just outside of Sligo.  You tee off the edge of it on 5, and play a couple holes around the base of it.  It is just a monster.  If I knew how to post photos I'd show everyone.

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2007, 12:22:43 AM »
I was looking for info on how long it would take a golf ball to drop 200 feet. I found this, instead.

The most complicated thing you'll ever read about golf


Greg Cameron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2007, 01:50:53 AM »
Jordan,Links is very popular now,and CB site was a mining operation,Spectactularily completed and envisioned by the county,design team,and all others involved.We from the wet coast should also embrace our own heritage of 20' diameter cedar stumps or trees,covered in moss,with severe slopes and elevation changes(parkland?mountain?)Cb's nativity was already gone so links fit perfect.Castles and bridges have been imported to America as well,but probably don't fit their settings as well as  CB does.Can you see 12 deer at 6 am in Scotland walk across the 2nd green?Or get warned that mama and her three bear cubs are on 12 fairway?Admittedly I'd somehow plant small clusters of TREES at CB(firs ,cedars and hemlocks)just to somehow connect perimeter to interior,surrounds to  golf,native enviromement.Afro american girls are beautiful,as are hispanic ladies,as are mult-racial and caucasion,slope or no slope.Why categorize?Food for thought?....Greg

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2007, 07:09:18 AM »
Jordan:

You needn't bother.  Geoff Shackelford doesn't know as much about true links courses as I do.  ;)

Evan Smith:

What exactly would make Carne not a links?

Matt C:

I don't know about 200 feet, but we did some independent research on how long it takes a ball to drop 450 feet at Cape Kidnappers ... drives took between 11 and 13 seconds to hit the water.

Mark Bourgeois

Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2007, 07:21:49 AM »

I don't know about 200 feet, but we did some independent research on how long it takes a ball to drop 450 feet at Cape Kidnappers ... drives took between 11 and 13 seconds to hit the water.

Yeah, yeah, experiments are easy...give us the formula! And no neglecting of wind resistance.

Evan_Smith

Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2007, 12:31:24 PM »
Tom
  I do think of Carne as a links, but re-read my post and you'll notice the word "true" in front of it.  Carne is on land that does not link the town to the sea, and it also sits quite a bit higher off the Atlantic than most.  There's been much discussion as to what is a "true links" but I do think of Carne as a links course.  It's not on the same type of land as TOC, RCD or Portmarnock but it still plays the same as those courses.  I imagine that your course at Bandon is quite similar in nature to Carne (sitting up off the Ocean) and I can't wait to see it one day.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2007, 01:51:55 PM »
Mark B:

I haven't had a problem like that one since freshman Physics With Calculus at M.I.T. -- which was right around the same day I decided to get into golf architecture!  :)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Land for Links Courses
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2007, 02:49:35 PM »
When I think of a real links course, it's because of the design of the course, the turf conditions, the playing conditions and the location.  The North American links style courses can usually only replicate 1 or 2 of these factors.  Carne may not fall under the title of a true links, but it sure as hell plays like one.  There is also quite a bit of elevation change on the back nine when the course goes through some huge dunes.  At Rosses Point there is a larger elevation change on the 3rd hole and from the 5th tee down to the fairway than at the 9th at RCD.  These holes are however on the headlands of the course and not down in the links area.

As for Giant Dunes, Enniscrone has some doozies, but the biggest grouping are probably at Portstewart.  There is one monster dune at Strandhill, just outside of Sligo.  You tee off the edge of it on 5, and play a couple holes around the base of it.  It is just a monster.  If I knew how to post photos I'd show everyone.

Hey Evan,

You can email them to me and I can post them if you like:

kbjames_70@yahoo.com

Kalen

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back