[rjsimper]

A few of my opinions/responses to some of the points raised here...

(and I also have about 150 more photos if anyone cares to explore a different angle on a hole - the photo of 17, as David Kelly says, is misleading because it's taken from the white tee box, not the blues, and from the blues you are playing a very similar tee shot to the 1st hole - that is to say diagonally with gunch obscuring any line played at the swath of rough)


Take this with whatever grain of salt you'd like - I played 6 rounds, 4 from the blue tees and 2 from the white (original) tees and all were in at least some version of a south wind.

Judging the course as too narrow/intimidating from these photos is precisely the same mistake I made before my trip.  I, too, thought that I'd do nothing but lose balls.  And, while lose balls I did, I found that very rarely was such a fate the result of a merely average or below average golf shot.  You have to hit it pretty poorly in order to find the gunch most of the time.  Problem is, we all hit it poorly fairly often.  

Anyone who knows my game knows that I hit it fairly far and very wild, a bad combination for a course like this.  For me to find that it was without a doubt playable I think is a high endorsement.

The only two spots where I can immediately recall the large swaths of rough issue is left of 1 and left of 17 - similar tee shots.  While appearance-wise it might not look ideal, playability-wise I think it's the right decision...moreso for 17 than for 1.  If you are able to aim 40 yards left of the current line on 17 and still hit the fairway, you'd be cutting 60+ yards off an already short par 5.  That hole, to me, is near perfection as it is (and I never made a par on it in 6 rounds into the wind).

The rough was not overly penal - a challenge, yes, but not too long.  Due to the heavy rains this year, the course was on the whole softer than usual and while I am sure the rough slows balls down heading for the gunch, there were a fair share of balls that bounded through the rough like pavement and went on their way to lost-ball-dom in the gunch.

One thing I would definitely agree with is that the wide rough areas make the fairways look more narrow - that's true I think, but I don't think it makes them objectively narrow - they are not.

Ed - you are right, there really is no let up.  It's a tough course from start to finish and I really thought the only easy holes were 7 and 14...and 7 only due to the length (but hitting the narrow fairway is the challenge that hole presents...that, and staying patient)

With a south wind, I believe that even though I've heard that the 8-11 stretch is the toughest 4 hole salvo, it is the 15th-18th that will really beat a guy up.  16 and 17 are both made significantly more difficult playing into the wind, and 18 is made tougher playing downwind, as you either have a tough time holding the green or the run-up shot you are forced to play has a greater probability of catching the slope off the left of the green.

[Kalen Braley]

Some interesting use of the English language in this thread..

gunch
/guhnch/ To push, prod, or poke at a device that has almost (but not quite) produced the desired result. Implies a threat to mung.

I guess it sounds like TEPaul would love to "gunch" the rough until it meets up with the "gunch"..  


Bonus word:

Mung - To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously.

Once again, I'm sure TE would love to "mung" the rough until it meets the "gunch"

[Tom Huckaby]

Great stuff, great pictures, great discussion.

But I still don't get how this course is a ton of fun... losing golf balls so often just doesn't fit my description of that word.

Ryan or others - is it just so great in every other area that you get over the lost ball situation?  I can sort of see that... but I really hate losing golf balls so frequently... so it's hard for me to really "get" from pictures and descriptions.

TH

[rjsimper]

TH-

I lost golf balls often because I hit a block 40 yards right of my line, or because I hit a 40 yard hook with a 5 iron into a par 4.  Is losing a ball under these circumstances a design flaw?  Hardly so - it's pilot error, and the balls that I lost I'd be hard pressed to find ANY course where I wouldn't lose the ball hitting the same shot.

The 2nd at Pacific Dunes is considered by many to be a great golf hole, yet I believe it takes much less to lose a ball on that hole than it does at most of the holes at Prairie Dunes.

To me, it's tons of fun because I control my own destiny.  The aspect of chance is certainly present (rolling fairways, ground game) but you really feel like you are in control of taking calculated risks and approaching the element of chance from an angle of your choosing.

I witnessed David Kelly play, I believe, 2 full rounds without losing a ball.  I had separate stretches of between 10 and 13 holes played with the same ball.  Sure, it's not the most forgiving course on the planet, but I believe it gets a bad rap on this narrowness stuff.

Let the record show that of my lost balls in the first 2 days, only 1 in 36 holes came as a result of my tee shot.  The others were poorly executed or overly risky shots (trying to juice a 5 iron from a hanging lie, a hooked hybrid, an ill-advised 3 wood on the 17th hole).  

I think it's a reasonable expectation of a player that his shot to the green be held to a higher standard of accuracy than the tee shot, and in my 6 plays I found that the area of my game which was most lacking was my accuracy from 150-200 yards, and that was the area where I suffered the most punishment.  

Why is it fun aside from this?  As I said, the course itself and the narrowness aside, the movement of the land (FAR more than I'd ever imagined in Kansas) and the movement of the holes, the bending of fairways, and the small but ingenius greens, were a continuous challenge - a challenge you always THOUGHT you could solve, but far less often actually could.  That, to me, is part of my definition of fun:  Makes you think you can, and gives you a chance to do so, but doesn't necessarily allow you to succeed too often.

EDIT-

This definition for me mostly applies to near and around the greens....and my "one-feature" analysis on the greens.

The other thing that makes it fun to me is that this one feature can often times dominate your thinking even on the tee.  I.E. the 18th hole, if you have a back pin you are thinking about how close to the right edge of the fairway you can get.  If you are on the 11th tee and you (somehow) know that the pin is back right, you are thinking about how you can get your ball as far right as possible to avoid the single hump short-middle.  This, to me, is great design and smart contouring (as opposed to making a wild green where 98% of the emphasis is on how precise you can make your approach shot to the green).

 

[George Pazin]

Thanks for sharing the photos and thoughts.

Wasn't there supposed to be a Faldo course opening next door? Whatever happened to that?

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:

That's a very fair explanation.  Just do note I never stated that any part of this was any "design flaw" - I was just wondering why you could call it a "ton of fun" given the lost ball potential on seemingly every shot.  Note also I made no distinction between tee shots and approach shots - in fact, what makes me ask these questions is the seeming situation where a ball can be lost on EVERY shot.  That just gets to be too much, as I view this crazy game.

So I still get that it's not as bad as you expected it to be in this respect, but as I read the descriptions, see the pictures, read the takes of others... I just can't see it being my personal cup of tea.  I can see it being fun, for sure... but what I can't see is it being in the very upper pantheon of fun courses.  Challenging, yes.  Thought-provoking as one tries to meet these challenges, yes.  "Ton of fun"?  That I can't see.

But that's cool, I've never been there and damn likely never will.

And I also like NGLA significantly more than Shinneock.

Prairie Dunes to me seems a lot more like Shinnecock than it does NGLA.  Which to some is a compliment and the highest praise... just not to me.

TH

[rjsimper]

Thanks for sharing the photos and thoughts.

Wasn't there supposed to be a Faldo course opening next door? Whatever happened to that?

Here you go, George!
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=30394

[rjsimper]

Ryan:

That's a very fair explanation.  Just do note I never stated that any part of this was any "design flaw" - I was just wondering why you could call it a "ton of fun" given the lost ball potential on seemingly every shot.  Note also I made no distinction between tee shots and approach shots - in fact, what makes me ask these questions is the seeming situation where a ball can be lost on EVERY shot.  That just gets to be too much, as I view this crazy game.

So I still get that it's not as bad as you expected it to be in this respect, but as I read the descriptions, see the pictures, read the takes of others... I just can't see it being my personal cup of tea.  I can see it being fun, for sure... but what I can't see is it being in the very upper pantheon of fun courses.  Challenging, yes.  Thought-provoking as one tries to meet these challenges, yes.  "Ton of fun"?  That I can't see.

But that's cool, I've never been there and damn likely never will.

TH

Huck -

Trust me when I say this - I thought the EXACT SAME THING as you before I went.  Hell, I sent you and several others emails wondering if I'd ever break 90 out there.

After coming into the trip with a no-confidence mindset and downright fear (especially after leaving the dozen extra balls I'd intended to bring on the floorboard of my car) that I'd spend more money on balls than I would on the trip, my mind was completely changed.

Remember, I'm the same guy that hits the "if you miss this 80-yard wide fairway you should be shot" 1st fairway at Rustic Canyon 1 in 3 times.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:

I know all of that.

I just remain unconvinced.  All you've convinced me of is it wasn't as bad as you expected.  I'm reading nothing that tells me it's a "ton of fun."

But you might want to read my late edit to my last post... this likely comes down to personal preferences, and what one considers fun in golf.

See, I don't mind losing a ball now and then, and I surely don't mind shooting bad scores.

"Relentless" courses just aren't my cup of tea.  I kinda like a break now and then... I kinda like a lucky bounce... I kinda prefer whimsy to tests of skill.

I'm not seeing that at PD... not to the extent that puts it in the upper echelon, anyway.

TH

[rjsimper]

Ryan:

I know all of that.

I just remain unconvinced.  All you've convinced me of is it wasn't as bad as you expected.  I'm reading nothing that tells me it's a "ton of fun."

But you might want to read my late edit to my last post... this likely comes down to personal preferences, and what one considers fun in golf.

See, I don't mind losing a ball now and then, and I surely don't mind shooting bad scores.

"Relentless" courses just aren't my cup of tea.  I kinda like a break now and then... I kinda like a lucky bounce... I kinda prefer whimsy to tests of skill.

I'm not seeing that at PD... not to the extent that puts it in the upper echelon, anyway.

TH

I do believe there is a difference between a continuous challenge and "relentless".  

Take, for instance, Olympic Lake and Prairie Dunes.  Where can you lose more balls? Prairie Dunes by far - I hit 1 fairway at Olympic and still played the entire round with one ball.  Yet, Olympic to me is the more relentless course by far - you can absolutely get away with shots at Prairie Dunes.  Courses like Olympic and Congressional Blue are much more of a slog and a beatdown because they continually offer one challenge - hit fairway, hit green, make par.  This is not the case at PD.

You can miss the first fairway well to the left and be in great shape - I hit fan blocks with irons on 3 and 12 and made pars, a block off the 13th tee isn't necessarily lost.  Likewise, an overhooked shot off the 12th tee of about 230 yards may find a nice grassy area between the fairway bunkers, and the 14th hole lets you blast it as far right as you want at your own peril in terms of second shot difficulty (but there is no lost ball potential to be had on such a line).

Lost ball potential does not = relentless.  There is lost ball potential on virtually every hole at Pacific Dunes, is there not?  Certainly that is not a relentless course, and in fact, maybe it's one of the most fun courses in the world.  

To look exclusively at their difficulty, penality, or relentlessness, Prairie Dunes is more like a strict teacher looking over your shoulder making sure you're behaving whereas Olympic Lake is more like a Singaporean Police Officer flogging you with a cane.

I realize I am not going to "convince" you of anything, but I'm just trying to be clear that if I, of all people, consider the course playable and fun given the average dispersion of my shots and my negative mindset going into the weekend, and I come out of it saying that its wonderful, fun, playable, and one of my top 5 easily, then I do believe that's saying something.

I know you will continue to disagree, or at least not buy what I'm selling without caveat or disclaimer, and I'm fine with that, I wouldn't expect you to.  

[George Pazin]

Ryan, don't feel bad, Huck doesn't think Oakmont would be tons of fun, either.

 

1 in 3 on an 80 yard fairway? I can relate to that.

Thanks for the link to the other thread, btw, don't know how I missed it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Given that last part, I appreciate you trying.  

But you're still not getting my point.

Heck, I don't call Olympic Lake "fun" either.  In fact it's just about the poster course for "test of golf" that is enjoyable in a certain sense, but not my cup of tea either.  So saying it's not Olympic Lake achieves little.  I get that, just from the pictures.

I also don't see lost ball potential on every shot at Pacific Dunes... far from it.. you've lost me there.  But let's leave that aside.

I also absoutely get that you tend to spray the ball - I've played with you, remember?  So yes, it's not as bad in terms of lost balls etc, as you thought it would be - gotcha.  And you've come away finding it to be very "fun" as you see this game - gotcha.  And that is saying something - gotcha.  It's not nearly as penal as people make it out to be - gotcha.

BUT, I still read the relentless description, still see the ball-eating gunch to the side of every shot... and thus can't make the leap to seeing the course as a "ton of fun" - AS I SEE THE GAME.

Perhaps the NGLA/Shinnecock references don't resonate with you - that's cool, it is kinda GCA hoity-toity speak and I apologize for that.  Let's try this:

Rustic Canyon is a fun course to play; Oakmont seems like a great test of golf.

Looking at Prairie Dunes from afar, I see a lot more similarities to Oakmont than I do to Rustic Canyon.   Some, if not most, would call that the highest compliment.  As I see things, it just means the course surely must be great, just can't possibly be in the upper echelon of "fun", as I define that term.

TH

ps to George - I swear our posts crossed - but damn right!  Relentless tests of golf remain not my cup of tea.  BTW, notice the GD ratings?  

[George Pazin]

I do believe there is a difference between a continuous challenge and "relentless".  

Take, for instance, Olympic Lake and Prairie Dunes.  Where can you lose more balls? Prairie Dunes by far - I hit 1 fairway at Olympic and still played the entire round with one ball.  Yet, Olympic to me is the more relentless course by far - you can absolutely get away with shots at Prairie Dunes.  Courses like Olympic and Congressional Blue are much more of a slog and a beatdown because they continually offer one challenge - hit fairway, hit green, make par.  This is not the case at PD.

You can miss the first fairway well to the left and be in great shape - I hit fan blocks with irons on 3 and 12 and made pars, a block off the 13th tee isn't necessarily lost.  Likewise, an overhooked shot off the 12th tee of about 230 yards may find a nice grassy area between the fairway bunkers, and the 14th hole lets you blast it as far right as you want at your own peril in terms of second shot difficulty (but there is no lost ball potential to be had on such a line).

Lost ball potential does not = relentless.  There is lost ball potential on virtually every hole at Pacific Dunes, is there not?  Certainly that is not a relentless course, and in fact, maybe it's one of the most fun courses in the world.  

To look exclusively at their difficulty, penality, or relentlessness, Prairie Dunes is more like a strict teacher looking over your shoulder making sure you're behaving whereas Olympic Lake is more like a Singaporean Police Officer flogging you with a cane.

I realize I am not going to "convince" you of anything, but I'm just trying to be clear that if I, of all people, consider the course playable and fun given the average dispersion of my shots and my negative mindset going into the weekend, and I come out of it saying that its wonderful, fun, playable, and one of my top 5 easily, then I do believe that's saying something.

I know you will continue to disagree, or at least not buy what I'm selling without caveat or disclaimer, and I'm fine with that, I wouldn't expect you to.  

This is an absolutely fantastic post. It encapsulates almost perfectly for me the difference between what I call a brutally hard but still playable course (under my definition of playability, obviously) and a less difficult but also less playable course.

The irony is that it sounds like you preferred the one that's closer to my idea of unplayable!

That's okay, I might, too, depending on the uniqueness of the shots. Or, I might not.

I'm a fan of Tom P's Big World of Golf theory.

Huck -

Your definition of fun sounds almost as narrow as my definition of playable.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Curious how my definition of fun is narrow, as it encapsulates basically every golf course on earth.

Ryan has said PD is a "ton of fun" - that to me is akin to saying it's among the MOST fun courses he's played.  It's that part I don't get.

Hell I can have fun playing this game anywhere - even at a brute of a course like your beloved one ranked so far below Pebble.  It's just a different kind of fun, and not my personal cup of tea, in terms of calling it a "ton of fun" or ranking it in the upper echelon for such.

The very MOST FUN courses - to me - can be stern tests for sure, but are not relentless, have room for whimsy, and perhaps give some breaks here and there.

The perfect comparison is NGLA/Shinnecock.  I find the former to be the most fun one can have playing the game; the latter to be a very stern test of golf, fun in a masochistic way, fun in a historic way, but not a generally fun place on which to play this game.

But to each his own for sure.  Many disagree with me on this - Matt Ward being the poster boy.

TH

ps  - I too have always been a fan of the Big World theory.

[George Pazin]

Curious how my definition of fun is narrow, as it encapsulates basically every golf course on earth.

That's exactly why I said it is analogous to my definition of playable.

I don't really think a course where you lose a bunch of balls is literally unplayable. One can obviously follow the rules, re-tee, drop in the right areas, etc. So it is not literally unplayable, just not as playable as the ones where you're not losing balls left and right.

In the same way, I'm pretty sure you would find Oakmont or Prairie Dunes a lot of fun to play, just maybe not as much fun as a course that is less relentless, maybe less testing.

To sum up, when I call a course unplayable, I don't mean it literally, just as when you say a course isn't tons of fun to play, you don't necessarily mean that literally.

Hope that helps.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

That sums it up fairly enough - although I have no dog in your playable/unplayable issue.  And I still want acknowledgement regarding the clear superiority of Pebble Beach to Oakmont, as stated by the denizens at Golf Magazine.

[George Pazin]

George:

That sums it up fairly enough - although I have no dog in your playable/unplayable issue.  And I still want acknowledgement regarding the clear superiority of Pebble Beach to Oakmont, as stated by the denizens at Golf Magazine.

No go, you're still coasting by on the time lag effect. The next one, when everyone's been exposed to the 07 greatness of Oakmont will be more telling.

 

Although, after seeing the published breakdown for Oakmont in GD's preview issue, and how low it ranked in aesthetics, I can honestly say I have less faith in the rankings than ever.

[Jason Blasberg]

It's important to note that for folks who can hit a 230-250 three wood if you play the middle tees at Prairie Dunes you don't need to hit a single driver all day.

You can also play holes like 5, 8, 9 and 11 as three shoters and turn par 70 into par 74 and keep the ball in play.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

It's important to note that for folks who can hit a 230-250 three wood if you play the middle tees at Prairie Dunes you don't need to hit a single driver all day.

You can also play holes like 5, 8, 9 and 11 as three shoters and turn par 70 into par 74 and keep the ball in play.

 

JKB - I believe that's true, but I also believe you just made my point a lot more than Ryan's.  Courses where average to long hitters have to play the middle tees and use three wood all day.. and/or one actively has to turn seeming par 4s into par fives to keep the ball in play do not scream out "tons of fun" as I see it.

George - only one born and raised in Pittsburgh could find scenic beauty at Oakmont.  

[Sean Leary]

Huck,

You are close to becoming Prairie Dunes persona non grata ala Chicago Golf Club

Please come and see it for yourself..

[ed_getka]

[quote

To look exclusively at their difficulty, penality, or relentlessness, Prairie Dunes is more like a strict teacher looking over your shoulder making sure you're behaving whereas Olympic Lake is more like a Singaporean Police Officer flogging you with a cane.

Ryan,
    Great analogy.

Tom,
   Name 5 courses that are really high on the fun scale in your opinion. Would any of those courses have the potential for being the one of the best courses in the world?
   I am not trying to change your mind. I have golfed enough with you to know that you would only lose 1-2 balls per 36 holes at PD. What is fun about PD is that every shot counts, not impossible, but you can't just get complacent. If you overreach and don't pull it off you will pay. If you accept that you are out of position and play the percentages you would be hard-pressed to lose a ball. PD is certainly not a course where a high handicapper will enjoy themselves. You have to have a decent amount of ability at the game, and you have to think about what you are doing. If one likes to shoot low scores then PD isn't the course for them. PD is very difficult to birdie and very easy to double bogey for me, and that is the part that most would find makes the course not fun. Personally I like the challenge of PD and it is fun in my book.
    Courses that I would put ahead of PD on the fun scale would be NGLA, North Berwick, Fishers Island, Kingsley Club, Rustic Canyon, etc... If you look at PD in regards to the upper echelon courses in the world that are considered "good tests of golf" I think PD would be one of the more fun courses included. I sure hope you make it out to see it some day as I'm sure you would really enjoy it.

[Jason Blasberg]

It's important to note that for folks who can hit a 230-250 three wood if you play the middle tees at Prairie Dunes you don't need to hit a single driver all day.

You can also play holes like 5, 8, 9 and 11 as three shoters and turn par 70 into par 74 and keep the ball in play.

 

JKB - I believe that's true, but I also believe you just made my point a lot more than Ryan's.  Courses where average to long hitters have to play the middle tees and use three wood all day.. and/or one actively has to turn seeming par 4s into par fives to keep the ball in play do not scream out "tons of fun" as I see it.

Huck, you sure you didn't go to law school . . .  

What I meant was PD is not overly long, in fact if it's firm it'll play short.  Even from the tips you don't need driver if it's firm.  Of course I can hit a 3wood 100 yards left so I'm SOL sometimes.

If you have a decent driving game you will be fine at PD and it's an absolute blast to play but to score well, meaning break 80, you must keep in in play.  

[Tom Huckaby]

JKB:  sadly enough I did go to law school, but happily I bagged out after two months.  In any case, I get what you're saying now: due to firm an fast conditions it plays shorter than it otherwise might, so one can use less club and get by just fine.  Good stuff.

Sean:  just calling it like I see it... hope to get out there some day, but I'm also not holding my breath, given my lack of golf travel and the many other things I need/want to do.  So what the hell, why not piss off every PD member so I make it a REALLY moot point?  It rather removes the temptation that way.

Ed:

You're falling into the trap Ryan did - there's absolutely no doubt I'd enjoy playing Prairie Dunes, but then again I enjoy playing The Ranch in San Jose.    I love the game more than I love its venues.  But perhaps a better example is this:  I absolutely enjoyed getting my ass handed to me by Shinnecock, but I'd never call it "tons of fun" to play.  It really is too relentless, for what I love about the game. So in any case, it does no good to say I'd enjoy this course - of course I would.  I just can't see myself enjoying it MORE than other truly great courses... everything I read and see leads me to believe that play is entirely defensive there - you just do whatever you can to avoid the everpresent gunch.  Sure one CAN avoid it - but everything everyone says is that one can do that "if he plays smart", "if he uses three wood off the tee" etc. etc. etc.  Hell, you can say that about THE RANCH as well - that's meaningless.  Relentless courses where you have to play defensively shot after shot after shot, well... to each his own, it's not what I enjoy MOST about this game.

But I do get what Ryan said, and what you've said here and before - there are many many positives to the course as well.  But with avoiding the gunch being the background thought on every single shot, well... that's just not my cup of tea.  To each his own.

Do you really want me to name five courses I'd enjoy playing more than this one?  There likely aren't that many, as of course this course does deserve its mantle of greatness.  I just tend to prefer MORE those like NGLA, N. Berwick, TOC, Rustic Canyon, many others... where one can play aggressively from time to time, can make a mistake and not have to spend the required 5 minutes searching in high rough, and has a chance for some success.

Once again, to each his own.  But you guys are fooling yourselves if you think you're ever going to convince me this gunch-filled course is a "ton of fun".  I'm too stubborn, and now you've all challenged me.




 

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are right, there are some shots that you are definitely thinking about the gunsch.  However, one could say the same things about out of bounds stakes as well.  A little bit is OK but a lot makes it no fun. Merion for example has a fair amount of OB if you hit a really bad shot, but it is still a blast to play. Pine Valley doesn't have much OB but you can certainly lose balls there in the trees.   A blast to play.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Royal Portrush is fun. The corridors at Portrush are similar to Prairie Dunes for the most part with similar gunsch.  I wish the gunsch was more like Ballyneal or Sand Hills, but it isn't, but it doesn't make it not a blast to play.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Now we're getting somewhere.

See, I really don't like ANY penal aspect to be omnipresent, be it OB, water, gunsch (is that the correct spelling -apologies if so).  BUT... if I had to choose... give me clearly defined OB or water over gunsch any day.  See, what I also don't like (from afar) is that it seems you are going to try and LOOK for the ball if you hit it in there - is that true?  So if you play by the rules, you're hitting tons of provisionals - not my idea of fun either.  That gunsch is just about the thing I dislike most about golf course conditions, to be honest... high rough that teases you you might find your ball, but never really does allow such.  Man I hate that.  It's all over THE RANCH... or used to be anyway.  To their credit they've cut a lot back.

But anyway great example of Portrush Dunluce -oh I enjoyed it, for sure... the views and firm fairways alone allow for that -but I surely enjoyed it just about the least of any of the great courses I played in Ireland.  That's how I see Prairie Dunes - of course it's a great course, but my feeling is I'd enjoy it the least in a list of great midwest courses featuring Ballyneal, Sand Hills, Wild Horse, etc.

Does that make better sense?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()