[Richard Choi]

I have been very fortunate to have played some of the very best links style courses that have been built over the last decade or so recently. They are fun, exciting, and beautiful to play. They have reintroduced some of the classic architectural elements back in style to new generation of golfers who may have never been introduced to such style before.

To me, they represent the very best in golf course architecture and I get great thrills every time I play them.

I would like to share some of my observations with everyone in the treehouse to see if I am on the right track with my thoughts regarding these courses and serve as an explanation on why such courses are so popular with many of us here. One caveat is that I am going to limit my discussion to the courses that I have actually played. There are several other great examples of this architecture movement elsewhere (e.g. Sand Hills), but for now, I am going to stick with what I know personally.

The first thoughts that come to my mind are common traits that all of these “new links style” courses share. These courses are defined by following characteristics.

• The most common feature that they all share is the enormous fairway widths. These courses feature fairways that are 40 to 80 yards wide (and in some case even WIDER!).
• The greens are large and feature large undulations and rolls that bring a lot of character to their shape. Some even feature “sideboards” and “backboards” that encourage golfers to play away from the hole.
• The greens are well guarded by severe bunkers (usually blow-out bunkers).
• They look natural and fit with the movements of the surrounding property.
• The fairways and greens are surrounded by fescues and waste areas with almost no trees that come in to play.
• They play best when conditions are firm and fast.

So, what makes them interesting and fun to play?

I think Rustic Canyon (and perhaps CommonGrounds as well) serves as a great fundamental example of the golf course architecture approach taken by these courses.

Rustic Canyon fairways are very, very wide. They are also relatively flat with relatively mild undulations (< 5 feet). However, greens are usually raised up, guarded by large severe bunkers, and feature wild undulations.

The primary defense for the tee shot is placement. Based on pin position and relative bunker position, one side of the fairway is usually favored. If you miss your tee shot to the wrong side, you are certainly not facing an impossible shot, but your approach will have less margin for error.

On approach shots, because of the firm and fast conditions and severe bunkers, the usual aerial assault may not be the best way to attack the green. You may even have to aim away from the pin and use the slopes to bring the ball back to the proper position.

This mental exercise of thinking through and walking back your shot selections from the pin to the tee is what makes these courses so much fun to play. While you can just go out and mindlessly whack your ball, the course rewards those who think things through, those who plan two or three steps ahead like a billiard player who position his cue ball for ideal spots two or three shots ahead.

Rustic Canyon, as is, is a great example of this type of “thinking man’s” course and its adulation on this board and others are well deserved.

But, it can (and does) get even more interesting.

The Wine Valley Golf Club features even bigger fairways and even bigger (and certainly prettier) bunkers. The course also introduces fairway undulation into the equation.

The Wine Valley is built on a very rolling high desert land. The fairways at WVGC have rolls that are up to 10 o 15 feet from low to high. While Rustic Canyon does have elevation changes, most of the fairways are fairly level. But with fairway elevation changes at WVGC, you are introduced to additional strategic elements – bad lies and blind approaches.

If you miss to the bad side at WVGC, you likely will not have a clear view to the green. In front of you is a rolling fairway hill with no distinct landmark in view to aim at. Even worse, you may be facing straight at a large nasty bunker that brings an equally large amount of intimidation. Because of the movement, you may also be facing difficult lies. It is quite common at WVGC to face uphill, downhill, and side hill lies. All of these challenges bring multiples to the same strategies you face in flatter courses like Rustic Canyon. And to me, it makes it even more fun.

But what if you turn the notch even higher? What if you bring all the tricks in the bag to the course?

I believe that is what the very best of the new generation of link style courses like Chambers Bay, Ballyneal, and Pacific Dunes (and Bandon Dunes, and Bandon Trails, so on and so on) bring.

At Chambers Bay or Ballyneal, the ideal fairway position off the tee is not ˝ the fairway or even 1/3 of the fairway like it is at WVGC or RC. The ideal spots are typically 10 to 15 yards wide and are very well guarded with bunkers that tell you to stay away from those plumb spots. The ideal spots also feature turbo mounds that are difficult to carry or reach, but if you do, you are rewarded with extra bump and roll that will add yards to your tee shots and make your approach shots much less demanding.

However, if you miss those spots, the penalties are much more severe as well. The fairways feature bumps that punt indifferent shots away into nasty downhill lies to greens that are blind and located far, far away.

A great example of this design approach is the 10th at Ballyneal. The landing area is impossibly wide, but the ideal spot on the right edge of the fairway is only 10 yards or so wide. To get there, you have to fly a nasty looking bunker that is 200 to 260 yards to carry. If you pull it off, you have a great view to the green with a straightforward approach and a level lie to perform it on. If you don’t, your ball feeds to the hollow on the left side where most of the balls gather, leaving you with 150 to 200 yard blind approach with most likely a downhill lie. Talk about tough!!!

Another sweet example is the 14th at Chambers Bay. You have three separate tee shots from the tee. First, you can just lay up to the right where there is ample space, which will leaves you with 190 to 230 yard approach to the well guarded green. You can also attack the fairway bunker in the middle about 220 to 260 yards away. If you are successful, you are rewarded with a turbo boost off the side hill that will add about 40 yards to your drive and leave you with an easy 150 to 110 yard approach. Or you can just bomb away and carry 230 to 280 yards above the acres and acres of waste area which will leave you with the same shot. But if you pull slightly or leave it short, you may have to layup 50 to 100 yards short of the green.

Ballyneal and Chambers Bay also increases the difficulties as you get closer to the green. The greens and its surrounding area are smaller than it is at RC or WVGC. Also, usually there is one side of the green that is either surrounded by the bunker or feature such severe slope that it punishes the bad approach much more severely than you do at RC or WVGC.

In my opinion, this combination of increase in severity between the good and the bad shots and smaller and better guarded ideal positions elevate these courses to a “special” category. Natural land forms that support this type of severity is pretty rare (Ballyneal, Pacific Dune) or you have to move quite a bit of earth to make it happen (Chambers Bay). But just like increased contrast ratios bring much more detail and life-like images to a TV monitor, the increase in severity of the landform heightens one’s senses and brings higher highs and lower lows with every shot performed.

Some may argue that “don’t you also face that kind of severity with US Open type of course with narrow fairways and tall rough?” But I would argue back that there is a huge difference between just trying to avoid danger compared to wanting to reach an ideal position. The former is like living the life just to avoid jail. The latter is like trying to live the life to the fullest potential (even if you may not pull it off). They are not alike and it is why one is so much more enjoyable than the other.

I would like to thank the architects who are bringing “fun” and “challenging” at the same time to golf course design. It is very well appreciated.

[Ben Sims]

Box,

Great post and one we should be comfortable debating regardless of our alliances.  I won't join in because I haven't seen the all of the participants.  I think it would boil down to CB vs. BN. 

The tough thing about these types of "versus" arguments is that they are all so good.  As I've been told before, it becomes fruitless at a certain point to even bring up these debates.  Like we talked about a few weeks ago, it all subjective.  Peter Herreld gave me an disapproving nod when I said that the aggregate weakest holes at BN were stronger than the weakest at PD.  But I still consider PD to be the best course I've ever played.  How crazy is that argument?

In the end we are all crazy about golf courses.  And for what it's worth--based on many variables--I consider each of those four to be modern gems.  I hope your debate goes well.

[Garland Bayley]

So Richard,

Your argument is, "it's the land, stupid?"

Clearly one can extrapolate from your argument that Chambers Bay and Ballyneal are head and shoulders above Winged Foot West and Pinehurst #2. Not so?

[Richard Choi]

I would say my argument is enticing a player to hit a good shot is better than making them hit away from trouble. And also that the severity between the good, mediocre, and bad shots are what makes a course great. Good land certainly help you in achieving that.

And Ben, I don't want this to sound like just another this course is better than that course argument. What I am trying to convey is the architectural layers that each course possesses and why those layers matter.

Garland, I don't know WFW to really comment, but didn't Pinehurst #2 used to have much wider fairways and exhibit more of the architectural elements that I discuss here?

[Garland Bayley]

I picked those two, because both are known to have quite uninteresting land.
They are not going to present the sloped lies and the blind shots.

[Jim Colton]

Rich,

I think these modern links courses have done a great job of exposing a different brand of golf - a game that can be more fun than I ever imagined and a game more closely resembling it's origin. In a prior life, I used to associate beat you over the head difficult with quality, simply because I hadn't been exposed to anything else. My first trip to Scotland 10 years ago helped change that view, only to be solidified by similar courses on this side of the pond. From the early pics and videos, it looks like Old Mac may push the fun envelope even further.

[Ben Sims]

Rich,

I think these modern links courses have done a great job of exposing a different brand of golf - a game that can be more fun than I ever imagined and a game more closely resembling it's origin....it looks like Old Mac may push the fun envelope even further.

Oh Big Coltrain, you speak the gospel of truth.  This isn't to say that the stuff designed between 1930-1990 won't have a place in golf.  But mark my words, courses like Old Mac, Ballyneal, Sand Hills, and Chambers will be remembered in 100 years with the same fervor and longing as NGLA, Ballybunion, and Royal County Down are today. 

Hopefully to bolster your point Richard; for some reason, a new generation of architects are designing the new classic links.  The true consequence of this rebirth is to make people believe in the power of a golf course again.  Many of us here are true students and supporters of the movement.  Some call us buttboys,  nouveau, etc.  Personally, you can call me anything you like.  The truth of the matter is this.  The golf courses being built in the US of the links style since 1990, are the most important courses in the past 75 years of golf architecture history.  Bold statement, but look elsewhere in the US--in the world even--and find a better collection of courses has been built since 1930.

And to backup Jim again, Old Mac is the real deal.

[Jason Walker]

I'm still trying to figure out how enormous fairway widths contribute to solid golf course architecture.  At its core, golf is a game of fundamentals--one of which is an ability to hit a ball straight or at least within some margin of error of your intended target.  Wide fairways (80 yards wide) essentially eliminate a third of the game.  As we celebrate a movement of replicating linksland courses inland, when did the tee shot become insignificant?

[Pete Lavallee]

  As we celebrate a movement of replicating linksland courses inland, when did the tee shot become insignificant?

Perhaps when elite players no longer had to pay a price for one that was offline. When angles no longer matter. because players can stick it with a short iron from the less than ideal position, placing one's tee shot became inconsequential.

[Wayne_Kozun]

There's a whole other bunch of courses built since 90 that you left off your list as well - Kingsbarns, Barnbougle Dunes, Devil's Paintbrush, Eagle's Nest, The Castle Course at St. Andrews, etc.  This type of course has also been built outside the US of A and arguable some of the ones outside of the US are the best examples of this trend.

[Ben Sims]

Jason,

Play ANY of the above four courses mentioned and tell me that the tee shot is insignificant.  I understand your argument.  But just because you put it on short grass doesn't mean that it's a successful tee shot.  That mindset is the problem.  I blame it on network golf coverage and their infatuation with tee shots hit into fairways.  I have only played one of those courses, but I guarantee that there were tee shots I hit into the fairway that didn't help me that much in trying to score.  

And to call Ballyneal or Rustic Canyon a replication is missing the greater triumph of those courses.  

[Ben Sims]

Wayne,

You're right, it arguable.  I still believe that the genre' is better represented by the courses at Bandon, the new ones on Long Island, the ones in the sandy areas of the midwest, and a few in Michigan and Washington.

[Andy Troeger]

Jason,

Play ANY of the above four courses mentioned and tell me that the tee shot is insignificant.  I understand your argument.  But just because you put it on short grass doesn't mean that it's a successful tee shot.  That mindset is the problem.  I blame it on network golf coverage and their infatuation with tee shots hit into fairways.  I have only played one of those courses, but I guarantee that there were tee shots I hit into the fairway that didn't help me that much in trying to score.  

Ben,
Angles are certainly important, but this group overemphasizes their importance especially to the better player given normal conditions on golf courses today. I've played Ballyneal, Chambers Bay, and Rustic Canyon and never once remember being the fairway and being particularly concerned about a shot. I hit it on the left side of #10 at Ballyneal and had a blind second, but you still just pick a target and hit the ball (its not like you're looking at the target when you make contact with the ball anyway). Obviously, not every fairway on these courses are 50-80 yards wide either, although many provide signficant width. The tee shots are still significant but not NEARLY as challenging as most other modern courses. As a lousy driver of the ball that's great news for me because I'm pretty decent from there.

That doesn't stop me from thinking they are wonderful courses--I agree with most of what has been said on their behalf. However, an 50-80 yard fairway is much easier to navigate even from a poor angle than a shot from rough or bunkers or the hay on other courses. IMO, its not close.

[Ben Sims]

Andy,

I wonder how the tee shots at the "new links" that we are discussing compare to the "old links" of Scotland and Ireland.  I think that is probably a better comparison than comparing the tee shots at, say, Muirfield Village or Colonial.  I haven't played golf over there yet, so I can't compare. 

And before I forget, don't disregard the wind as a factor.  Fairway width is a necessity when dealing with 25-30 mph winds.  And subsequently, angles into the greens become MUCH more important when dealing with lower trajectory shots.

If the wind is 5 mph and it's clear blue sky at 70 degrees, then I would agree that the "new links" can be tamed substantially and angles aren't nearly as important.  But how often is this the case on the coast of Oregon or the open hills of central Nebraska?

[Richard Choi]

Andy, I certainly agree that hitting from the right side of the fairway at Ballyneal is not an impossible shot, but if the wind is blowing and the course is playing firm and fast, I doubt that you can make a birdie from that position more than 1 out of 10 times. Based on the pin position, you may have to scramble hard just to get a par.

If you hit the right side, the birdie is certainly a possibility.

The course is not there to make sure you get a bogey or double bogey if you hit a poor shot. But it will certainly deter you from getting a birdie.

On a course of lesser quality, you will hit the same drive, end up in a right rough with probably a clear shot to the green. If the rough is cut low, it is probably a relatively simple shot to get on the green since the green is probably soft and receptive with shallow undulations and bogey is not possibility unless you hit a particularly poor approach. Birdie is still in play.

There are simplay far greater possibility of options, outcomes, and challenges in the first case compared to the second or third.

[Andy Troeger]

Ben,
Fair points--I haven't been to the "old links" either. I also by no means think that narrow "challenging" fairways are necessarily good--I'd rather have the width and room to play especially compared to a courses that tend to draw out many penalty strokes. It's just not as challenging, but that's by all means ok!

The wind point is a fair one, but I've played tough narrow courses in windy sites too. I think its intelligent of designers to allow for it, and the courses mentioned do just that. One exception to that perhaps being too many environmentally sensitive areas at Rustic Canyon. Despite the width I ended up in that stuff a few times from which there is no recovery. That's a bummer.

Ironically though its been pretty calm when I've played all three courses. Rustic at least had some breeze, but certainly no gale.

[ed_getka]

I'm still trying to figure out how enormous fairway widths contribute to solid golf course architecture.  At its core, golf is a game of fundamentals--one of which is an ability to hit a ball straight or at least within some margin of error of your intended target.  Wide fairways (80 yards wide) essentially eliminate a third of the game.  As we celebrate a movement of replicating linksland courses inland, when did the tee shot become insignificant?

Jason,
   You bring up a good point. I think two of the best courses in the world are Royal Dornoch and Prairie Dunes. The reason is that both of the courses fairly equally test all aspects of your game: tee shot, approach shots, short game, and putting. You have some margin for error in each, but you can't take any single shot for granted on those courses. Courses with extreme width lessen the importance of the tee ball IMO, however in many cases the improper placement of a tee ball on a really wide fairway has some serious repercussions for the next shot. It doesn't preclude one making par, but the probability of making birdie drops substantially when approaching from the wrong angle. Andy also brings up a good point about rough being more penal than being out of position. However, I would argue that having to invent a shot from a poor angle is more fun than hacking out of the rough. And I golf to have fun.

Richard,
    You raise some very good points. Not too many raised greens at Rustic though. I'm a Rustic homer.

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
All your points are very reasonable and I agree with Ed that I'm out there to have fun. That kind of golf is much more fun than hacking out of the rough.

I just have to chuckle though when people act as if that shot is as hard as a shot out of thick rough or a deep bunker as you would find on many other courses--its just not. I like having recovery options when I miss, but I have to admit I can't think of a fairway shot as a "recovery" even if I have a poor angle. I can understand how others might see that differently.

[Ben Sims]

Andy,

Of course we enjoy wide--or relatively wide-- fairways more than narrow ones.  Its because I suck.  Ask Wyatt Halliday.  Poor guy's had to sit through my hacking two weekends in a row!

And of course a shot from the rough under a tree is harder than a blind one from short grass.  But when the wind is up and the conditions are links-y, the scores rise up pretty comparable to the skinny tour layouts wouldn't you say? 

All valid points on this thread. 

But I identify wholly with the the "new links" style and will do most anything to play them.  My best scores aren't on these types of courses, but my most fun is.

[Jim Franklin]

Andy -

Go play The Old Course and let me know what you think. Fairway everywhere, and you need to get the right angle to make birdie there. Making par is not really the challenge, but making birdie is. I find golf much more fun from the wrong side of the fairway than 5 inch rough. As you know, I am not the straightest driver in the world either, so the tight, high rough courses tend to be a bore to me. I can't wait to see Rock Creek.

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

I don't think I've ever claimed that Ballyneal is as hard as Prairie Dunes or Medinah.

But why does it need to be?  Why do you think it is the purpose of golf architecture to punish bad shots?  In some settings, I'd rather just reward the good shots, and give the wayward player another chance (but probably not for birdie).

Also, anybody who has played Ballyneal or Pacific Dunes or Barnbougle in calm conditions does not really understand what they're about.  It's a lot harder to hit all the fairways in a 25-mph wind, which those courses will see five days out of seven.  And the roughs are pretty severe on all of them, so it only takes a couple of drives into the rough to wreck your score.

[Niall C]

Andy,

I wonder how the tee shots at the "new links" that we are discussing compare to the "old links" of Scotland and Ireland.  I think that is probably a better comparison than comparing the tee shots at, say, Muirfield Village or Colonial.  I haven't played golf over there yet, so I can't compare. 

And before I forget, don't disregard the wind as a factor.  Fairway width is a necessity when dealing with 25-30 mph winds.  And subsequently, angles into the greens become MUCH more important when dealing with lower trajectory shots.

If the wind is 5 mph and it's clear blue sky at 70 degrees, then I would agree that the "new links" can be tamed substantially and angles aren't nearly as important.  But how often is this the case on the coast of Oregon or the open hills of central Nebraska?

Ben

With the obvious exception of TOC, links in the UK and Ireland don't tend to have the width you and Richard are championing above but they still manage to present diffent playing angles. Do we really need that amount of width you propose to make courses a strategic challenge ? I tend to think not but then I have been brought up on older traditional courses.

I haven't played any of the courses listed in this discussion in the US but I have played Kingsbarns which was mentioned by Wayne. Indeed I have played the course on a number of occassions. On each subsequent occassion I have been less and less enamoured by the course. Kingsbarns is known for its wow factor and perhaps as I have got familiar with the course the wow has lessened and that is why I am less enamoured with it. Maybe, however I think it is more than that. I think that it is the wide open fairways on a lot of the holes which seem insipid and leave me cold. I'm not a great driver but I do like to be challenged and made to think. To my way of thinking, as formed by years of playing traditional courses, Kingsbarns simply doesn't do that to me.

Niall 

[Ross Tuddenham]

Jason/Andy

If I get this right you are saying that a tight fairway is more punishing as a bad shot has more chance of ending up in the rough.  So that means you have a 30 yard avenue to hit to set up a shot at a birdie.

At the same time on these new links style wide fairways you have 80 yards to aim at but only a 15 yard wide potion of the fairway gives a realistic birdie opportunity.  So assuming the birdie opportunity or ideal driving position is one dimensional that means 50% less area to work with if you want or need a birdie.

And as I have mentioned on another thread is a big booming straight drive still the same difficult shot it was even 10-15 years ago?  So why place so mush emphasis on it when designing a hole.  The new style courses , because of there “generosity from the tee, can afford to have more challenging firmer and faster green complexes and approaches. 

So when you think of the challenges that can cause; three putt, misjudging run of the ball and generally coming up with varied shots you have to think what is the greater and more enjoyable challenge.

Hacking out the rough sideways or mastering many with different clubs from different yardages.

Rough and challenging approach areas/greens can cause a bogey, but one is dull the other is very fun.

But you can’t have both as the course would become unplayable.

[Emil Weber]

The only links-style course that I've played is Rustic Canyon. I have simply never had such a spiritual golf expierience. The wide fairways, the strategys, variety and style of the course...  everything I could ask for. At 37$ (tuesday-thursday), it's the best value for money I can think of. Rustic Canyon is closer to PERFECT than anything I've played. It was hard to leave the place, I LOVE IT!!!

[W.H. Cosgrove]

On the issue of width.  

The point of angles and strategy is not that the shot can be made but that after 18 holes,well placed shots and an understanding of strategy should result in a win at match play or few strokes less in medal play.  

Much of this is cultural.  We citizens of the United States really don't understand subtle nature of the game.  Its simply easier to tee it up and let it rip.  Look at our foreign policy......

Width creates choice and nuance.  Narrow produces simple thinking, repetition and narrow minds.  BORING!  

I've played Chambers and PD over a dozen times, I've played Sand Hills, Rustic and walked Ballyneal, while they may appear big and brawny, they are filled with a wide variety of small nuance lost on a single play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()