Parkland vs. Linksland -old newspaper quote tells all..

[Alex Lagowitz]

In an article talking about the NLE Lido GC on Long Island, the author brought up an interesting debate about links golf:

"We have never cared for wooded, hilly, inland courses of the type that abound in Westchester County.  Give us the wide, open spaces along the sea, with the tang of the salt air in out nostrils and a moist fog caressing our face.  Golf wasn't ever intended to be played in a narrow defiles cut through the heart of the woods.  Pine Valley will never have the appeal for us that Lido or The National carry."

This sparked my brain, as I too felt the same way as I walked down the fairways of Dornoch for the first time.  Links golf is different - it feels more natural and serene.  Not that I feel Pine Valley is inferior, but I do agree in his statement.  Links golf carries a different weight that cannot be measured up to parkland golf.

Thoughts anyone?

[Jon Wiggett]

Alex,

I think good links golf requires you to adapt your play to the ground and weather conditions and allows you to do this. Having played PV, which was a great experience my only criticism is that it would become almost unplayable quickly if you are not on your top game or the wind got up too much.

Jon

[David Davis]

This is and has always been an easy one for me. My first sampling of links golf both spoiled and sold me forever. I arranged a trip for a friend of mine's father who lives on the North Shore area of Chicago, he had just retired. We played Old Course St. Andrews, Kingsbarns, Carnoustie, Muirfield, North Berwick, Gullane #1 and a couple other courses to warm up. I've never looked back. So much so that I decided shortly after the only course I wanted to join one day would be a links course.

Now that I'm a member of one it's hard for me to imagine that anyone who's had ample opportunity to play a lot of links golf, if given the chance wouldn't choose a links course, all things being equal (Ie, not a top parkland vs a very average links).

I'd love to hear the opinions of those of you who are just the opposite and why? Are there any of you that have grown up on links golf, played your first parkland, or top parkland course and then spent years dreaming of being a member of a parkland course rather than a links course? Or perhaps those of you that would just plain argue that parkland is much better in your opinion. I'm not looking to convert you, I'm just really interested in other points of view.

Feel free to throw in heathland as well of course.

[Sean_A]

David

I think I would always want a links membership because sometimes nothing else will do.  However, as I get older, it is lovely to play toned golf where the game isn't so much a battle as a walk in the park.  The problem in my neck of the woods is the walk in the park that I want to take doesn't exist. 

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

FREEDOM

[Nigel Islam]

What exactly is the difference between a heathland course and a parkland course?

[David Davis]

Nigel,

I can only give you my opinion from what I know and I don't know if this suits the dictionary definition or if there even is one. I'm sure if I'm way off I will quickly corrected. Heathland golf is most commonly associated with the UK (although germany, france and The Netherlands to name a few also have some good ones). While I've not personally experienced any of them in the US, the closest course in terms of playing condition I can point out for you would be perhaps the likes of Bandon Trails (ex the heather). However the ground contours can be similar Bandon Trails is more hilly and rugged of course than any heathland I've played.

A heathland course for me is kind of in between a links course and a parkland course. It has many characteristics of links golf, for example, sand based terrain, hard, fast conditions unpredictable bounces due to hobbles and knobs in the terrain (although not always), often with heather and even gorse playing a roll. Heathland courses also have trees although I believe in most cases not as many as parkland courses. They are always inland.

I'd also add that my view is tainted because most of the heathland courses I've played benefit from solid old school famous architects like Harry S. Colt.

Parkland is most commonly associated with US golf. Lush green fairways, target golf, forest courses, perfectly manicured like taking a walk in a park. Fairways are soft and lush (not all the time of course but I've rarely played any that were not). The elements seem to be much less a factor and more often than not you get what you expect, so you are much less likely to get the unexpected bounce. Many parkland courses are manufactured, meaning only there has been significant earth movement. (I'm certain there are exception before anything gets offended here. It is in my experience more common for links golf and heathland golf for that matter to use the natural lay of the terrain.

Please feel free to correct me or add to this as you see fit guys.

[Nigel Islam]

Thanks David. I often get a little confused with the terms parkland and heathland. What would you consider an inland course in the US that is kept fast and firm, with undulations and wide corridors such as Lawsonia, Erin Hills or Prairie Dunes? Obviously these are not parkland courses, but what are they exactly?

[David Davis]

Nigel,

Inland just mean away from the ocean, sea or other major body of water I suppose.

From the courses you mentioned, I've not played any of them unfortunately as they all look great on their websites. I have heard of them. To me it looks like Lawsonia would qualify as parkland still while the other two look like inland links style courses. These types of course are modeled after classic links courses in the UK/Ireland in most cases. You see them popping up more often I think although I know that the US has some great ones. In my limited experience with these courses, (I've played courses like Whistling Straits) I'd say that they often do look like UK links courses a bit (ex the sea/ocean where inland links are concerned) however what they don't usually achieve are the same hard conditions, often having completely different types of turf that even when playing what they call firm and fast just is not the same as what you experience on a true links. However, I'm sure there are exception to what I'm saying as I've not played enough of them.

The courses you point out looks great and all the time I've spent golfing in the Chicago area up to Wisconsin I can't believe I've not been to any of them. Disappointing...

Courses like Dimal River and Sand Hills also fall under the same unique category. As you know these courses are the exception to the categories mentioned above that kind of cross over. I'm hoping myself to be able to make it to Dismal to see first hand if these courses really do play like links courses rather than just looking like them. I think do to the sand ground there is a good chance they are indeed very close.

In any case, long answer to your question from my personal view, parkland/inland links style.

[Nigel Islam]

Thanks David. I certainly respect your opinion as we do not have a lot of inland links courses to choose from. I suppose for a lot of people the term "links" actually encompasses the turf, but I like your definition better.

[Carl Johnson]

. . . "We have never cared for wooded, hilly, inland courses of the type that abound in Westchester County.  Give us the wide, open spaces along the sea, with the tang of the salt air in out nostrils and a moist fog caressing our face.  Golf wasn't ever intended to be played in a narrow defiles cut through the heart of the woods.  Pine Valley will never have the appeal for us that Lido or The National carry." . . .

Thoughts anyone?

Where I live in the western piedmont of North Carolina there's no tang of salt air and no links or even links-like soil.  My club tries to maintain firm and fast conditions, but with our clay soil that's only a sometime result.  What we can do, regardless of the soil, is cut down (or don't plant) the trees.  Open spaces, which I much prefer to the "narrow defiles through the heart of the woods," are a matter of choice, regardless of the site (environmental rules excepted).  How about new subclasses: Open Parkland and Closed Parkland?

[Nigel Islam]

I totally agree that subclasses are needed, but I hate referring to links style courses on non-links lands as parkland courses. Maybe I just don't understand, but to me a parkland course is the typical PGA Tour course where the greens are fast and perfect, but receptive, tree lined, with perfect fast fairways. I just don't see them as similar courses at all. I much prefer the first both to play and watch on tv.

[Tommy Williamsen]

In an article talking about the NLE Lido GC on Long Island, the author brought up an interesting debate about links golf:

"We have never cared for wooded, hilly, inland courses of the type that abound in Westchester County.  Give us the wide, open spaces along the sea, with the tang of the salt air in out nostrils and a moist fog caressing our face.  Golf wasn't ever intended to be played in a narrow defiles cut through the heart of the woods.  Pine Valley will never have the appeal for us that Lido or The National carry."

This sparked my brain, as I too felt the same way as I walked down the fairways of Dornoch for the first time.  Links golf is different - it feels more natural and serene.  Not that I feel Pine Valley is inferior, but I do agree in his statement.  Links golf carries a different weight that cannot be measured up to parkland golf.

Thoughts anyone?

It is really easy to wax lyrical about links golf.  I love it and get to GB&I  as often as I can.  That said I enjoy golf on all kinds of terrain.  Each has it's own characteristics and challenges.  We really don't need to pit one against the other.  I weary of guys who say that links golf is the only "real" golf.

[RJ_Daley]

Is it all down to the "tang" in one's nostrils if one can play an inland, wide open FW with interesting contours - treeless - and firm and fast track?  Isn't the difference just the sea, if a courset is a sand based, open course vulnerable to wind and weather?

The sand hill courses most often play as all sand based surfaces, firm and fast.  The open wide FWs are subject to the same velocity of wind.  However, long views can tend to be out to seas of pasture prairie grass rather than salt water (and of late - wind turbines off shore). 

Inland, courses can have the same and often more frequency of contour.  Temperature is generally warmer, but one can play a blustery cold day on the prairie that is every bit as exposed and bone chilling cold as the sea shore. 

So, I say when playing Nebraska sand hills, it is down to the nuance of "tang".  Sea tang is salty, sometime rotting fish and seaweed on the shore.  Prairie tang can come from regional feed lot, or next pasture meadow muffins baking in the sun.  But, a tang, none the less... 

[Dave McCollum]

As an American who works at an average American course, one who came late to golf, and even later to links golf, I’ve struggled to define what makes links golf different.  I think the most obvious thing, as stated above, is the turf.  This may be delusional but on older links the grass just seems different, almost like it has evolved or been trained as a miniature leaf.  I remember walking TOC early one morning and watching them mow the fairways.  So little grass was coming of the reels that I just stood there watching and wondering why.  Another time, playing alone at Portrush, I was musing about how I was playing and how that differed from my usual game.  Two things stuck in my aged brain:  first, that I was reading every shot like a putt and that lead to the thought that it’s all about what happens when the ball hits the ground.  Is that a single-sentence description of the essence of golf architecture? Probably not, as it ignores the journey through the landscape and the primal metaphors about hunting.  However, this concept does seem to work when talking with average golfers about architecture.  It’s a simple concept that they understand.  Just my $.02 about links golf vs. other styles.