[Mark Bourgeois]

Using the Golf rankings for the world as a proxy for people's tastes, if you look at "links style" courses you will see a lot of very strong rankings. Depending on how you strictly you define "links style" you could say links style is at worst the equal of links and by many definitions is stronger.

Why is that?

(Thanks to Ronaldinho Montesano for the inspiration.)

[Brent Hutto]

So what are the handful of "links style" courses you consider more popular than the competing "links" courses?

[Mark Bourgeois]

So what would you count as links style out of, say, the top 50 in this ranking:
http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/course-rankings/world

[Adam Lawrence]

I think Mark needs to clarify what _he_ means by 'links-style' before this discussion can go much further, otherwise it'll be an argument about terms. Using different definitions of the term, any or all or none of Sand Hills, NGLA, Seminole, Pinehurst, RM, KH, Prairie Dunes, Shinnecock, Crystal Downs, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Whistling Straits and probably several others could be described as 'links style'.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Adam,

Actually I would rather people use their own definition of "links style" rather than me spoon feed it. I will say that by any reasonable definition I would be surprised if links courses outnumber "links style" in Golf's top 50. Even a tie to me would be significant. By what I personally consider "the most reasonable" definition of "links style" I counted something like 13 links and 18 links style courses.

By the way, I bet a lot of people think "links style" = Myrtle Beach. It does, but it also = Shinnecock.

[Peter Pallotta]

Q: Why do some/many prefer "links style" courses to the real thing?

A: Because of the more pronounced definitions, the less pronounced affect of the elements, and relatively slower-running fairways that help contain low-flying draws and fades.

Average golfers (by definition, some/many of us) play exponetially worse without clear parameters/targets, and/or when the wind and rain exposes and compounds their already weak ball-striking skills; and this bad play is further magnified on harder and faster fairways where balls hit with side-spin will bound along on that ever-more right or left bias until they find a hazard or some very long grass. 

Being able to putt from 30 yards off the green or hitting an iron off the tee and watching it run out to (usual) driver distance are fun activities, but make up (in strokes) only a small fraction of the strokes lost by confused average golfers trying to decide where to aim, only to then mis-hit their shot and watch the wind push the ball away to the very edge of the fairway and the fairway shepherd the ball straight into a deep, high-faced bunker.  

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

Peter,

I am maybe a stroke lower handicap than the "average" golfer (my index is in the 14's) and on most links courses I can figure out how avoid most of the bunkers. What I can't figure out is how to make my ball roll out an extra 40-50 yards on tee shots or bounce onto the green an extra 15-20 yards on approaches when I'm on a soft, non-links course!

Any widespread preference for what Mark deems a "links style" course over one that's truly built on links-land is probably due to (lack of) familiarity and/or access. I can think of plenty of "links style" courses that are a hell of a lot more open, fast and firm than my country-club parkland course at home. Much of the same joy that comes from playing on a real links can be found on a properly maintained "links style" course not built on strictly qualifying links-land.

Sure the real thing is even better. But millions of golfers will play thousands of rounds in their lifetime without ever setting foot on a true links course. Many of those will occasionally play a course that's on firm, well-drained, sandy turf. Maybe with cool climate grasses. And if such a course is also designed, built and maintained to provide an open aspect and some run on the ball. I'm not surprised that style of course is very popular...it's for all the reasons we love playing on links courses even if it's a somewhat attenuated version.

My guess is the "preference" to which Mark refers is simply our misinterpretation of accessibility as having anything to do with beard puller type labels. Put a typical golfer who loves playing on "links style" courses onto Pac Dunes or Royal Birkdale and he'll "prefer" those courses quite a lot. He just has about 1/100th as much chances to play a real links course as he does a "links style" one that offers an 80% scale rendition of the links game.

[Joey Chase]

Although I'm surprised there isn't a regurgitated definition of "links" and "links style" in the thread,  I agree with Brent.  The lack of opportunity to play a true links may blur the greater majority of golfers opinions, at least American golfers.  They may play a course like Whistling Straights and feel as though they have played a course comparable to Enniscrone, although the playing characteristics are quite different.  Once you are exposed to the real thing, there is no way you can say a faux links is the same game, although you could make a small hand full of exceptions.

[Mark Pavy]

Why?

Because the process of ranking golf courses is completely flawed.

For a start, the people whose opinion counts have highly developed golfing minds and are not even close to representing the average golfers views. The more developed golfing mind craves a more complex puzzle that a links course offers over a non-links.

[Paul Gray]

I'm confused. 

If you want me to define 'links style,' none of the courses listed, apart from the actual links courses, are 'links style.' There are sandbelt courses from various countries but nothing in the style of a links. Admittedly the game took inspiration from the game which started amongst the sand dunes but all developed in their own way with their own characteristics.

To put it another way, I don't see your average 'faux links' amongst the World's best.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I have never worried about what constitutes "links style" courses, but if you're including anything that isn't strictly a links and isn't surrounded by trees ... then I would suggest it's a question of the law of averages.

There are simply way more courses that fit a broad "links style" definition than a "pure links" definition.  The % of links courses which make the top 100 is higher than for "links style", but in sheer numbers, the "links style" courses win.

There is also a modern bias ... many "pure links" are landlocked and short of acreage to satisfy some people's definition of "great".

[BHoover]

Some of us don't have easy or ready access to true links golf. The only option is to play links style.

[Paul Gray]

I suppose the question regarding definition is this:

Are we talking about superficial issues of style, i.e. lack of trees, attempts to grow wispy grasses etc or are we talking about all golf courses built on naturally sandy terrain?

[cary lichtenstein]

I for one, prefer links golf.

[Sean_A]

Sure, there are plenty of treeless faux links which have their place.  However, when I think of links style my mind runs to Kiawah.  Its near the sea and in places looks like a links, but the grasses give it away as an imposter.  That said, the type of grasses may be a turnoff, but the golfer's job is to adjust.  I struggle to adjust when presented with fast looking courses which play slow, but thats my problem, not that of the course.  That said, its a great course and a prime example of why labels can be pointless.  Getting back to the grasses, sure, that is what can be grown, but I think golfers like the way the ball sits up (in the fairway anyway) on warm climate season grasses.  Many golfers will love the run of links, but hate the tight lies.  The tight lies don't aid the golfer in getting the ball in the air and most think of low runners as bad shots.  To me, watching a guy tack up fairways with controlled runners or low flying bullets is a skill to be admired, but it certainly doesn't look like tv golf.  Still, I would rather play out my days on the right heathland course than links.  That is unless clubs figure out they are making links way too difficult with narrow fairways and punishing rough, but I am not holding my breath.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Brian,

I find the term 'links style' to basically be a derogatory one, since any course should have it's own identity and be able to avoid such faux definitions. I'm not therefore attacking the likes of Ballyneal, quite the opposite. The term in itself, it seems to be, is an excuse for second rate golf clubs to attach themselves to a image which adds value. It has about as much credibility as 'Championship Course.' None of the outstanding courses of Nebraska or the Australian sand belt or Surrey need to be reduced by the use of such an artificial marketing concept. It's all just too bagpipes, kilts and haggis for my liking.

[Adam Clayman]

That is unless clubs figure out they are making links way too difficult with narrow fairways and punishing rough, but I am not holding my breath.

I'm so glad you said that. From the pictures I've seen over the years, many Links courses look like they were erroneously influenced by the American style of golf that sent GCA down the wrong road. Equating difficulty with quality and creating that difficulty by narrowing the playable or recoverable areas.

[Paul Gray]

That is unless clubs figure out they are making links way too difficult with narrow fairways and punishing rough, but I am not holding my breath.

I'm so glad you said that. From the pictures I've seen over the years, many Links courses look like they were erroneously influenced by the American style of golf that sent GCA down the wrong road. Equating difficulty with quality and creating that difficulty by narrowing the playable or recoverable areas.

There is so much truth in that. I'm trying to affect charge on my home links but not holding my breath. I hope I'm wrong but have now raised my concerns and am awaiting a response. There are three fairways 9or lack of) in particular which make me want to cry. One even features the sort of ridiculous squiggly lines which appear to have been lifted straight from the Costa Del Crime. There is an insidious assumption that tight fairways equals good golf and only courses which cause lost balls can be taken seriously.

[Eric Smith]

One cannot discount the weighting of 'exclusivity' when it comes to creating the rankings lists.

Most of the top "links style" courses = difficult to access

All of the top links courses = when would you like to play, sir?

[Keith Grande]

That is unless clubs figure out they are making links way too difficult with narrow fairways and punishing rough, but I am not holding my breath.

I'm so glad you said that. From the pictures I've seen over the years, many Links courses look like they were erroneously influenced by the American style of golf that sent GCA down the wrong road. Equating difficulty with quality and creating that difficulty by narrowing the playable or recoverable areas.

There is so much truth in that. I'm trying to affect charge on my home links but not holding my breath. I hope I'm wrong but have now raised my concerns and am awaiting a response. There are three fairways 9or lack of) in particular which make me want to cry. One even features the sort of ridiculous squiggly lines which appear to have been lifted straight from the Costa Del Crime. There is an insidious assumption that tight fairways equals good golf and only courses which cause lost balls can be taken seriously.

Which links courses are you guys referring to as "tight"?  Granted, my oly true experience on links courses has been in Ireland, but I found plenty of width, which was needed due to the strong winds which have been known to blow my rather high ball flight around a bit.

[Brent Hutto]

That is unless clubs figure out they are making links way too difficult with narrow fairways and punishing rough, but I am not holding my breath.

I'm so glad you said that. From the pictures I've seen over the years, many Links courses look like they were erroneously influenced by the American style of golf that sent GCA down the wrong road. Equating difficulty with quality and creating that difficulty by narrowing the playable or recoverable areas.

There is so much truth in that. I'm trying to affect charge on my home links but not holding my breath. I hope I'm wrong but have now raised my concerns and am awaiting a response. There are three fairways 9or lack of) in particular which make me want to cry. One even features the sort of ridiculous squiggly lines which appear to have been lifted straight from the Costa Del Crime. There is an insidious assumption that tight fairways equals good golf and only courses which cause lost balls can be taken seriously.

Which links courses are you guys referring to as "tight"?  Granted, my oly true experience on links courses has been in Ireland, but I found plenty of width, which was needed due to the strong winds which have been known to blow my rather high ball flight around a bit.

You might take a look at Royal Aberdeen on TV tomorrow. Pinehurst #2 was miles wider than RA is at the moment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()