Forgettabout Peper And Forgettabout Best - What Are Your 10 Favourite Links?

[Thomas Dai]

"down-sizing" my golf  The down-sizing light bulb moment came many years ago when I played Brora and Dornoch back to back.  I had more fun at Brora and for less than half the green fee.  Anyway, I have many heavyweights among my favourites, just not top championship designs simply for the reason that I find championship courses too difficult to really be fun for me. 
Ciao

I find it very difficult to disagree with this. A tough challenge on a biggy course is nice, occasionally, and as an architectural experience, but taken too far can be limited fun, and for me as an enthusiastic amateur, fun is an important element of the game.

The next step in "down-sizing", a term I really like by the way, is using hickories!!!

I agree with the comments and frequency of Enniscrone appearing above. A splendid tough links. I would like to accompany a very highly skilled player around Enniscrone and watch them play their shots into those table-top greens, I'm sure it would be a very educational experience. I wanted one real 'toughy' but it was a coin-toss between it and Carnoustie, and sorry E'crone, but C'tie flipped on top.

Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Let me throw a spanner in the works…

I am not entirely sure these championship courses you gents refer to are actually tougher… They are just bigger…. And therefore they have the capability to play tough from the back tees, purely on length alone…. Quite often, smaller courses play tough because the scale is smaller and there is less room for mistakes…

In addition, I’m not sure if these championship courses don’t represent as much fun either. It’s just easier to see the fun in a small course first time around…. The only thing that I will definitely concede is that length of walk has a direct relationship to fun... and I too like Sean’s term “downsizing”…

But as an example, I played Dornoch for the first time last month… I played it from the 6,300 yard daily tees and I found it a whole heap of fun, despite its tough reputation… If I continued to play the course and learn it better, I believe the fun quotient of playing it would only increase and I would get incrementally more fun from playing it than I would from a similar number of rounds at Brora up the road…

I don’t think that Championship = tough = no fun

I can think of quite a few other examples where the big course is more fun than the small course to be honest…

[Sean_A]

Ally

I find the champ courses have just that many more bunkers (which really effects recovery shots), generally less beautiful and often a combo of rough and/or narrow fairways - which can all combine to reduce the fun factor...for me.  I can fully understand some guys get into the added challenge, but I don't really need to pay extra for that.  On the flip side, on a lovely winter's day champ courses can be great fun.  I guess ya gotta pick and choose the time holdem' or foldem'.


Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

So as a for-instance...

Given that my favorite Royal St. George's is about as "championship" as they get what would you consider a course with similar setting, topography, turf and a similar number of memorable holes except in the "downsized" category?

[Sean_A]

Brent

Sandwich is pretty much a one-off no?  It could well be the best course in England and it is easy to see why it would be a favourite of many.  I spose if one were downsizing he may go with Dornoch ?  Yours is a difficult question.   

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

You're probably right about Royal St. George's being sui generis. Or at the very least, there may be a certain scale and boldness of the overall layout that is necessarily lost if you try to imagine "downsizing" it. Part of what's special about the course is how it is draped over that utterly spectacular piece of land.

Thinking instead about Dornoch vs. Brora, one can at least venture to imagine Brora as a "downsized" alternative to Royal Dornoch (although I'm not sure that Dornoch seems "downsized" at all to me vs. Sandwich). The pieces of land are somewhat similar but honestly, Royal Dornoch seemed to me to be about as difficult a course as one could ever build on that piece of property (without being tricked up in any way, I mean). Whereas Brora uses a similar landform to provide about as straightforward a course as one could build without becoming the least bit boring.

To me that's an interesting alternative formulation to your "downsizing"...

Given a type of landform, some courses seem to go out of their way to provide a "challenge" and are limited only by the land and by the necessity of avoiding ridiculous gimmicks or flatly unplayable features (given whatever the local weather extremes might be). That's the category into which I'd place Royal Dornoch.

An alternative is to take the land you're given and provide "fun" for a wide range of golfers, including those who might be playing it twice a day (or more) or perhaps 100's of times a year. As such, given a nicely contoured bit of property it may not be necessary to build in explicit "challenges" and you could just concentrate on walk-in-the-park appeal and providing as much variety and interest as possible while remaining "fun".

[Tony_Muldoon]

I've always thought of RSG as a downsized Lahinch!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I tend to lose more balls on small courses than on big ones to be honest. I don't find that fun.

I get the bunker comment in general though.

Is Ballybee upsized or downsized?

[Ryan Coles]

I try and keep costs out of the discussion but it is a favourites list, so each to his own. I can get courtesy at most courses but funnily enough, my favourites are the ones where I don't in most cases.

Brora aside, I think most of the best links are priced about right relative to their rivals. The Ayrshire/Glasgow courses might also be another exception, thinking about it (in the other direction). Generally speaking downsizing on price does mean a notch or two down on quality IMO.

[Brent Hutto]

My upcoming trip is a definite and deliberate "downsizing" of costs but not necessarily courses. Won't know about quality until I get there.

I'm doing three days at Royal St. Davids (five rounds) plus a bonus round on a fourth day at Aberdovey. The cost along with three nights in the Dormy House at Harlech will be about equal to one 36-hole day pass at Royal St. George's.

It's my understanding that the course at Harlech is of the "championship" type. So in light of the current discussion it will be an interesting mix of "downsize" in all respects other than length and difficulty of the course itself. Now I'll be interested to see how the experience stacks up against a similar three-day (six round) stay at Ganton a couple years ago.

[Sean_A]

Brent

Harlech isn't "championship" in the same way most rota courses are.  Harlech is compact and Sandwich rambles around everywhere. The main reason for Harlech's rep of difficulty is due to the stingy par of 69, but still about 6200 yards from the daily tees. In effect the "loss" of three shots to par translates to probably an "extra" 400 yards on the card. Meaning the course will feel like its longer than it really is, perversely because of only two par 5s .  This makes for a difficult and fairly long set of 4s.  Its all a paper exercise, but the effect feels real - especially if the wind is blowing.  Additionally, Harlech is bunkered much like a championshiop course in that is has near relentless defensive lines of bunkering; first off the tee, second near the green and third, often somewhere in between the two (these are what usually cause grief for recoveries).  Harlech was the course which made me fully understand that added length isn't the solution to flat bellies, altering par value is the solution. Harlech will be all the test you could want or need and for you, will probably feel just as difficult as any true champ course from the daily tees.  

I have a lot of time for Harlech.  It was one of the three shortlisted for 10 Fav, but left out.  Perranporth and Reniassance are the other two. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I do understand the spanner in the works position. However, 'downsizing' in relation to some of the biggies, isn't really about the cash or about the bunkers for me, not to fussed about bunkers from a playing rather than architectural aspect to be honest, it's more about carries off the tee and the frequency and necessity of having to play long irons and hybrids as approach shots on par-4's and for tee shots on par-3's when the fun aspect can decline. I also appreciate the 'pick the right tee' point of view, but sometimes, like in scheduled weekend club comps, you have to play off the further back tees and then the longer biggies change character, particularly from the perspective of a regular playing member as against an occasional or once-only visitor. I like a long 'toughie' course every now and then though, and a strong wind too, as a challenge, particularly if there are no forced carries off the tee.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Atb

I am not sure what you consider long forced carries, but are there many links which make this a problem for you?  I know at Burnham the Ladies Section is not as full as the club would like. One reason is the forced carries.  On many holes, a foozle is in deep doo doo.  This too is the reason the club invested heavily in the Channel Course recently and created a seperate membership.  They want a place for kids, women and older members who don't want the challenge of the Champ course anymore to play.  I think it has gone very well in terms of members moving down and Channel members moving up to main membership.  The membership fee is quite reasonable.  Hell, for visitors playing the Champ course, the charge is only an extra £5 to play the Channel.  Just to play the Channel its only about £25 all day any day. 

Ciao 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thomas,

I fully understand that position and I have to admit, I do get huge enjoyment from downsizing as well… Strandhill and Arklow provide two excellent examples of downsized links that are playable and quick to get round… If I lived close by and had these as my day to day members course, I’d be delighted… These are genuinely smaller links courses though…

However, some of the ones being highlighted as “downsizing” appear to be tougher than quite a few of the ones being highlighted as “championship”, many of which are very playable, strategic and a whole heap of fun, given the right tees… I think they are highlighted because they are not as well known (giving Irish examples I will highlight Enniscrone and The Island) and this is mistakenly being read as non-championship therefore less tough therefore more fun…. My point again being championship (from the right tees), tough and fun are not related…

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

In no particular order:

Royal Cinque Ports
Rye
County Louth
Barnbougle Dunes
Barwon Heads Burnham & Berrow
Silloth-on-Solway
Royal Dornoch
Brora
North Berwick West Links
St Enodoc

[Sean_A]

Sean,

In no particular order:

Royal Cinque Ports
Rye
County Louth
Barnbougle Dunes
Barwon Heads Burnham & Berrow
Silloth-on-Solway
Royal Dornoch
Brora
North Berwick West Links
St Enodoc

Scott

I love it that you included Rye.  You have repeatedly bad-mouthed the course  yet, there it is.  Seriously, the inclusion of Rye validates my GCA.com theory # 07: Practically all the courses we talk about on this site are wonderful, good, great etc etc.  Most of our discussions are assumed in this context.  So it may seem as though harsh words are being dealt, but only in comparison to other wonderful, good, great courses.

Ciao

[BHoover]

This may not be the ideal thread but it's about "links" golf and I don't want to start a thread to discuss a topic that surely has been discussed before. My question is, can someone provide me with a good definition/description of what is true "links" golf?

In my mind, I know what it is, but I'm not sure I know how to describe it to others. The reason I ask is that a golfing friend of mine asked me this week what is true links golf, as opposed to links-style , which we see and hear about regularly in the US. It got me thinking that I know it when I see it (at the Open) but I'm not sure I know enough to accurately and adequately describe what it really is, and why it's worth knowing about it.

[Brent Hutto]

I just realized I've played twelve courses that I consider "links", not eleven. Forgot all about the Struie course at Dornoch, probably because I played just one round there in a steady rain and my memory of the course is a blur of poor shots and lost balls.

Still, to Sean's latest point the two "least great" links courses I've played are probably the Struie and Golspie. And I'd choose a round at either of those over 90% of the courses I've ever played back home. Can't say for sure about Struie but Golspie is definitely a very fine course indeed. It only suffers in comparison to the best courses I've ever seen.

[Sean_A]

Brian

I can only offer my PoV as to the definition of links.

1. Links is near the sea, hence, how the term originally came about; poor quality land between the sea and arable land.  

2. The terrain may or may not be undulating, but dunes are often associated with links.

3. Links is characterized by infertile, sandy soil and cool season grasses such as fescues, bents and marram.  

4. When well managed, the turf is crisp, dry and firm.  

5. Due to the location of links, wind can often play a major role in play.  

The main arguments about links seem to revolve around near the sea and the types of grass.  For instance, some may call Kiawah a links, but the warm season grass varieties expose the course as an imposter.  

The five points above made, there can always be room for exceptions depending on how far away from the sea the course is located.  Lytham is always cited as an example of a links removed from the sea.  In truth it isn't terribly far away and I suspect of housing was removed, the sea may be visible from the links.  I am possibly willing to stretch to Ganton being termed a links, but for the sake of argument, this sets precedent and guys like Humpty who then want to claim that courses in Nebraska or Colorado are links.  This to me is preposterous as they are so far removed from the sea that no exception could include them.  Instead of trying to ride the marketing coat tails of "links", these cllubs should come up wiith their own original term.  

Anyway, thats my story.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

I brought up Harlech earlier and was going to riff a little on my expectations of how it might compare to Ganton (keeping in mind the limited set of links and near-links in my experience). In terms of the ubiquity of bunkers pretty much everywhere you might want to play a shot or a recovery shot I was thinking that Harlech might play like a narrower, longer-for-its-par poor cousin to Ganton.

But given the 15+ mile setback from the sea at Ganton I was casting about for some other parallel and settled on Birkdale. I'll bet Birkdale has fewer total bunkers than Harlech (or Ganton) if you simply counted up all the white spots on a Google Earth image. But the huge reach of Birkdale's bunkers out into the fairways to gather passing shots made it play, for me, like a very much "championship" challenge. So maybe Birkdale is an interesting case for this discussion.

I've only played one round there but have seen many round of the pros playing on TV. Birkdale strikes me as being a perfectly enjoyable course with plenty of width, the playing corridors tending to be routed along the flatter terrain between dune lines and the greens are not particularly scary (compared to, say, Royal Dornoch's green complexes). Were it not for the dozen or so shots I had rolling into various fairway or greenside bunkers I'd be tempted to say Royal Birkdale is an exception to the distinction between "championship" challenge and "downsized" fun. But the bunkering does really get into ones head I'll admit.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I brought up Harlech earlier and was going to riff a little on my expectations of how it might compare to Ganton (keeping in mind the limited set of links and near-links in my experience). In terms of the ubiquity of bunkers pretty much everywhere you might want to play a shot or a recovery shot I was thinking that Harlech might play like a narrower, longer-for-its-par poor cousin to Ganton.

But given the 15+ mile setback from the sea at Ganton I was casting about for some other parallel and settled on Birkdale. I'll bet Birkdale has fewer total bunkers than Harlech (or Ganton) if you simply counted up all the white spots on a Google Earth image. But the huge reach of Birkdale's bunkers out into the fairways to gather passing shots made it play, for me, like a very much "championship" challenge. So maybe Birkdale is an interesting case for this discussion.

I've only played one round there but have seen many round of the pros playing on TV. Birkdale strikes me as being a perfectly enjoyable course with plenty of width, the playing corridors tending to be routed along the flatter terrain between dune lines and the greens are not particularly scary (compared to, say, Royal Dornoch's green complexes). Were it not for the dozen or so shots I had rolling into various fairway or greenside bunkers I'd be tempted to say Royal Birkdale is an exception to the distinction between "championship" challenge and "downsized" fun. But the bunkering does really get into ones head I'll admit.

Brent - you are providing that distinction that I just don't agree with.

What "stops" a course from being fun? I'll give length of walk as one and that is where many "championship" (i.e. long) courses lose out....

...But other things that stop a course from being "fun" include narrow fairways / lost balls.... Often, I find the bigger courses provide less opportunity to lose balls; because the roughs are managed better (usually due to maintenance budgets) and because the scale around the greens are much bigger with larger run-offs....

Also, continually missing greens with well executed shots is less "fun" - smaller courses often have smaller greens and less room around them... That can get frustrating...

Also, lack of strategy is less "fun".... I'm all for reducing bunkers where it makes sense, especially on hugely undulating sites... On those types of courses, best let the land define the strategy... But on flatter courses, you sometimes need extra bunkers and there is no arguing that thee courses can be highly strategic and need to be plotted round....

I know Mike Nuzzo (?) wrote an essay dividing courses between championship , fun and another category (?)... I just happen to disagree with the premise... Large doesn't necessarily equal slog just as small doesn't necessarily equal fun....

(P.S. In other words, Birkdale is by no means the only exception... The exceptions are so numerous that they cannot be called exceptions and the rule therefore does not stand)

[Mark Bourgeois]

It's too bad Sean has banned discussion of Westward Ho! but on the other hand perhaps many others share his view that it's a flat, soggy, boggy course with a significant number of boring holes.

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

Indeed and absolutely.

Rye, St Enodoc and NSWGC are three courses I have been fairly critical of at times, but if you told me I would play out my days on any one of them, I'd be happy as Larry doing so.

[Rich Goodale]

It's too bad Sean has banned discussion of Westward Ho! but on the other hand perhaps many others share his view that it's a flat, soggy, boggy course with a significant number of boring holes.

I'll talk about WH!, compadre, as I'm too old to be banned from anything I don't want to be banned from.

It was close to getting WH! onto my top ten links faves, but it fell at the last hurdle as it has too many not links holes.  That being said, it has a great clubhouse and ~9 of the finest and most fun links holes in the world, which is ~9 true links holes and one great clubhouse more than more than faux links such as Pebble Beach, Pacific Dunes and Pennard. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting exchange for an outsider re 'downsizing'.

After all these years I think I have a sense of Sean's golfing tastes. I think they are actually quite nuanced (more than just 'good value' and 'not too hard').

It seems to me that Sean likes to keep golf and golf courses in some kind of proper perspective -- the game, with grown men wandering around together in good fellowship for a good walk on good turf while swinging sticks, being mainly what golf is all about.

For Sean, I think, golf's tests and epiphanies and belt notches and sacred architectural fields of play are all secondary to that basic experience, to that game.  (He's like an old money man -- the belt notching he leaves to the nouveau riche).

All of which to say, I'd suggest that Sean's preference is not so much for downsized courses as for modest ones -- courses that support and engender and reflect a proper perspective, and that provide as many chances as possible (that is where cost comes in) for good walks on good turf with good companions while also providing some challenges and interest.

Peter