David,
I have played Astoria, and I can't see it being called a links, because the turf does not play like links turf at Bandon for instance. If that were corrected and the trees lining many of the holes, then I could see calling it a links.
I have only looked at Gearhart, but again lining the holes with trees is certainly anti-links. The turf looked certainly more links like than Astoria, but I have no experience with it.
Was not what I reproduced in my last post your links definition? I tried to point out that I thought your definition was unclear. The most unclear part was the fine grasses played in your definition.
If it were discovered that there was considerable gravel under Royal Porthcawl that could be mined for road building, etc., would removing the sand, mining the gravel, and then replacing the sand disqualify the Royal Porthcawl site from being a links, as it would more resemble a pit then?
GB,
I understand your point, from a purist point of view perhaps one would argue that if a links was created on pure undeveloped links land then yes however in the case that Royal Porthcawl, a course I love by the way, had been placed in a rock quarry fitting your definition a purist might call it a manufactured links like course. Semantics I suppose. However, my personal opinion after having been to Chambers several times was that the land is not by nature links land. Hence the millions of cubic meters of earth/sand that had to be trucked in and moved.
The entire area for the most part consists of cliffs I suppose but not even on a sea, there are no dunes there either. Maybe more like Castle Stuart and I just realized that I wrote Castle Course when in fact I meant to write Castle Stuart in my original response with regards to the course built in an area that more reminded me of Chambers Bay.
It could very well be that there isn't an exact right answer even though in my mind and based on my experience there is.
I have also just received a very nice reply from Mr. Pepper which goes far to answering your question and my hypothesis from above.
I will send this to you by personal message so you can read it in it's entirety however, the short of it is that they were not aware of these courses, Astoria and Gearhart and had never visited them so they were not included as possible links courses in their book. An interesting an honest response which I appreciate.
He went on to say that he looked at photos and noticed they seem quite tree lined which put questions in his mind and also stated that there would not, unfortunately be a 2nd edition in the future.
You had also mentioned the tree aspect of certain links courses or lack of trees. It's true that in most situations links land is void of trees/in the dunes. However, the fact that trees exist or were later planted does not change the land on which the course is made to something else.
I can give you several examples of true links courses that have or run into pine forests. Formby being one, my home club, Noordwijkse being the other. In the case of the latter example, the land was there for ever. The trees were not and were planted between WW1 and WW2.
Now whether they should be there is an entirely different problem.