New "linksy" designs vs old school parkland style.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387776616' post='8338013']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387772676' post='8337865']

And I guess I don't understand the reason for a point another previous poster made. They said at Old Mac there's a hole you need to aim about 50 yards away from the hole to get it close. Why is that better than just aiming for the flag, or at least the fat portion of the green? What if someone has never played the course before? They get an automatic bogey and a "now you know"?

[/quote]

To that's a really good point chief, on on parkland style course you can go by yourself for the first time and usually have an idea where to hit the ball.

Our first time at Wildhorse, in Gothenburg, NE(mentioned earlier by (QMany), we couldn't find the first tee box!, let alone knowing where to hit it. It sounds like on a lot of these new courses if you go alone the first time you're basically hosed.
[/quote]

What's wrong with deception? Modern golfers don't like it because it is unfamiliar, having become virtually extinct from modern golf design.

If you ask me, that a course can not be immediately be figured out by a first time player is not a defect but rather an asset. Subtlety and nuance are characteristics of great designs and really nothing to do with links style vs. parkland. The best courses are not simply a test of physical golf skill, but a mental challenge as well. The best courses get better every time you play them.

One stands on the elevated tee of the modern golf course, the landing target is clearly visible, always in the center of the fairway framed by bunkers. The approach shot simply requires one to laser the yardage to find the distance, pull out the club and hit it the exact distance with the perfect golf swing where the ball lands next to the hole and stops on the perfectly receptive green, then roll in the birdie putt on the perfectly smooth and not too sloped green. Repeat x 18.

Why is it so bad that you might get a bogey because the better way to play the hole was not obvious? To be deceived by the course is a challenge to think harder and do better, to come back and try again. The better courses offer more than just a test of technique, there is a whole cerebral element where one needs to draw on experience, powers of observation and intellect to solve a problem. The better courses don't dictate a singular method of play, but offer options and choices. An entire different dimension that adds to the joy of the game.

Absent this, golf is little more than dinner at Applebees and a night at the Holiday Inn Express.

[ryu123]

I'm not sure that previous posters wrote that a player at #18 at Old Macdonald NEEDS to hit the approach shot 50 yds from the green. It seems to me that others merely suggested that one way to play to a front hole location is to hit it 50 yds left of the green.

I played Old Mac in early Dec 2013, and one day hit my approach shot from the right side of the fairway to a front left hole location with a slight draw. I got lucky and the ball ended up on the green, within an easy two putt range. Another player in the group from the left side of the fairway hit his approach shot 30 yds left of the green, and it bounced off the bank onto the green, about the same distance from the hole.

The point is that on a firm/fast links course a player sometimes has options, unlike some lush/soft parkland courses where generally the player shoots to the hole.

As mringwelski pointed out, #18 Old Mac is a punchbowl green. It is quite large and different hole locations offer varied playing options. For example, if the hole is back right, one possible approach is to hit past the hole and hope that the back slope of the green propels the ball back on the green.

That is just one way to try to get the ball to the hole, but not the only way or not necessarily the best way. For me, those options are really fun.

[R Hagan]

I love the links style but mainly because there aren't too many in Myrtle Beach. The parkland style is nice but for a golfer who plays that style most of the time, it gets old.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1387806145' post='8338559']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387776616' post='8338013']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387772676' post='8337865']

And I guess I don't understand the reason for a point another previous poster made. They said at Old Mac there's a hole you need to aim about 50 yards away from the hole to get it close. Why is that better than just aiming for the flag, or at least the fat portion of the green? What if someone has never played the course before? They get an automatic bogey and a "now you know"?

[/quote]

To that's a really good point chief, on on parkland style course you can go by yourself for the first time and usually have an idea where to hit the ball.

Our first time at Wildhorse, in Gothenburg, NE(mentioned earlier by (QMany), we couldn't find the first tee box!, let alone knowing where to hit it. It sounds like on a lot of these new courses if you go alone the first time you're basically hosed.
[/quote]

What's wrong with deception? Modern golfers don't like it because it is unfamiliar, having become virtually extinct from modern golf design.

If you ask me, that a course can not be immediately be figured out by a first time player is not a defect but rather an asset. Subtlety and nuance are characteristics of great designs and really nothing to do with links style vs. parkland. The best courses are not simply a test of physical golf skill, but a mental challenge as well. The best courses get better every time you play them.

One stands on the elevated tee of the modern golf course, the landing target is clearly visible, always in the center of the fairway framed by bunkers. The approach shot simply requires one to laser the yardage to find the distance, pull out the club and hit it the exact distance with the perfect golf swing where the ball lands next to the hole and stops on the perfectly receptive green, then roll in the birdie putt on the perfectly smooth and not too sloped green. Repeat x 18.

Why is it so bad that you might get a bogey because the better way to play the hole was not obvious? To be deceived by the course is a challenge to think harder and do better, to come back and try again. The better courses offer more than just a test of technique, there is a whole cerebral element where one needs to draw on experience, powers of observation and intellect to solve a problem. The better courses don't dictate a singular method of play, but offer options and choices. An entire different dimension that adds to the joy of the game.

Absent this, golf is little more than dinner at Applebees and a night at the Holiday Inn Express.
[/quote]

To me deception is the bunker that looks like it's right next to green but in all actuality is 40'or 50 yards short of it. Not giving no indication where the hole is.

I think you're reading way too much into what I said, I'm fine making a bogey (or whatever number) because I didn't know there was a preferred line that makes the hole easier to play. What I'm saying is I'd like to have an idea where the damn hole is at all. Many of these upper tier courses are one time plays for a lot of people (like me) so the opportunity to learn the nuances over several rounds is not there. I just want to know which direction to hit the ball

[mringwelski]

[quote name='ryu123' timestamp='1387811895' post='8339003']
I'm not sure that previous posters wrote that a player at #18 at Old Macdonald NEEDS to hit the approach shot 50 yds from the green. It seems to me that others merely suggested that one way to play to a front hole location is to hit it 50 yds left of the green.

I played Old Mac in early Dec 2013, and one day hit my approach shot from the right side of the fairway to a front left hole location with a slight draw. I got lucky and the ball ended up on the green, within an easy two putt range. Another player in the group from the left side of the fairway hit his approach shot 30 yds left of the green, and it bounced off the bank onto the green, about the same distance from the hole.

The point is that on a firm/fast links course a player sometimes has options, unlike some lush/soft parkland courses where generally the player shoots to the hole.

As mringwelski pointed out, #18 Old Mac is a punchbowl green. It is quite large and different hole locations offer varied playing options. For example, if the hole is back right, one possible approach is to hit past the hole and hope that the back slope of the green propels the ball back on the green.

That is just one way to try to get the ball to the hole, but not the only way or not necessarily the best way. For me, those options are really fun.
[/quote]

Thank you good correction. The options in links golf are almost endless and golf feels more like an art and allows a player to get more creative

[mringwelski]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387815011' post='8339237']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1387806145' post='8338559']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387776616' post='8338013']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387772676' post='8337865']
And I guess I don't understand the reason for a point another previous poster made. They said at Old Mac there's a hole you need to aim about 50 yards away from the hole to get it close. Why is that better than just aiming for the flag, or at least the fat portion of the green? What if someone has never played the course before? They get an automatic bogey and a "now you know"?

[/quote]

To that's a really good point chief, on on parkland style course you can go by yourself for the first time and usually have an idea where to hit the ball.

Our first time at Wildhorse, in Gothenburg, NE(mentioned earlier by (QMany), we couldn't find the first tee box!, let alone knowing where to hit it. It sounds like on a lot of these new courses if you go alone the first time you're basically hosed.
[/quote]

What's wrong with deception? Modern golfers don't like it because it is unfamiliar, having become virtually extinct from modern golf design.

If you ask me, that a course can not be immediately be figured out by a first time player is not a defect but rather an asset. Subtlety and nuance are characteristics of great designs and really nothing to do with links style vs. parkland. The best courses are not simply a test of physical golf skill, but a mental challenge as well. The best courses get better every time you play them.

One stands on the elevated tee of the modern golf course, the landing target is clearly visible, always in the center of the fairway framed by bunkers. The approach shot simply requires one to laser the yardage to find the distance, pull out the club and hit it the exact distance with the perfect golf swing where the ball lands next to the hole and stops on the perfectly receptive green, then roll in the birdie putt on the perfectly smooth and not too sloped green. Repeat x 18.

Why is it so bad that you might get a bogey because the better way to play the hole was not obvious? To be deceived by the course is a challenge to think harder and do better, to come back and try again. The better courses offer more than just a test of technique, there is a whole cerebral element where one needs to draw on experience, powers of observation and intellect to solve a problem. The better courses don't dictate a singular method of play, but offer options and choices. An entire different dimension that adds to the joy of the game.

Absent this, golf is little more than dinner at Applebees and a night at the Holiday Inn Express.
[/quote]

To me deception is the bunker that looks like it's right next to green but in all actuality is 40'or 50 yards short of it. Not giving no indication where the hole is.

I think you're reading way too much into what I said, I'm fine making a bogey (or whatever number) because I didn't know there was a preferred line that makes the hole easier to play. What I'm saying is I'd like to have an idea where the damn hole is at all. Many of these upper tier courses are one time plays for a lot of people (like me) so the opportunity to learn the nuances over several rounds is not there. I just want to know which direction to hit the ball
[/quote]

If you want local knowledge, get a caddie. Most upper tier courses offer them.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='mringwelski' timestamp='1387815313' post='8339269']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387815011' post='8339237']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1387806145' post='8338559']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387776616' post='8338013']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387772676' post='8337865']
And I guess I don't understand the reason for a point another previous poster made. They said at Old Mac there's a hole you need to aim about 50 yards away from the hole to get it close. Why is that better than just aiming for the flag, or at least the fat portion of the green? What if someone has never played the course before? They get an automatic bogey and a "now you know"?

[/quote]

To that's a really good point chief, on on parkland style course you can go by yourself for the first time and usually have an idea where to hit the ball.

Our first time at Wildhorse, in Gothenburg, NE(mentioned earlier by (QMany), we couldn't find the first tee box!, let alone knowing where to hit it. It sounds like on a lot of these new courses if you go alone the first time you're basically hosed.
[/quote]

What's wrong with deception? Modern golfers don't like it because it is unfamiliar, having become virtually extinct from modern golf design.

If you ask me, that a course can not be immediately be figured out by a first time player is not a defect but rather an asset. Subtlety and nuance are characteristics of great designs and really nothing to do with links style vs. parkland. The best courses are not simply a test of physical golf skill, but a mental challenge as well. The best courses get better every time you play them.

One stands on the elevated tee of the modern golf course, the landing target is clearly visible, always in the center of the fairway framed by bunkers. The approach shot simply requires one to laser the yardage to find the distance, pull out the club and hit it the exact distance with the perfect golf swing where the ball lands next to the hole and stops on the perfectly receptive green, then roll in the birdie putt on the perfectly smooth and not too sloped green. Repeat x 18.

Why is it so bad that you might get a bogey because the better way to play the hole was not obvious? To be deceived by the course is a challenge to think harder and do better, to come back and try again. The better courses offer more than just a test of technique, there is a whole cerebral element where one needs to draw on experience, powers of observation and intellect to solve a problem. The better courses don't dictate a singular method of play, but offer options and choices. An entire different dimension that adds to the joy of the game.

Absent this, golf is little more than dinner at Applebees and a night at the Holiday Inn Express.
[/quote]

To me deception is the bunker that looks like it's right next to green but in all actuality is 40'or 50 yards short of it. Not giving no indication where the hole is.

I think you're reading way too much into what I said, I'm fine making a bogey (or whatever number) because I didn't know there was a preferred line that makes the hole easier to play. What I'm saying is I'd like to have an idea where the damn hole is at all. Many of these upper tier courses are one time plays for a lot of people (like me) so the opportunity to learn the nuances over several rounds is not there. I just want to know which direction to hit the ball
[/quote]

If you want local knowledge, get a caddie. Most upper tier courses offer them.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why I said earlier, if you go a course like this, by yourself, for the first time, you're are basically hosed.

And at Gothenburg (Wildhorse ) where we couldn't find the first tee, they do not offer caddies.

I really do appreciate all the intricacies and options links course offer (which though seem to usually apply mostly to greens, pasatiempo offers many of those options too in a parkland setting, although not firm), and I even don't mind blind shots, if I have an idea in which direction to play that blind shot.

Sorry, I did a I poor job quoting there.

I've said this earlier on other posts but I think it applies here. I have trouble with my vision and it really makes it difficult for me to have an idea where to play it on these style courses. I know that is a factor in my thoughts.

[/quote]

[Asics10]

I'll take tree-lined and parkland style any day.

American links style courses, I will literally get bored staring out at empty space all days hoping to find the lonely flag in the distance. Plus the excess windburn and sunburn on links courses is so annoying. Plus the heather might as well be a water hazard, guaranteed lost ball.

I love having to work the ball around tree lined courses too. On my home course we rgularly see deer, fox (or is it fox's), hawks, and squirrels trying to screw chipmunks. Hell of a lot more interesting than staring at the sky.

[mringwelski]

Getting hosed is all relative. If one takes a trip to a major golf destination, has a great caddie experience, and plays a respectable round, many would consider it a great value for a great experience.

What sounds like a better value?

A round played with vast local knowledge, made aware of all target lines for tee shots and green approaches, help with putting lines, explanations of the routing, and not pushing or carrying your bag
Peak Season Resort Guest Green Fee - $235
Caddie - $80-$100
Total - $315 - $335

A round played completely blind, carrying or pushing your bag,
Green Fee - $235
Riksha (Optional) - $5
Total - $235 - $240

When you go to a high end golf destination and opt to go the cheaper route and don't use the resources available, you'll probably get a cheaper experience.

[deadsolid...shank]

You just made my point. Pay the $$ for the caddie or be lost out there. So if you want to have some semblance of a decent round you'd better not go it alone, correct.

Everyone loves abandon, and I'm sure it's terrific. But those of you who played both Pebble and abandon. If you didn't take a caddy at either place, which would have been more playable.

[deadsolid...shank]

Sorry about the previous, Apparantly autocorrect doesn't like Bandon.

[teejaywhy]

Like I said, if you seek the comfort of the familiar, there is always an Applebees nearby.

For me, the process of discovery is one of the greatest joys of the game.

[mringwelski]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1387823418' post='8339915']
Like I said, if you seek the comfort of the familiar, there is always an Applebees nearby.

For me, the process of discovery is one of the greatest joys of the game.
[/quote]

Agreed. Complexity is sometimes the creativity and artistry in golf architecture. Some of us get bored of the same old same old.

[Chief Illiniwek]

[quote name='mringwelski' timestamp='1387815313' post='8339269']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387815011' post='8339237']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1387806145' post='8338559']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387776616' post='8338013']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387772676' post='8337865']
And I guess I don't understand the reason for a point another previous poster made. They said at Old Mac there's a hole you need to aim about 50 yards away from the hole to get it close. Why is that better than just aiming for the flag, or at least the fat portion of the green? What if someone has never played the course before? They get an automatic bogey and a "now you know"?

[/quote]

To that's a really good point chief, on on parkland style course you can go by yourself for the first time and usually have an idea where to hit the ball.

Our first time at Wildhorse, in Gothenburg, NE(mentioned earlier by (QMany), we couldn't find the first tee box!, let alone knowing where to hit it. It sounds like on a lot of these new courses if you go alone the first time you're basically hosed.
[/quote]

What's wrong with deception? Modern golfers don't like it because it is unfamiliar, having become virtually extinct from modern golf design.

If you ask me, that a course can not be immediately be figured out by a first time player is not a defect but rather an asset. Subtlety and nuance are characteristics of great designs and really nothing to do with links style vs. parkland. The best courses are not simply a test of physical golf skill, but a mental challenge as well. The best courses get better every time you play them.

One stands on the elevated tee of the modern golf course, the landing target is clearly visible, always in the center of the fairway framed by bunkers. The approach shot simply requires one to laser the yardage to find the distance, pull out the club and hit it the exact distance with the perfect golf swing where the ball lands next to the hole and stops on the perfectly receptive green, then roll in the birdie putt on the perfectly smooth and not too sloped green. Repeat x 18.

Why is it so bad that you might get a bogey because the better way to play the hole was not obvious? To be deceived by the course is a challenge to think harder and do better, to come back and try again. The better courses offer more than just a test of technique, there is a whole cerebral element where one needs to draw on experience, powers of observation and intellect to solve a problem. The better courses don't dictate a singular method of play, but offer options and choices. An entire different dimension that adds to the joy of the game.

Absent this, golf is little more than dinner at Applebees and a night at the Holiday Inn Express.
[/quote]

To me deception is the bunker that looks like it's right next to green but in all actuality is 40'or 50 yards short of it. Not giving no indication where the hole is.

I think you're reading way too much into what I said, I'm fine making a bogey (or whatever number) because I didn't know there was a preferred line that makes the hole easier to play. What I'm saying is I'd like to have an idea where the damn hole is at all. Many of these upper tier courses are one time plays for a lot of people (like me) so the opportunity to learn the nuances over several rounds is not there. I just want to know which direction to hit the ball
[/quote]

If you want local knowledge, get a caddie. Most upper tier courses offer them.
[/quote]

A previous poster said a great aspect of links golf is the cerebral element. Wouldn't hiring a caddie eliminate the need to be creative and think your way around the course?

Look I've got no problem if some prefer links. It's the way golf was originally played because that is what environment dictated in Scotland. Here in most of the US the environment dictates parkland style and many of us see the bonuses of that style: wooded environment with more diverse wildlife, a need to be able and fly the ball, ability to shape around trees, etc.

[Marrrk]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387824832' post='8340043']
A previous poster said a great aspect of links golf is the cerebral element. Wouldn't hiring a caddie eliminate the need to be creative and think your way around the course?

Look I've got no problem if some prefer links. It's the way golf was originally played because that is what environment dictated in Scotland. [b]Here in most of the US the environment dictates parkland style and many of us see the bonuses of that style: wooded environment with more diverse wildlife, a need to be able and fly the ball, ability to shape around trees, etc.[/b]
[/quote]

I don't see how you can call being forced to have to fly the ball a bonus. Links courses don't [i]force[/i] you to play it on the ground—they just allow that option as well as many others. same thing when it comes to shaping the ball.

we need to be careful not to take everything as a blanket statement. i don't think anyone has a problem with trees, per se. the problem is with the lack of options that trees, water hazards, narrow fairways, deep rough and forced carries allow for.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='mringwelski' timestamp='1387824041' post='8339969']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1387823418' post='8339915']
Like I said, if you seek the comfort of the familiar, there is always an Applebees nearby.

For me, the process of discovery is one of the greatest joys of the game.
[/quote]

Agreed. Complexity is sometimes the creativity and artistry in golf architecture. Some of us get bored of the same old same old.
[/quote]

After you've played any particular links style course numerous times, isn't it familiar and the same old old? When the conditions change, the parkland courses play completely different also.

Honest question. If you are on one of these courses that present you all these different shots to play,you're sitting out 150 yards from the green, normal conditions (ie, no gale force winds), how often do you play a shot that is different from your stock, fly it 150 yards club? How often do you hit it 100 planning to run it the last 50, or play 20 or 30 yards away from the pin hoping to use a slope to feed the ball to the pin. Answer honestly, because even though I readily admit that is fun to do on occasion, I'm betting most people still play it with the stock shot.

[duffer987]

OP: Did you read that article in GD recently Seriously though, the 'change' in design philosophy isn't links vs tree-lined, it's sympathetic and natural, vs overblown and contrived. Whether or not a course has trees on it or not isn't the point. Traditional North American courses may have become tree-lined over their 50-100 something years of existence, but many of them maintain the same styles of playability the minimalist designers are attempting to put into their new designs.

Golf courses have been calling themselves 'links style' since old quarries and landfills became a major source of land for courses, which led to a propensity for that moniker to be thrown about. If it didn't have trees, then it was 'links style'.

Now, looking at the work of Doak and C&C, they create absolutely fantastic, playable, and engaging tracks. They have also been fortunate to get good pieces of land, as a lot of these water park, target-only, golf courses ended up being contrived due to being the garnish for residential developments. You cannot build a natural golf hole - let alone a whole 18 hole course - when you have to shoehorn holes in between lots, roads, and conference centers. It is also one of the reasons that their courses are so highly rated and thought of, they are built as golf courses, to anchor golf resorts, so they better be darn good. And they are.

We could also dovetail this into the other thread going on 'growing the game', as the accessibility of these courses geographically and financially are such that unfortunately a large number of the golfing public doesn't get a chance to experience them. Most golfers only no battered munis, which could play very naturally with some TLC, or the typical through the air courses built in the 80s and 90s. But lets not go there

If you are interested by the subject, I would highly recommend reading Doak's book and Mackenzie's book on golf course architecture.

[bandonman91]

I don't think playing links golf gets old... I used to play the Bandon courses 5 times a week for almost two years. It was great because how the conditions were constantly changing... I also think its a huge misnomer that the ball needs to be played along the ground. Links golf just gives you the option... at the Doak course I work at its the same way. I know a lot of people who continue to play parkland golf and also people who play some shots along the ground... I just want options and parkland golf doesn't offer that.

[Chief Illiniwek]

[quote name='Marrrk' timestamp='1387825495' post='8340083']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387824832' post='8340043']
A previous poster said a great aspect of links golf is the cerebral element. Wouldn't hiring a caddie eliminate the need to be creative and think your way around the course?

Look I've got no problem if some prefer links. It's the way golf was originally played because that is what environment dictated in Scotland. [b]Here in most of the US the environment dictates parkland style and many of us see the bonuses of that style: wooded environment with more diverse wildlife, a need to be able and fly the ball, ability to shape around trees, etc.[/b]
[/quote]

I don't see how you can call being forced to have to fly the ball a bonus. Links courses don't [i]force[/i] you to play it on the ground—they just allow that option as well as many others. same thing when it comes to shaping the ball.

we need to be careful not to take everything as a blanket statement. i don't think anyone has a problem with trees, per se. the problem is with the lack of options that trees, water hazards, narrow fairways, deep rough and forced carries allow for.
[/quote]

If you don't live in a climate where wind can "protect" the course, how are you supposed to make a course difficult? You need trees, water hazards, etc in places like the Midwestern US.

As I've been trying to explain, environment often dictates course style. Where I live, if you let a course get baked out to make it firm and fast, the grass dies and you end up with fairways full of crab grass.

[deadsolid...shank]

I really do appreciate all the options that are offered, I like playing a lot of different type shots. Nowhere have I disputed that. As I said in the original post, I prefer the parkland style because it provides a framing of the hole so I can see where to go. That's all. I said I struggle to pick targets and lines on wide open venues, not that they're bad, just don't fit my (poor) eyes.

Many people maintain the open courses are more playable because you don't have to fly the ball, you can keep it on the ground. But, keep it on the ground where if you don't know where you're supposed to be going. I think many of the playing options really aren't that available until you become somewhat familiar with the course. Or have a caddie which has been discussed and I guessing is almost a necessity the first time out at a place like Bandon (correct me if that is wrong.....like it need to worry about that happening)

I'm still waiting for someone to chime in that has played both Bandon and Pebble the first time out without any guidance. Which time felt more comfortable? Anyone like me struggle the first time out just because you felt lost with no idea where to go?

I do think these courses would be great fun to play, after you've gained some knowledge and I guess I should have included in the OP that I haven't played any of them enough to gain that knowledge of them. I should have included the caveat that I was making more reference to courses you don't have a lot of experience on. My mistake.

[duffer987]

^Simple. Bandon is more playable because you don't have to suffer through a 5.5hr round

Seriously though, I think this post makes a better one than your OP, as I can now see you are asking more about how a course's topography and environment impacts playability. It really has nothing to do with any trend in design schools.

Bandon Dunes (and I am speaking specifically of that course and not the resort as a whole) is very playable and not disorientating in the least. From the tee there is an obvious enough direction/flow to the holes to not have to scratch your head. You will have to consider conditions, whether to cut or draw, whether to take on a bunker, whether to lay back to avoid going through the fairway, etc... but hopefully those same things need to be considered on any course with enough quality to want to play again. With a yardage guide, the occasional pointer from a local, I've played all my rounds there without a caddie. Apart from not having someone else carry my bag and to help me read putts, I don't think I am any worse the wear for it.

Pebble has as many blind tee shots (one) as Bandon and it's a whole heckuva lot worse in regards to the outcome if you don't know exactly where to aim or how far to hit. Yes there are some trees lining a number of the holes, but not in a way I would say acts as 'curves ahead' road signs. For me I wouldn't rate one as easier to navigate than the other for the first time player.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1387848637' post='8341735']

After you've played any particular links style course numerous times, isn't it familiar and the same old old? When the conditions change, the parkland courses play completely different also.

Honest question. If you are on one of these courses that present you all these different shots to play,you're sitting out 150 yards from the green, normal conditions (ie, no gale force winds), how often do you play a shot that is different from your stock, fly it 150 yards club? How often do you hit it 100 planning to run it the last 50, or play 20 or 30 yards away from the pin hoping to use a slope to feed the ball to the pin. Answer honestly, because even though I readily admit that is fun to do on occasion, I'm betting most people still play it with the stock shot.

[/quote]

Again, let me be clear - the differentiation I'm making is not links vs. parkland. It is interesting design vs. mediocre. Interesting design that presents options, allows shotmaking variety, invokes thought as well as skill can be found in any setting - parkland, links, desert, mountain, forest, etc.

To answer your questions, yes one becomes familiar with a course over time. The real difference is that mediocre designs force a singular style of play where you play virtually the same course every time. The better designs present options and allow varied ways to play the holes and strategies that may change from day to day depending on the weather or even pin position. Combined with ground features that can be used to work the ball, the best courses allow a much broader scope of playing characteristics such that repeat play remains interesting and does not become repetitive.

As for what shot to play... I hit the shot that the situation calls for. That will really depend on weather, pin location, hazard location, green firmness, cut of the green surroundings, topographic features of the green surrounding, topography of the green itself, how I am striking the ball that day, whether I'm playing a match or stroke play... any number of factors that will influence the club I choose and the type of shot I play.

If it is a mundane design with soft greens and no wind then I will pull my 7 iron and hit a "stock" shot fly to the pin and stick it. Playing mundane courses, one will develop routines and come to depend on stock shots. However, presented with an interesting design and a firm green, reliance on the stock shot based on yardage will soon let you down.

[ryu123]

I agree with duffer987 and also teejaywhy.

Been going to Bandon almost annually since 2001. First played Pebble Beach in 2005, and have played it again in 2012 and April 2013.

There is a familiarity factor with PB, since it is often shown on TV, but seeing a course on television is not the same as being on a tee and needing to pick a target line.

Both courses have semi-blind shots. For example, at PB as everyone knows the par 4 8th hole requires a blind tee shot over a hill. The player cannot see the landing area. Going too far right finds the beach. Too far left is the rough to the left of the 6th hole. And the long par 5 14th hole requires a semi-blind tee shot up the hill. Too far left are trees. A little right brings the large bunkers into play.

The par 4 4th hole at Bandon Dunes has a semi-blind tee shot. Too far right or left is gorse. And the par 4 17th hole has semi-blind tee shot. Too far right is the hazard; left are small bunkers and hills.

Never had a caddie at either resort, because both courses are easily walkable. Other than the holes mentioned, I felt pretty comfortable off the tee at both places.

At both courses on the tee boxes the player sees what is expected.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387853275' post='8342065']

If you don't live in a climate where wind can "protect" the course, how are you supposed to make a course difficult? You need trees, water hazards, etc in places like the Midwestern US.

[/quote]


How are you supposed to make a course difficult? Interesting question. Isn't golf difficult already, just the nature of the game? I believe the game has been diminished in the 60 years post WWII when designers and developers and even the general golfing public began to accept that golf made difficult by golf course design was desirable.

What place does difficulty have in golf design? Difficult to make birdie or par? Isn't that the idea? What about difficulty that simply makes it easy to make double bogie or worse for the average golfer. Is that the same thing? I don't think so. But it seems that too many modern courses put the emphasis on the latter.

[johnstitch]

I see too many modern courses totally "over"designed with water, waste areas, links style run offs and tufts of thick grass around bunkers no matter where the course is built. Desert, Heathland, Seaside and Forrests are distinctly difficult tracts of land and yet designers seem to be hell bent trying to build "inland links" which simply don't work. Same with the obsession into called "Scottish" design by designers who've never left the USA. Most Scottish courses are inland and yet people seem swayed by "easy" links like Kingsbarns and think they are the genuine article.

Same with ultra expensive develpments that because they are built in the same neighbourhood as established masterpieces can demand insane membership fees and grab major events e.g. Sebonack. Worse still Liberty National is a horrible looking course that proves money can't build a great course on a rubbish site (no pun intended). What worries me is how many the average Golfer, i.e. Mister 2 games a week with a slice and average short game really goes round in?

[vernon]

I live on a so called "links style" course in NE Kansas that has been ruined by over watering. So much so, that I'm about to take my membership 20 miles to the south at another club. Our superintendent literally waters during thunderstorms. It's not uncommon to have two or three holes restricted to the cart paths when it hasn't rained in three weeks. This guy was still watering this fall long after everyone else in the area had blown their systems.

My point, I guess, is many courses are kept way too wet. Zosia is the predominant choice for fairways and tees around here and the entire premise for sodding it in the first place is the fact that it requires very little water. Courses that are allowed to firm and brown up a bit play much closer to the way they were intended. Firm and fast fairways make the course a little easier for the lesser player as they can often times roll the ball onto the green. At the same time, firm and fast can make the course more challenging for the better player as he can't just blow the driver all over the place.

Firm greens also suffer much less damage from ball marks. Nonetheless, rather than hand watering hot spots during extreme heat, most courses choose to just fire up the irrigation resulting in puddles and consequent turf damage. There's nothing worse than a soggy golf course regardless of style of design. And it's extremely unhealthy for the turf as it encourages disease and bacteria growth especially during periods of high humidity.

All that being said, I love em' all if they're just maintained properly.

[Marrrk]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387853275' post='8342065']
[quote name='Marrrk' timestamp='1387825495' post='8340083']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1387824832' post='8340043']
A previous poster said a great aspect of links golf is the cerebral element. Wouldn't hiring a caddie eliminate the need to be creative and think your way around the course?

Look I've got no problem if some prefer links. It's the way golf was originally played because that is what environment dictated in Scotland. [b]Here in most of the US the environment dictates parkland style and many of us see the bonuses of that style: wooded environment with more diverse wildlife, a need to be able and fly the ball, ability to shape around trees, etc.[/b]
[/quote]

I don't see how you can call being forced to have to fly the ball a bonus. Links courses don't [i]force[/i] you to play it on the ground—they just allow that option as well as many others. same thing when it comes to shaping the ball.

we need to be careful not to take everything as a blanket statement. i don't think anyone has a problem with trees, per se. the problem is with the lack of options that trees, water hazards, narrow fairways, deep rough and forced carries allow for.
[/quote]

If you don't live in a climate where wind can "protect" the course, how are you supposed to make a course difficult? You need trees, water hazards, etc in places like the Midwestern US.

As I've been trying to explain, environment often dictates course style. Where I live, if you let a course get baked out to make it firm and fast, the grass dies and you end up with fairways full of crab grass.
[/quote]

is St Andrews not still a great course on a day when the wind is down? it's not playing its most difficult, but it's still an incredibly dynamic course by any measure and does not need trees or water or long carries or massive elevation changes.

or how about Bethpage Black? built in a forest, but trees are far from what makes the course so difficult. with very few exceptions, the trees there are not intended to effect strategy and are only penal if your shot is way off line.