This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
In making this comment, I'm saying that a lot of brilliance in links golf design is reliant on climate, whereas parkland/inland golf is not.
The brilliance of links courses is essentially reliant on nature."
...Case in point...the new 17 (old 15?) is a fricking joke...with chips and 125 foot pitchs for eagle on a 410 yard hole.
Whatís wrong with this? Whatís wrong with what is essentially a really long par 3? Donít all players have to play it and feel the pressure to make 3?Why the focus on par/score? Why not focus on interesting shots, which always seem in abundance at most Open venues?
At Erin Hills, a course tailor-made to host the US Open and set up to the exact specifications of an organization determined to 'test the best in the world', the winning score was -16. And at Pebble it was -13. Portrush is more than 'holding its own' (if that's even important). I honestly don't know what VK is on about with this one. With a seaside links course in Northern Ireland, noting that the course plays easier in good weather than it does in bad seems akin to saying that it plays easier during the day than it does at midnight.
Reserving your appreciation? I hope Royal Portrush will survive the blow.