News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2024, 10:19:47 PM »
Matt,

I can appreciate the analogy, but I think some of us may be getting hung up on the chess part as it relates to presumably less complicated parkland courses relative to links which make you think more going thru all the options (and as mentioned could vary significantly day to day).

If you went with checkers that would be palatable;)
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm merely paralleling perfect information games with imperfect information games. Checkers is a perfectly fine substitute for a perfect information game, as is bridge a fine substitute for an imperfect information game like poker.

I only draw a line in golf from no external influence (a golf simulator with all the variables turned off), to maximal external influence (let's say Cape Wickham on a day that puts raters in a bad mood  ;D ). Parkland is somewhere in between, the more trees, the narrower the fairway, the more monostand the rough, the more toward no external influences (even if "parkland" is a term that is so reductionist, it is borderline useless).
GolfCourse.Wiki
Wigs on the Green
GCA Extension v2.0.1: Firefox/Chrome

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2024, 04:23:23 AM »
Matt


Chess pieces only move in set ways. With the exception of the knight, none of the pieces can jump over another piece. They have to manoeuvre their way round other pieces and move in their set way to get to the target ie. the King. That resembles much more a fast running links where the ground game is heavily in play and you have to manoeuvre round bunkers/contours and other hazards/obstacles to get to the target ie. the hole, than it does a soft parkland where it is possible to fly over any trouble and from any angle. 


Niall

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2024, 09:59:12 AM »
Matt,

I can appreciate the analogy, but I think some of us may be getting hung up on the chess part as it relates to presumably less complicated parkland courses relative to links which make you think more going thru all the options (and as mentioned could vary significantly day to day).

If you went with checkers that would be palatable;)




That is exactly what is happening.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2024, 10:19:13 AM »
Inconsistency. Some holes are insanely hard, some holes are rather easy. Wind can reverse which is which.
At Elie I would happily take a 4 on the par 3 3rd but wouldn’t on the par 4 7th, in the prevailing Westerly.  If we really get a North Easterly, as threatened for BUDA, a 4 on 7 will do nicely, thank you.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2024, 12:24:14 PM »
The same chap who said “I could take out of my life everything except my experiences at St Andrews and I would still have a rich, full life” also said “Golf is a game that is played on a five-inch course - the distance between your ears.”
Believe he came to rather like links and links type golf. Believe he played the game quite well and quite successfully too. Imagine he knew a thing or two about the game too.
Atb
« Last Edit: September 16, 2024, 12:30:53 PM by Thomas Dai »

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2024, 01:51:50 PM »
Why is links golf so loved?


One of our GCAers (I forget which one) had this explanation:


“The amount of joy one derives from a golf shot is directly proportional to the amount of time it spends running along the ground. That is why links golf is so loved.”


I totally agree!!!
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2024, 02:21:12 PM »
Why is links golf so loved?


One of our GCAers (I forget which one) had this explanation:


“The amount of joy one derives from a golf shot is directly proportional to the amount of time it spends running along the ground. That is why links golf is so loved.”


I totally agree!!!


I know who said it! And it wasn’t me.


I tend to parrot the statement whenever I get the chance (as I did earlier on this thread). It’s really smart and for me it reflects a lot of what I like about links golf.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2024, 05:05:30 PM »
Matt, I understand your philosophy, but what links courses have you played to validate it?

Not quite sure why I’m being investigated here, but…

I earned a graduate degree in Edinburgh and during that time my favorite links course was the New Course.

Currently in the Bay Area, the links-like courses I prefer are the three near the Oakland airport.


Matt,


Not an investigation in the least. You started a very interesting thread awhile ago about luck/skill and then in this thread applied it to links v parkland courses. My question was solely to ask if your application was based on playing links courses. I have not played the New so I cannot assess the source of your viewpoint. I have played around 20 links courses (I am not counting Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns, or the Bandon courses) which is far fewer than many, but I disagree with your viewpoint for many of the reasons others have mentioned. We probably disagree on the meaning of “perfect information” or how it applies to golf courses.


Ira

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2024, 06:52:59 PM »

Not an investigation in the least. You started a very interesting thread awhile ago about luck/skill and then in this thread applied it to links v parkland courses. My question was solely to ask if your application was based on playing links courses. I have not played the New so I cannot assess the source of your viewpoint. I have played around 20 links courses (I am not counting Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns, or the Bandon courses) which is far fewer than many, but I disagree with your viewpoint for many of the reasons others have mentioned. We probably disagree on the meaning of “perfect information” or how it applies to golf courses.


Ira
I guess I would object to the essentialism in "links golf," even while I'm perfectly fine with the conception of a links golf course. Golf on linksland has some cohesive themes (wind, run, bumps, etc.) but I think it's difficult -- at best -- to create a platonic form of the game played there, because valid counter-examples will come in and ruin this essentialism. Here I think an empirical approach is flawed and is more often than not just onanistic gatekeeping of what are extraordinarily beautiful and rare places to play.

Links obviously means linksland. Linksland must to be adjacent to a sea, but is there anything beyond a strong prevailing wind that affects the golf next to the sea? Perhaps the humidity?  It's certainly not the views that are affecting the game. Do we qualify the Lido in Nekoosa as a links? The dunes are replicas, but there they are. The sand, fescue, and wind are real. Is it links golf?

Golden Gate Park GC refuses to call itself a links even though it's built on historic dunes land, and is adjacent to the ocean. They say they aren't the correct style. Does the style of golf matter to being a links if the course is on linksland?

Links lack trees, yet I was shocked to find a non-trivial number of trees, groves even, on Carnoustie's championship course when I was there. If there is enough soil to grow trees... is it linksland?

I needn't go on and on, as we all know that links is a vague term, but my point is that links golf, as a concept, makes the most sense to me if we're talking about the common features of linksland generally. That is, the ball runs especially far (due to the sand and fescues we generally find on links courses), the wind blows especially strong and irregularly (due to the adjacency to a large sea or ocean, and lack of trees to block the wind). There tends to be a lack of trees (generally due to the soil content being insufficient to sustain trees). Finally, the hazards are occasionally peppered with thick native sections of grass, often of indiscriminate thickness to mimic grazing herds. 

Each of these features strongly feature one theme. That is, reducing the predictability of the ball in the air, and dramatically increasing the dispersion pattern of the median shot for players at any level. We also see a dramatic increase in the variance of punishment when missing the fairway. This is why I put the median links course strongly toward the higher-luck quadrant than I would the median parkland course, and much farther than the median parkland "championship" course.

Each of these features is generally replicable, but do we consider these imitations of linksland environments "parkland courses"? It would seem silly to classify them as such. I play my "links" golf by the Oakland airport, because it's convenient and inexpensive. The ball still runs, the wind still whips, and the native grasses still eat up anything that goes offline. It's not the old course, but it's a lot easier to get a tee time. 
« Last Edit: September 16, 2024, 07:08:37 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
GolfCourse.Wiki
Wigs on the Green
GCA Extension v2.0.1: Firefox/Chrome

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2024, 07:00:54 PM »
How many glasses of wine did it take you to think that up ?


Niall

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2024, 07:59:01 PM »
How many glasses of wine did it take you to think that up ?
I grow weary of folks here who snipe, when they are missing the point in the first place.

The idea that people think chess is somehow more complex than poker probably haven't studied game theory at all, much less heard of the insane complexity that are poker solvers.

Try and keep up. I'm just pushing back against the platonic -- essentialist -- view of what we mean by links golf, which the original question is yoked to. There are centuries of academic philosophy behind these lines of thinking.

Please just respond in good faith if you disagree, don't understand, or think what I'm saying is contrived.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2024, 08:34:10 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
GolfCourse.Wiki
Wigs on the Green
GCA Extension v2.0.1: Firefox/Chrome

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2024, 09:08:53 PM »
Do you consider Lahinch a links course? I assume so, but when I played it, it played to me as a parkland course. Now RCD, I played a lot of shots on the ground. Two completely different experiences to me.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2024, 04:17:33 AM »

Not an investigation in the least. You started a very interesting thread awhile ago about luck/skill and then in this thread applied it to links v parkland courses. My question was solely to ask if your application was based on playing links courses. I have not played the New so I cannot assess the source of your viewpoint. I have played around 20 links courses (I am not counting Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns, or the Bandon courses) which is far fewer than many, but I disagree with your viewpoint for many of the reasons others have mentioned. We probably disagree on the meaning of “perfect information” or how it applies to golf courses.


Ira
I guess I would object to the essentialism in "links golf," even while I'm perfectly fine with the conception of a links golf course. Golf on linksland has some cohesive themes (wind, run, bumps, etc.) but I think it's difficult -- at best -- to create a platonic form of the game played there, because valid counter-examples will come in and ruin this essentialism. Here I think an empirical approach is flawed and is more often than not just onanistic gatekeeping of what are extraordinarily beautiful and rare places to play.

Links obviously means linksland. Linksland must to be adjacent to a sea, but is there anything beyond a strong prevailing wind that affects the golf next to the sea? Perhaps the humidity?  It's certainly not the views that are affecting the game. Do we qualify the Lido in Nekoosa as a links? The dunes are replicas, but there they are. The sand, fescue, and wind are real. Is it links golf?

Golden Gate Park GC refuses to call itself a links even though it's built on historic dunes land, and is adjacent to the ocean. They say they aren't the correct style. Does the style of golf matter to being a links if the course is on linksland?

Links lack trees, yet I was shocked to find a non-trivial number of trees, groves even, on Carnoustie's championship course when I was there. If there is enough soil to grow trees... is it linksland?

I needn't go on and on, as we all know that links is a vague term, but my point is that links golf, as a concept, makes the most sense to me if we're talking about the common features of linksland generally. That is, the ball runs especially far (due to the sand and fescues we generally find on links courses), the wind blows especially strong and irregularly (due to the adjacency to a large sea or ocean, and lack of trees to block the wind). There tends to be a lack of trees (generally due to the soil content being insufficient to sustain trees). Finally, the hazards are occasionally peppered with thick native sections of grass, often of indiscriminate thickness to mimic grazing herds. 

Each of these features strongly feature one theme. That is, reducing the predictability of the ball in the air, and dramatically increasing the dispersion pattern of the median shot for players at any level. We also see a dramatic increase in the variance of punishment when missing the fairway. This is why I put the median links course strongly toward the higher-luck quadrant than I would the median parkland course, and much farther than the median parkland "championship" course.

Each of these features is generally replicable, but do we consider these imitations of linksland environments "parkland courses"? It would seem silly to classify them as such. I play my "links" golf by the Oakland airport, because it's convenient and inexpensive. The ball still runs, the wind still whips, and the native grasses still eat up anything that goes offline. It's not the old course, but it's a lot easier to get a tee time.

You answered your own question. Links necessarily must be by the sea. It doesn’t matter if an an inland course has all the other characteristics of a links, it ain’t links by definition. Folks like to grab the word for 5 star marketing reasons which is easy to understand. Marketing folks haven’t come up with an easy one word description for courses that would be links if an ocean was there. Ya know what, if the course is good enough ya don’t need to catergorize it…the name is all the marketing necessary.

I like links for most of the reasons already mentioned. I can also experience these features at plenty of non links when conditions are right. But the over-riding reason I like links is because they tend to be good courses. I can’t think of a true links that I don’t consider good. The characteristics of links is largely a list of what makes courses good.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield & Alnmouth,

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2024, 07:36:22 AM »
How many glasses of wine did it take you to think that up ?
I grow weary of folks here who snipe, when they are missing the point in the first place.

The idea that people think chess is somehow more complex than poker probably haven't studied game theory at all, much less heard of the insane complexity that are poker solvers.

Try and keep up. I'm just pushing back against the platonic -- essentialist -- view of what we mean by links golf, which the original question is yoked to. There are centuries of academic philosophy behind these lines of thinking.

Please just respond in good faith if you disagree, don't understand, or think what I'm saying is contrived.


You have a sense of humour bypass I see.


You also didn't dispute or acknowledge my issues with your chess analogy. Issues which had nothing to do with philosophy and were all about the difference between playing on a soft yielding surface and a fast and firm links course.


Niall

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2024, 11:37:39 AM »
Matt,

I can dig where you're going with this, but...

The odds of getting any unique 5 card hand from a standard 52 card deck is approx. 1 in 2.6 million.

The number of potential outcomes for a chess match?  A number so big its hard to fathom: 10120

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number



Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2024, 04:13:45 PM »
You answered your own question. Links necessarily must be by the sea. It doesn’t matter if an an inland course has all the other characteristics of a links, it ain’t links by definition.

I fully agree with you that links courses are courses on linksland, by definition. My point has to do with the style of golf. If we build a parkland-style course on links land, it's a links, but it's not really links golf. This is the case of Golden Gate Park GC. Do we say Kiawah Island isn't a links because it has the wrong grass and climate, even if it is on linksland? Do we say that Bandon is on linksland when much of it is carved out of a forest on a cliff? Are some of Bandon's courses no longer links because of the poa? Is it more land and look-and-feel, but the land with the look and feel that must exist next to an ocean? For me, this is far from simple.

I guess a better analogy would be say, Champagne vs the style of wine that it represents (Crémant/Cava/Spumante/Brut/Bubbles). "Champagne" is a term we use for sparkling white wine, and some add that it must be produced in the Champagne wine region. I'm totally on board with the concept of terroir, but saying any linksland is the correct terroir, kind of misses the point as the are spread across the globe, and have vastly different weather and dune patterns. Playing on the west coast of Oregon vs the east coast of Scotland is probably a larger experiential difference than, say, a glass of Champagne vs sparkling wine made across the border in Belgium.

I think it's much simpler if we reserve the term of "true links" for the folks who want to argue over which strains of fescue count and what levels of organic matter in the soil are appropriate and in what regions, and then get that fixed. I'm also fine with saying links-like for untrue links. I think it'd be better if we went all the way and created full golf appellations, so the terms would be clearer. As someone in the golf taxonomy space, I think proper golf appellations would be a huge improvement in communicating to people the amount of variety that exists in golf.

Just my thoughts.

Matt,

I can dig where you're going with this, but...

The odds of getting any unique 5 card hand from a standard 52 card deck is approx. 1 in 2.6 million.

The number of potential outcomes for a chess match?  A number so big its hard to fathom: 10120

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

Kalen, I appreciate your response. I don't want to push the metaphor too far. I think we understand each other. Chess is complex. I still think you're underrating the amount of complexity of mixed-strategy equilibria in poker, but I don't want to press the point.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2024, 04:19:15 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
GolfCourse.Wiki
Wigs on the Green
GCA Extension v2.0.1: Firefox/Chrome

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2024, 04:48:38 PM »
You answered your own question. Links necessarily must be by the sea. It doesn’t matter if an an inland course has all the other characteristics of a links, it ain’t links by definition.

I fully agree with you that links courses are courses on linksland, by definition. My point has to do with the style of golf. If we build a parkland-style course on links land, it's a links, but it's not really links golf. This is the case of Golden Gate Park GC. Do we say Kiawah Island isn't a links because it has the wrong grass and climate, even if it is on linksland? Do we say that Bandon is on linksland when much of it is carved out of a forest on a cliff? Are some of Bandon's courses no longer links because of the poa? Is it more land and look-and-feel, but the land with the look and feel that must exist next to an ocean? For me, this is far from simple.

I guess a better analogy would be say, Champagne vs the style of wine that it represents (Crémant/Cava/Spumante/Brut/Bubbles). "Champagne" is a term we use for sparkling white wine, and some add that it must be produced in the Champagne wine region. I'm totally on board with the concept of terroir, but saying any linksland is the correct terroir, kind of misses the point as the are spread across the globe, and have vastly different weather and dune patterns. Playing on the west coast of Oregon vs the east coast of Scotland is probably a larger experiential difference than, say, a glass of Champagne vs sparkling wine made across the border in Belgium.

I think it's much simpler if we reserve the term of "true links" for the folks who want to argue over which strains of fescue count and what levels of organic matter in the soil are appropriate and in what regions, and then get that fixed. I'm also fine with saying links-like for untrue links. I think it'd be better if we went all the way and created full golf appellations, so the terms would be clearer. As someone in the golf taxonomy space, I think proper golf appellations would be a huge improvement in communicating to people the amount of variety that exists in golf.

Just my thoughts.

Matt,

I can dig where you're going with this, but...

The odds of getting any unique 5 card hand from a standard 52 card deck is approx. 1 in 2.6 million.

The number of potential outcomes for a chess match?  A number so big its hard to fathom: 10120

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

Kalen, I appreciate your response. I don't want to push the metaphor too far. I think we understand each other. Chess is complex. I still think you're underrating the amount of complexity of mixed-strategy equilibria in poker, but I don't want to press the point.

There are certainly degrees of links which adds to the character of each example. But all links are near the sea. That shouldn’t imply good or bad in a broad sense. It just is.

Ciao
« Last Edit: September 19, 2024, 04:46:08 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield & Alnmouth,

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2024, 05:19:26 PM »
Do you consider Lahinch a links course? I assume so, but when I played it, it played to me as a parkland course. Now RCD, I played a lot of shots on the ground. Two completely different experiences to me.
Not specifically in relation to LGC/RCDGC but many a links course has changed character over the last few decades with a seeming desire to move away from traditional raw links conditioning, textures, firmness, ruggedness and variable colours to a more immaculate look and a consistently green coloured appearance. In particular the increase in the use of irrigation and the areas of links courses where irrigation is used has changed significantly. Jeez, some links are now even irrigating their pathways! Heresy!
Atb

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2024, 05:26:20 PM »

I guess I would object to the essentialism in "links golf," even while I'm perfectly fine with the conception of a links golf course. Golf on linksland has some cohesive themes (wind, run, bumps, etc.) but I think it's difficult -- at best -- to create a platonic form of the game played there, because valid counter-examples will come in and ruin this essentialism. Here I think an empirical approach is flawed and is more often than not just onanistic gatekeeping of what are extraordinarily beautiful and rare places to play.



         

Let's make GCA grate again!

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2024, 02:36:06 PM »
Monolith—something having a uniform, massive, redoubtable, or inflexible quality or character


Essentialist—believing that the inward, or essential, nature of most things is invariable, as opposed to the properties that are accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.


Matt, I’ll take a ride on the pedantic express and say that I think a better discussion would include the word “monolithic” to describe the collective groupthink vision of links. It might serve us better here. 1) because I do think links golf does possess a certain collection of traits and 2) philosophically, playing links golf is much more akin to pushing the stone up the hill (Camus) regardless of outcome or meaning.


Links golf is existential. Yes the courses and conditions themselves have essential *qualities*. Qualities that, when taken in aggregate could make links golf appear monolithic in nature. But I don’t think so. The experience of links golf is so much more than a collection of variables. So many variables in fact that it becomes more important for me to focus on being rather than doing.

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2024, 03:53:37 PM »
Ben, I appreciate this reply. 'Monolithic' does communicate a similar idea.

I use the term essentialist to refer to a concept of essence that it seems many folks confer to links golf. This carries a lot of philosophical baggage, but it just means there is something within links golf that is more than just the common characteristics one encounters while playing golf on a links. That is, if we took the characteristics of a course on linksland, and placed them somewhere not on linksland (say, on a reproduction of a links course in Sand Valley), we just can't replicate the same sense of links golf, because it's essential that links golf is played on a links. It is an idea that you echo here:

The experience of links golf is so much more than a collection of variables.


I just disagree with this. I can't argue with people who feel this way though; it's a feeling. I just don't share that feeling. I see it as both incorrect from my experience, and more than a bit sniffy, to tell people at Whistling Straits, Wild Horse, or the Links of North Dakota, that -- as similar as the experience may be -- they cannot be having the experience of links golf at those locations. It just seems a bit silly to me, but underneath that silliness is a real sense of gatekeeping that I think is bad for golf culture as a whole.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2024, 03:55:28 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
GolfCourse.Wiki
Wigs on the Green
GCA Extension v2.0.1: Firefox/Chrome

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2024, 04:39:24 PM »
Matt,


I plead guilty to being an essentialist, existentialist, and elitist when it comes to links golf. And a Mystic. Your own formal constructs (skill v luck, perfect information v imperfect information, chess v checkers) are no more or less artificial and constrained than my gatekeeping category (although you will argue to the contrary).


Ira

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2024, 04:58:42 PM »
Ben, I appreciate this reply. 'Monolithic' does communicate a similar idea.

I use the term essentialist to refer to a concept of essence that it seems many folks confer to links golf. This carries a lot of philosophical baggage, but it just means there is something within links golf that is more than just the common characteristics one encounters while playing golf on a links. That is, if we took the characteristics of a course on linksland, and placed them somewhere not on linksland (say, on a reproduction of a links course in Sand Valley), we just can't replicate the same sense of links golf, because it's essential that links golf is played on a links. It is an idea that you echo here:

The experience of links golf is so much more than a collection of variables.


I just disagree with this. I can't argue with people who feel this way though; it's a feeling. I just don't share that feeling. I see it as both incorrect from my experience, and more than a bit sniffy, to tell people at Whistling Straits, Wild Horse, or the Links of North Dakota, that -- as similar as the experience may be -- they cannot be having the experience of links golf at those locations. It just seems a bit silly to me, but underneath that silliness is a real sense of gatekeeping that I think is bad for golf culture as a whole.


That’s fair. You want to confer a sense of essentialism to the conversation and I’m arguing that you shouldn’t. I don’t take offense to the gatekeeping label, but I will say it’s a bit unimaginative. No one is gatekeeping here. And no one is putting on a socio-economic flex. I’ve seen and felt gatekeeping in various things in my life and this doesn’t resemble that in my opinion.

I feel the essentialism debate you’ve raised here is potentially a high-minded way to tell us that we’re all full of it. I don’t know if you’ve meant it that way or not. I’ll assume not. I’ve gone way too far down the nerd hole that used to get me in trouble with people way back when around here. I’ll just end by saying I think links golf holds a certain subjective place in my mind where I can derive my own meaning and satisfaction from it. It isn’t a a matter of quintessence. That can happen anywhere in our game, which you pointed out. Thanks. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2024, 05:11:39 PM »
Ben,

As a fellow 'nerd' sorry you feel the need to bow out, it was just getting good and i'm really enjoying it.

As an existential nihilist myself, I don't think any of these views are intrinsically any more or less valid than others, its all about selecting the paradigm that works for you.  But I still think this discussion contains viable seeds and minds can be changed, so by all means keep sowing..

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So why do we love Links golf?
« Reply #49 on: September 18, 2024, 05:22:37 PM »
This has all gone a bit Woody Allen.
F.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back