[Ed_Baker]

We have talked about the importance of maintenence meld many times on here and specifically how fast and firm works beautifully on classic designs. The game was played largely on the ground during the era in which these courses were built and obviously the playing fields were designed with that in mind.

What about a brand new course ? Is the ground game even relevant anymore, should it be?

Does the architect consider the ground game when designing a new course or is it completely site and budget specific?

[Pete Lavallee]

Ed,

There are modern courses that emphasize the ground game; Rustic Canyon is the poster child. My love of the course stems from the fact that each time I play there I am forced (notice I didn't say tempted) to play something different than the standard arial attack. The key is in the bold unduations in the greens; trust me they are not too severe for the general public, they love the course. The bent grass collars around the green allow ground game options without keeping the course on the brink of dehydration. Although we all love firm and fast, it is often impractical to maintain courses like this day in and day out, and these collars give the course the latitude it needs at a public facility.

[John_McMillan]

Is the ground game even relevant anymore

For the professional golfer, the ground game is no longer relevant.  

Say a prayer for it that its soul, along with Pope John Paul II's, might escape purgatory and find eternal rest.

[JESII]

Is the "Ground Game" Relevant in Modern Architecture?



I think we all hope so.

[Ed_Baker]

Pete,

"Forced" is a long way from "tempted" but those two terms are exactly the crux of the design question. In my opinion the more choices the player is presented with during the round as far as types of shots to get from point A to point B, the more likely you will feel you have just played a damn fine design at the end of the round.

[ForkaB]

Ed

I think it is, and this is proved by places such as Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Applebrook, Barona Creek, and Kingsbarns.  I think it is harder to get the minor details right to make the ground game really effective, but the courses above (and many others, I am sure) show that it can be done.  Of course they have to be maintained properly too.......

Rich

[A_Clay_Man]

Ed- There seems to be a rather limited definition to the term ground game, for some.

There are plenty of modern designs where the imaginative  golfer can use terrain, and or features, to get their ball into a desired position. However, most of the standard maintenance presentaions preclude most brain activity.

[Tony_Chapman]

Ed - I certainly think there are golf courses out there being built with the ground game in mind. In Nebraska, we are fortunate to have Wild Horse as a "firm and fast" daily fee that people can experience any time they want, much like RC in Southern California.

A guy can land a ball on the green at Wild Horse, but there are plenty of times when the prudent play is landing something 30 yards short of the green, or chipping a 7-iron from 100 yards.

When I think of the "modern" ground game, I think of having a golf course set up where one has multiple ways to play a golf shots. At Wild Horse this is true at nearly every approach, you just have to figure out which one is the best for your game that day.

[Tom_Doak]

The ground game is relevant for even the best players in certain locations ... windy places like Lubbock or Long Island, and certainly anywhere you can grow fescue fairways and keep them firm.

It isn't relevant for low-handicap players on the other 96% of American courses, but it is certainly relevant for the average golfer who may be hitting a 4-wood approach to any hole out there.

[Brent Hutto]

As the aforementioned 4-wood-hitting average golfer, I'll surely attest that the fun factor of any course is boosted by firm fairways and/or interestingly contoured frontal approaches to some or all of the greens.

When a bunch of us played at Cuscowilla there were some complaints that the run-up areas weren't firm enough relative to the speed of the greens and that the aerial game was therefore favored. All that may be true but the contouring of most holes and the big slopes on the edges of greens (not to mention the tucked pins that we were treated to) brought a lot of interest to the game of a short-hitting bogey golfer.

So my ideal would be a design and routing that allows play along the ground plus firm-and-fast conditions to brings those features to life. I'll settle, though, for interesting multi-option approaches even when the ground can't be maintained as I would prefer.

[Tony_Chapman]

The ground game is relevant for even the best players in certain locations ... windy places like Lubbock or Long Island, and certainly anywhere you can grow fescue fairways and keep them firm.

Tom - I'm certainly a dunce when it comes to this stuff, so I am hoping you could elaborate a bit. At a place like say Harmony Club do you try to design with the notion that the ground game won't be used as much because you won't have fescue or optimal "firm and fast" conditions? Or, do you still try to keep the ground game involved as much as possible.

Brent's previous post may answer this a bit because of the "not so firm" run up areas at Cuscowilla.

Thanks!!

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

Yes, in a place like Harmony (if it ever gets going) I would be less likely to spend my time on ground-game options.  This doesn't mean I won't offer open approaches into greens ... the average player can still use those ... but thinking that you're going to bank an approach off the side of a hill is probably optimistic in such situations.  [Also, in clay soils, you'd need a ridge or a swale between the hillside and the green; in sandy locales you wouldn't.]

On the other hand, Beechtree is one of the firmest sets of fairways and approaches I've seen, and that is not sandy soil at all!

[Eric Pevoto]

Tom,

I'm glad you mentioned Beechtree.  It came to mind immediately.  I can think of only one hole (#2) that doesn't have an open approach; there is great opportunity to use the terrain.    

I've only seen it once, so I don't know the nuances, but I'd think it would be fun day-in, day-out.  Also, the wind didn't blow when I was there, but I'm sure that just adds.  As you said, the whole course was beautifully fast, even after the rains last month.

[CHC1948]

Ed,

I believe there are many course out there where the ground is a factor, however, over-watering and "modern" maint. practices reduce the amount of courses that play this way.  

CHC

[TEPaul]

Ed:

For the ideal maintenance meld it doesn't really matter when the course was built, you gotta just look at the type of architecture or design intent it is. If the course offers a lot or ground game options, particularly ground game approach options then firm and fast "through the green" is really important to get the most out of those ground game options. On a ground game oriented design the key to the IMM is to get those green surfaces at that point of firmness where the aerial approaches are less than completely controllable or reliable when a well struck aerial shot will only lightly dent the green surface and even a good player really can't spin the ball backwards! This creates a situation where the aerial approach option falls into a form of equilibrium as a choice with the ground game option. If you don't do that on a ground game style design, if you don't dial down the reliabilty of aerial the aerial approach option particularly good players will use the aerial game to approach greens all day long.

On a modern course that anyone can see is designed much more to demand only the aerial option firm and fast is not so important "through the green" and the green surfaces frankly need to be far more receptive to provide for basically the option the design intent is for---eg the aerial approach option. On that type of course the green surface firmness should be such that a good aerial shot's pitch mark will pull up dirt and good players can spin the ball backwards---which is a good and additonal option to have on architecture that's primarily of aerial demand only.

The primary point of the Maintenance Meld is to use maintenance practices that work ideally for the particular type and style of ANY course's architecture and types and styles and design intents of architecture can be very different these days as we all can see. Basically most all the old pre-WW2 courses had much more in the way of ground game approach options and post WW-2 course much less in the way of ground game options and far more aerial demand.

The primary point of the MM is to make that distinction loud and clear for the first time in about five decades and to try to break away from the "one-size fits all" maintenance practices for ALL types and styles of architecture which we know in the last five or so decades were pretty much all over-irrigated turf that was only conducive to aerial golf and which virtually made ground game options of any kind obsolete.

For the old ground game option type courses we need to bring the function of the ground game back bigtime to highlight all the available architectural options and to hopefully bring them into a form of "choice balance" or equilibrium with each other. This at the very least gets good players really thinking again about what to do and for poorer players the ball goes farther which makes them happy.

The only real glitich in the IMM for ground game option courses is what exactly to do on those 2-4 holes on the old style architecture that have no ground game approach options. What to do about the firmness of the green on those holes essentially. It's hard to have a "lightly dent" green surface situation on those holes because the little old ladies basically don't have much chance of holding those greens with even a great shot frrom their Heaven woods.

I'm working on it though, talking to supers and my local USGA guy to maybe develop an imperceptible "fudge factor" on those greens where they putt and chip just the same but are slightly more receptive to the aerial option---where a well struck aerial shot's pitch mark is more than a light dent and controllability and reliability of the aerial shot is enhanced.

[Ed_Baker]

I'm glad the ground game is still alive in modern design considerations when the site allows it. I guess I had just played too many TPC type modern courses built in swamps that were forced carry after forced carry courses.

Interesting point by Tom Doak on the immediate practical design(drainage) concessions that must be considered when working with different soil types before trying to extract the best golf from a parcel which ultimately dictates aireal or ground game course or a combo, pretty cool.

Thomas Edward,
A wonderful post on the premise and intent of IMM. I think one important contribution that this forum has made to the game is the heightened awareness of how daily maintenence paradigms effect the functionality of ANY golf course.

One example that comes to mind of how poor maintenence meld effects functionality was the Bay Hill tournament last year. Bay Hill is a very good golf course, but if memory serves they had a situation last year where the approaches were almost lift clean and place soaked, and the greens were firm and fast. The Pros were frustrated because they could'nt hit run ups and the aireals wouldn't hold the greens.

I thank all for your responses.

[TEPaul]

"One example that comes to mind of how poor maintenence meld effects functionality was the Bay Hill tournament last year. Bay Hill is a very good golf course, but if memory serves they had a situation last year where the approaches were almost lift clean and place soaked, and the greens were firm and fast. The Pros were frustrated because they could'nt hit run ups and the aireals wouldn't hold the greens."

Ed:

The Bay Hill Tournament was the best example I've ever seen of how to produce the worst possible maintenance meld (I think Arnie actually apologized for it, and then for whatever reason basically did it again about a year or two later).

While the basic premise of the IMM is to analyze the over-all design intent of any course and then apply maintenance practices that bring to life the various architectural options of the course the Bay Hill method seemed to be to identify the architectural options and then apply maintenance practices that just about completely shut down the function and effectiveness of every option!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I once posted here that I would design for the ground game when ball mfgs. start advertising balls with "less height and spin!"  Given today's game, I have seen good players voluntarily run in a low shot onto a green from the middle of the fairway about as often as I've seen a lunar eclipse.  The only time that shot is called for is when the player is under a tree in the rough, and must keep the shot low.

However, my designs reflect what Tom Doak says - most have frontal opening to allow that type of shot to some area of the green at least, mostly for the benefit of average and/or conservative players approaches.

If you went to play the Quarry, you would see that my current definition of designing for the ground game for better players moves the ground contours affecting the ball to back, sides as well as the front, and brings them closer to - or even within - the green to account for more watering, etc.  

While a player will most likely hit an aerial shot, there are many spots on the course where he/she can aim that shot well away from the pin and use contours to feed the ball to the hole, usually allowing them to aim away from substantial hazards, making that shot a viable strategic option.  

The idea of creating ground contours 50 yards in front of a green to influence play is about as extinct as the dinosaur, except perhaps on par 5 holes where they might influence the layup shot.  Of course, if you look at Vijay's tour stats, the par 5 lay up is also becoming extinct......

[Brent Hutto]

Tom and Jeff have maintained a linkage in this conversation to the non-elite player who can really benefit from options that just aren't in play for a Tour player or even a State Amateur level non-professional. However, there remains a dimension to the question "Is the 'ground game' relevant in modern architecture?" about the extent to which the elite player's game becomes the measuring stick of quality.

So here's my question. Imagine two possible course designs that a Doak or a Brauer might offer a client. One of them would be darned comfortable to play for a less-skilled or older player who likes to run the ball up on the green of any hole longer than 350 yards and who never even thinks about reaching a 500-yard Par 5 in two shots. The other has bunkers or rough fronting most of the green, a few forced-carry approach shots and just generally is the sort of course a short-hitting bogey golfer would avoid.

Let's say the two alternatives could each have similar driving challenges from the way-back tees and each offers highly contoured greens with plenty of places to tuck the pins and fiendish bunkering arranged in a highly strategic manner. Would the course with the open approaches be automatically viewed as a "weaker" course or one that isn't attractive to the top 2% of skilled golfers?

As I understand the modern power game, a professional or good college player would play the two courses exactly the same under most conditions. The run-up areas are not even on the radar of a player who's going to shoot 68-71 most days by just booming a drive and bombarding the areas around the holes with wedges and short irons. So having or not having openings in front of the green are purely a mental challenge to the skilled player and not much of one at that.

Yet I have a feeling that a course owner who wants to attract skilled players or a magazine rater who favors "resistance to scoring" and "shot values" or a good player who happens to play there in a tournament are all going to consider the course that's ground-game friendly to be at least a marginally lower quality course even if it plays for the power player exactly the same on every shot as the forced-carry course.

[EDIT] Corrected one typo.

[Tom_Doak]

Brent:

Low-handicap players frequently tell me that I should defend my greens more tightly with bunkers ... they don't insist that it be a forced carry but I think that's what they mean.  They like the target to be more defined and they like the idea that a marginal shot will be punished, because that will ensure that the better player wins.

I've also been told by a couple of good players on this site that my best work is not quite up to the level of Coore & Crenshaw, because my holes don't have difficult enough "shot values" for a really good player, which I interpret to mean the same thing as above.

So, I think the answer to your question in paragraph 3 above is yes ... the top 2% of players will think the course is a bit weak if it gives too many ground game options.  That's not to say they'll dismiss it completely, but they won't rate it quite as high.

[Jonathan Cummings]

TD - Send those better players over to Kidnappers.  They may return with a different opinion of Doak "pushovers".

JC

[Mike_DeVries]

Yes, the ground game is still relevant, but as Jeff B. and Tom D. have pointed out, it won't affect the better players most of the time.  

Having the ground game an option provides another level of strategy and interest to a course, even if it isn't recognized by certain classes of golfers.  Many golfers are not cognizant of the ground game options, even with the right conditions, but will be thrilled when their ball actually follows the contours of their shot and moves towards the hole (or angry if it moves away).  Under the best firm, fast conditioning and good design, combined with a little wind, the ground game can still reign supreme, even for better players.  If only all sites had nice sandy soil, moderate temps, and windy conditions!

[Mark_Fine]

One fun aspect of providing ground game options is for recovery shots.  When a green is only accessable in the air, the recovery shot (for example a sweeping hook out of trouble or a low cut from under trees) is rarely an option to reach the putting surface let alone to get it close to the hole.  

Yes the ground game is very relavant and a course that doesn't allow for it on at least a significant number of holes is one dimensional in my book.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Yes, the ground game is still relevant, but as Jeff B. and Tom D. have pointed out, it won't affect the better players most of the time."

Mike:

I don't think affecting the better player most of the time is really the point when one speaks about bringing back the relevance of the ground game. Bringing it back for players who are not so long and not so talented is really the point of recreating the relevance of the ground game. They're the ones who can use it to their advantage more effectively.

If a classic design (more open fronts than a modern design) can get a good player to use or even consider using the ground game approach option 2-3 times a round I'd say the ground game option is back for the better player.

A course like mine---Gulph Mills G.C. is pretty typicial of a ground game approach design---basically it has about ten greens with open fronts conducive to the ground game "bounce in or run-in" approaches. PVGC and Merion have about nine!

If you can get a better player to consider or use the ground game approach 2-3 times a round on those courses, the ground game is back and it's relevant again, in my opinion. With nine to ten open front greens the way to basically force the good player to consider or use the bounce in or run-in approach 2-3 times a round is simply to firm up those green surfaces and approaches and put pins in the very front of about 1/3 of those nine to ten greens with open front. That combination alone will encourage the better player to use the ground game approach 2-3 time a round and that's more than it used to be.  

[Steve Lang]

Not to the pro or pro wanna-be types.., but  yes to the common man.. the one who has to find other ways to score..

I was just watched the pros bombing it at Redstone gc.. vj & jd pound it a good 60+ yds in the air, darren cuts the doglegs without shame and its still climbing as the trees shake in the ball's wake, toms is sneaky 300 yds long,..  unless its a big water hazard or OB it doesn't really matter what's on the ground.. only what's around the green complexes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()