[Ross Thomas]

Cognescenti on here like to talk about "the ground game option" and use it as praise for some courses and criticism for others.  But let's really look at it as an architectural feature, and see if it really merits the highs and lows that it seems to elicit around here:

More than anything else, confusion begins with the very definition of "the ground game" (henceforth "TGG").  Too many people on here want to make it only about approach shots to the green.  I personally consider this aspect of TGG to be the crutch of the weaker player, who is often playing from the wrong tee-box, and feels like any approach (3w, 7w, 8i) should be able to gingerly bounce onto the green.  These same folks often want to tell us what precise skill they have with approach shots and are able to use the ground contours to "work" their ball towards the hole.  But seriously, if the best players in the world don't use those shots, who are we to actually believe with-regard-to a 15hdcp being able to play that shot with any level of consistency?

I feel like the ground game really applies to two areas:  (1) fairway contours, (2) chipping/recovery options.  These are truly the areas where any player could take advantage of a course designed with multiple TGG options.  

What are your thoughts on TGG?

[Kyle Harris]

Ross,

I think you are polarizing the issue more than it should be polarized. To define the ground game as the crutch of the weaker player goes against most wisdom bouncing around in the golf world.

I've always been taught, and I always teach, that the good golfer seeks to get the ball on the ground as soon as is practical. The conditions and set up of a golf course in it's Ideal Maintenance Meld will go along with this principle.

When a course is at ideal firmness, sometimes the ground game is the BEST option for approach. The idea is to balance the design so that different approaches are tested at different times.

Look at the highlights from this past US Am at Merion, the course SHINED in that regard. Look at courses set up day in and day out like Fisher's Island and Huntingdon Valley, and you will see the balance in approach.

Is TGG overrated or misunderstood on GCA? I don't think it is at all.

[Mike McGuire]

.  But seriously, if the best players in the world don't use those shots, who are we to actually believe with-regard-to a 15hdcp being able to play that shot with any level of consistency?

Ross -

The best players are not required to play many shots along the ground. The abundance of soggy golf courses makes that part of the game obsolete.

It's to bad because it would be fun to watch the best imagine and execute different shots

[Joe Hancock]

On way too many courses, TGG is unnecessary due to conditioning. Throw in the unreal abitilties of tour players and you may not see the need.

But, play a course that is firm, has a lot of wind and you will discover the joy...even necessity of playing the ball along the ground. It isn't a crutch at all....it's an option which is often taken away by misguided desires and insecurities.

Joe

[Mike_Young]

The ground game is misunderstood by many in my opinion.  Yes, it may be an enjoyable way to play the game for most of us and yes, we can talk of run ups "ground hooks, etc but the truth is ....if one plays it today in competition in the US..he gets beat....and in most other areas of the world....I think the last good example of a ground game really affecting play was the "Ben Curtis" Open.....and then it was mainly in the fairways not the greens....
JMO
Mike

[David_Madison]

Perhaps at some championship level, where all the players are bombing it and having predominantly short clubs coming in (especially in the US and where the wind isn't a dominant force) the ground game lessens in importance. But for the 99% of us not driving it 280+, who play the game for fun as a game, who hit more than just 9 irons thru wedges into greens and who miss more than our share of fairways, having non-aerial options makes the game far more interesting.

How about another important element of the ground game, what tee shots do after they land? The right trajectory and ball flight into fairways designed to acknowledge the ground game reward the well thought out and executed tee shot with added distance and/or superior positioning, and kick unsoundly thought through or executed tee shots into bunkers or into awkward angles complicating the next shot into the green. Perhaps at the top level of the game it's all about carry and then stopping the ball before it runs into trouble, but isn't a fairway contoured to give boosts to the right shot something to be valued?

[Andy Troeger]

Seeing as the golfer is not required to draw a picture but only to get the ball into the hole, it would seem to serve him/her well to be able to utilize both the aerial game and ground game. It seems likely that one proficient at both methods would beat one who could use one but not the other. (I'm ignoring the fact that some courses don't really allow the ground game...obviously there are those that do).

This is often understood in terms of the short game...we think of short game in terms of "artistry" at times with the various options available (on some courses). Although we think of "shotmakers" as being able to hit a myriad of iron shots, its not considered as much for the longer shots.

Personally, given the choice to hit a high iron shot or a ground-type shot, I'll take the high one every day. However, seeing as I play about half my approach shots out of the woods, the "ground game" option known as the punch out in the general direction of the green has served me well too!

[John Kirk]

Ross,

Welcome to the board.  You are obviously a great student of the game.  Sorry our first exchange was awkward.

You are correct that I think about approach play when discussing the ground game.  Especially on firm courses where the wind blows, like the Bandon courses in my home state of Oregon.  Then I'm trying to hit low shots into the wind or crosswind, and high shots downwind.  Give me a 10-15 mph breeze, and if I've got that low hook going, I'm tough, baby!

So for me, "the ground game" is a fairly specialized attribute which only a small percentage of courses possess.

[ForkaB]

The ground game is the "lob shot" of golf.

In tennis, if you want to be a good player, you need to have mastered the lob (defensive and offensive) and keep it in your arsenal--but it is rarely used in high level competition.  If you are a hacker, it is very often your only refuge, and you use it frequently.

Same with golf.

[tonyt]

I'll just say the same thing I say every time a ground thread comes up.

Most posters here are from the US, and suffer more over watering than much of the rest of the world. Thus, their view on the near lack of existence of the ground game is heavily biased by narrowed local experience.

I live in Melbourne, and just played 18 holes this morning on a course with large greens. On 11-12 holes today, the only possible play that prevented the ball going over the back was to achieve at least one and sometimes two bounces short of the green. On one hole, I hit a well struck nine iron accidentally a few yards too far and it carried onto the front edge of the green. I chipped back on from over the back. A few UK golfers know what I experienced, as do some others elsewhere. It was great fun. It was extremely interesting (such as when a player in our group wrong sided themselves with a trap to carry or the like and had to bunt cutting shots that ran up onto the green from an approach angle other than where they played from), it rewarded thinking and was perfectly fair as we all had the same requirements placed upon us. The tee shots had similar challenges at times where there were doglegs or runouts.

[Andrew Summerell]

Ross,

The most misunderstood concept is that most of the great courses, especially from the Golden era, were not meant to be set up as they are today or as they are in tournaments. Over-watered greens & fairways make most courses easier, especially to the better golfer.

Most people who refer to the need for the ground game to return to golf are actually suggesting it as a barometer to correct course set up, architecture & maintenance.

To suggest that the ground game is the refuge of the poor golfer is to discount the fact that the skilled architect would understand the balance required. A well designed course that is maintained firm enough for the ball to bounce onto the green will also be firm enough for the ball to bounce further into trouble. If this is not the case on the courses you are playing, then you need to be seeking out better courses to play.

As an architectural feature, a course that allows the ground game is a course that offers options. Most of the 15 handicap golfers that I have played with hit the ball reasonably well. If there is only one possible option on an approach shot & that is to fly a 7iron to the green, then they do that with reasonable proficiency. It's when they are given multiple option that they start to struggle, often scoring poorly due to bad choices.

Playing throughout Scotland or Ireland, or even the Melbourne Sandbelt allows most golfers to see the merits of a course set up for the possibility of the ground game. That is more of what is discussed here.

Don't forget, every green can have the ball flown to it; but maybe not every green should.

[ForkaB]

Andrew

You hint at what is the real paradox of this issue.

1.  Courses designed (or found) with "ground game" options play much easier (relatively) for the average (15-20) handicap player when they are NOT maintained firm and fast.  Under those conditions, the ball rolls enough to make it possible to hit the green with a scuttle, but not so far as to have the scuttle get into severe trouble.  In those conditions, the elite golfer will fire at the pin with impunity.

2.  Alternatively when such courses are really "tuned up" (as described by Tony above), the better players (who have the distance and direction to "really" play the ground game) come to the fore, and the average players are at a loss.  Their bread a butter shots fly thorugh greens or into bunkers and into positions that they do not have the skill to extricate themselves from.  To extend my tennis analogy above, they find that the lobs they have been so succesful with in their regular match vs. Mr. and Mrs. Haversham, just do not work when they are playing Roger Federer and Venus Williams.

The really great players (i.e. touring pros) will even be able toplay the aerial game under such conditions, if the situation requires it.  They can put so much spin on the ball than we can that they will stop shots from hardpan onto hardpan that defies our belief.  I have seen it, and it is sobering.

So, what is the architect (or the greenkeeper) to do?  Design and maintain a course that really tests the super-elite or one which is playable by a wide range of players?  The ones I know (from my 25+ years of playing and watching golf in Scotland) which do it the best try to keep the course at some happy medium most of the playing year (so as to not to discourage "les autres"), but then supercharge it for big events.  The result is that most of us never get a chance to see what fast and firm and the ground game really means, and tend to romanticise its egalitarian properties.

All IMHO, of course.

[Andy Troeger]

Tony,
  Doesn't the course you describe actually eliminate options at the other end of the spectrum from American courses? If it becomes almost impossible to land the ball on the green and keep it there (on a big green), then the only option becomes landing the ball short and we end up back where we started.

  That doesn't make it bad in my book, just as American courses that generally require the aerial game aren't bad. I happen to like some of them...but for those that are always going on about having "options" I don't see how that scenario is an improvement over the over-watered courses. It does bring more variables into play with how the ball bounces, where it ends up once it finally comes to a stop, etc.

  Just as with overwatering, it seems that the ground game can be overdone.

Rich,
  I think you make some good points regarding realistic set-up. I've never been able to understand how the pros can put so much spin on the ball...I certainly can't do it!

[Steve Curry]

The best golfers rarely use the ground game because they don't need to or are not able, due to conditions.  When pushed to use TGG their superiority is still evident.  

Steve

[Mike_Young]

Mike Y

I think you should review last year's Open.  The ground game was very much utilized.  In fact, at most Opens you will see the ground game used as an essential strategy.  

Sean,
I understand your drift....but I think we are both describing the ground game differently.  Say..Bobby Jones was known to hit a driver 300 yards....ok...maybe 180 were in the air and 120 were on the ground, so ground had a much higher percentage of the strategy than if a player hits it 270 in the air and has it roll out to 330 on a firm course.  I jusr believe that today, for most top players, there is much less problem in the air than on the ground.  Of course the good ones can handle both...but at the same time there are some very good players that grew up with investment cast cavity back irons and have one shot...they make enough money with that shot , and don't care to learn the ground game....AND I don't see good players that grew up with a ground game that don't have the "air" game of today.  
None of the above is to say that I don't think the ground game is fun but in most cases the percentages for the shot are in the air.
JMO
Mike

[BCrosby]

In a 1960 SI some pros were asked what hole they felt they played best at ANGC.

Some answers were predicatable. Palmer said the 15th because he felt he could use his cut 2i or 3i to good advantage to hit the green in two. Finsterwald liked the 12th because he felt he had great control over his medium irons.

But two answers surprised me. Doug Ford said that he always tried to land his approaches short of the 11th. If they bumped onto the green, fine. If not, he liked his chances chipping. In any event, he took a 6 out of the equation. He went on to say that he preferred chipping from the right side of a hole at ANGC than putting from the wrong side, thus he didn't mind missing greens if it was on the correct side.

Julius Boros said that because he hit a low ball, he had an advantage at 5. He said he always tried to roll his approaches up to the green with a 2i or 3i. Given the extreme contouring of the green, he felt his low ball, ground game gave him a distinct advantage over the field at holding the green.

So at least as late as the mid 60's, prominent pros still viewed the ground game as an important part of their repetoire.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

The lob in tennis is a pretty good analogy, but of course tennis is man against man, not man v. court.

Ross:

You denigrate the ground game as a "crutch of the weaker player" because you don't play those shots well, and it drives you crazy that some old guy who can barely get the ball in the air might be able to get around the course by using such lucky shots.  That's exactly why I try to leave a way for the old guy just as often as I can.  There is more than one way to play golf.  Proponents of the aerial game insist that their way is better and it shows more skill, but if so, you needn't worry when we give a ground game alternative.  [P.S.  Cognoscenti is one of those words which, if you're going to use it dismissively toward others, you should spell correctly.]

[Paul Payne]

I agree with the consensus of many of the posts here. When a course is soft you need to keep the ball high to get anywhere but in the fairways particlarly, the ball will stop not terribly far from where it landed.

When the ground is firm and undulating, it can change the play of a hole significantly. A great example is a simple dogleg left. Most players will struggle in hitting a draw but can play the shot to the corner and rely on the ball stopping not far from where it landed.

Now add significant bounce and roll to the same hole and the ball can easily skip right through the turn and into the rough. This forces the player to play the corner somehow. You either need to play a draw, bounce the corner, or layup short, but it does add another dimension to the game.

[Paul_Turner]

Short players can be remarkably straight.  I played with a lady, in her 70's, at Machrihanish- which has unforgiving forward tees with forced carries.  But she would routinely bound the ball along the worn grass path to the fairway.

[George Pazin]

TGG makes golf more interesting. Firm and fast conditions through the green makes golf so much more interesting than the drop and stop aerial game. Obviously it is dependent on the weather in many respects, but the fact that it tends to be consistently evident at the 2 Opens leads me to conclude that it is as dependent on the persons responsible for setting up the course as the weather.

I'd suggest that if you are dismissing the ground game, perhaps it is misunderstood by you.

[JESII]

More than anything else, confusion begins with the very definition of "the ground game" (henceforth "TGG").  Too many people on here want to make it only about approach shots to the green.  

I feel like the ground game really applies to two areas:  (1) fairway contours, (2) chipping/recovery options.  These are truly the areas where any player could take advantage of a course designed with multiple TGG options.  

What are your thoughts on TGG?

I tried to edit your post for efficiency, I hope you don't mind.

I really have just one question in regards to your stated views on TGG and where it is or should/could be applied.

Which of the three opportunities (fairway, approach or chipping) to utilize TGG offers the greatest downside to misinterpretation?

IF you think a fairway is firmer or softer than the reality, how often is the penalty really severe? Not too often by my experience.

If you misjudge the green when chipping to it how much trouble are you likely to get in?

Guessing wrong on the firmness of a green (and its approach) when you are in the fairway can be disasterous, or at the very least cost one full shot.


p.s. I agree with the above statement that TGG is more a maintenance concern and characteristic of the courses we praise for having it than an architectural concern although Tom Doak's comments about designing in an avenue for the shorter hitter should hit home.

[RJ_Daley]

TGG is not misunderstood by most contributors on GCA.com who sing its praises.  The proper incorporation of TGG into a golf course design is revered by many on GCA.com because it is an option of design that upholds the traditions of the game.  TGG was being set aside by many modern architects because of conventional wisdon that crept into the golf scene and one dimensional play by U.S. centric golfers.  The modern golf course design model became one based on lush green and generally soft conditions.  Uniformly narrow FWs 27-35' wide, and flat soft greens began to utilise repetitive bunkering at inside and outside doglegs in the LZ and greenside Bs guarding flattish, perhaps sectional/tiered greens as the primary and repetitive strategy.  When width, lines of charm, bunkering within the FWs went away, so did the understanding of TGG.  

A crutch for the weaker player is a canard.  I remember a guy winning the 2000 Open, never getting into a B, and bounding the ball artfully to all the rightly selected places in FWs and onto greens from short of putting surfaces.  He was never considered a weak player, yet he did not misunderstand the appropriate time to use TGG.

[tonyt]

Tony,
  Doesn't the course you describe actually eliminate options at the other end of the spectrum from American courses? If it becomes almost impossible to land the ball on the green and keep it there (on a big green), then the only option becomes landing the ball short and we end up back where we started.

  That doesn't make it bad in my book, just as American courses that generally require the aerial game aren't bad. I happen to like some of them...but for those that are always going on about having "options" I don't see how that scenario is an improvement over the over-watered courses. It does bring more variables into play with how the ball bounces, where it ends up once it finally comes to a stop, etc.

  Just as with overwatering, it seems that the ground game can be overdone.

Not in the context that we are in the heart of summer, and during the 2-3 months in the heart of winter the ball will stop on a dime. In between times, there are loads of options and variations of the two. The course is not TGG overdone, but a course living in its environment.

My example was also not to espouse this course's strategy (it is an unremarkable course overall), but to once again remind many of our American friends that the conditions they play on are not representative of what is out there everywhere else. usually in these threads, some bright spark espouses that one can't play modern golf landing a ball short of a large green and I always feel compelled to correct them.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Rich,
  I think you make some good points regarding realistic set-up. I've never been able to understand how the pros can put so much spin on the ball...I certainly can't do it!

The pros lay up to a full swing distance. The higher the loft of the club they use at that distance the more spin they can create. The faster the swing speed the more spin they can create. The higher spinning ball they use, the more spin they can create (in GD, Tiger says he uses a higher spin ball than everyone else).

Therefore, hit all your drives to SW or LW distance, swing at full speed, use the highest spin ball you can find, catch the ball cleanly and you will begin to approximate the spin of the pros. But then, since you probably don't carry your drives anywhere near 300 yds, you will only approximate the spin of the pros.

[Jason Blasberg]

Ross:

My take on the ground game and it's relevance to GCA has always come down to one core issue:  variety.  

If a player has multiple options from tee to green, and on the green, then the game is more exciting and the margin for error arguably increases since the possible methods of execution and corresponding failure increase.  If you're only shot to a particular green is a forced carry you either carry it or you don't, but if you can bump and run a shot or carry a shot you've got two possible shots and two possible ways to screw it up.  It also greatly enhances the rub of the green, which is a variable that makes the game very exciting, although less predictable which is why the PGA Tour doesn't prefer it.  

In comparison, if the line of play is dictated to the player off of every tee, I think the player will become resentful of his lack of choice, and, in fact, bored with no option other than hit it straight, avoiding the trees and/or bunkers that define the boundary of play.  The same thing applies to approach shots . . . if I've got a forced carry into 18 greens and the approach is either up or in a bunker or other form of hazard, I'd say that will become boring, and also single dimensioned.  It will test my ability to control distance and trajectory but it will not test my imagination or ability to recover.

It also takes out the risk reward element which should be ubiquitous in first rate design, IMO.  For instance, perhaps a forced carry over a menacing bunker is required to get within 10 feet of a particular pin but a bump and run can be played to get the player within 30 feet, totally avoiding the bunker and the line it is on.  Multiply that type of choice over 18 holes and you're giving the player more ways to enjoy the game, more shots to attempt to hit, and also, btw, more things to think about which may cause some indecision and lead to more unforced errors.                

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()