Risk/Reward strategy for air game vs. ground game

[Mike_Young]

Is the risk reward strategy of classic architecture ,whereby the ground game ruled, reversed with the air game?  

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, with the set up of much of modern golf (soft fairways, soft greens), there is NO strategy!  Just bombs away down the middle, dial in the number for the approach shot, hit the target and it's a birdie putt on a flattish, very fast and smooth green.

All of the old strategy of 'hit closer to the hazard for the best line into the hole location' is out the window under the modern scenario.

That combined with square grooves is what makes "flogging" such a successful strategy.

Maybe that's the "new strategy" of strategic golf!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike, great question and it has changed, IMHO.

For instance, its generally acknowledged best to tee near a hazard like OB and play away on a tee shot, bending it back to the middle.

Using the similar strategy, would the best line on an approach be from the bunker side (assuming one side bunker only) aiming away and bending back to the green?  Many think so, reducing the importance of the frontal opening.

For that matter, for good players, (and even forgetting the benign nature of most modern bunkers) its green contour that sets the approach strategy.  You need to put the features closer in - like in the green contours.  Things like a spike contour coming in from the sides that you have to carry to get to the pin are replacing carry bunkers off the tee as the challenge hazard.

I wonder if there is any real documentation that the hit it close to the fw hazard strategy works as well as we assume. Given how important the frontal opening was with old equipment and no irrigation, do you think some average golfers asked. "What happens if I can't carry or skirt that fairway bunker?" and didn't like the answer of "Well, you're just screwed then!"

At the same time, good players now (and presumably then) are expert at course management to avoid trouble.  They are so good, I would bet no Tour Pro comes close to answering the question, "Do these pants make my butt look fat?"  If they were on greens committees, it may have been them rather than the gca's who changed architecture, in their minds for the better.

I think that course architecture went away from that type of design not because all modern architects are idiots, or affected too much by landscape architecture, but because by and large, that it was a considered decision to use other strategies that seemed more fruitful, esp. considering all players, the modern ball, and whatever else was thrown in our way.

I believe that most courses can stand one or two carry fw hazards as a representative strategy, but I wonder if the golden age courses that employed them on nearly every hole seemed as repetitive back then as modern designs sometimes do today.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, I think it has been drasically affected to some degree, simply because of the loss of variety and more, a steadfast formula for a certain theme or rhythm.

There just aren't enough Sportsman-like plays in this day and age, where you can take a chacne to aim high and blind to a carry which will uniquely get the ball on to the green and close to the pin if you place it in the right spot, and if your willing to take that chance. This is the type of architeture that makes it playable for every form of golfer. several different ways to the intended target, each and everyone of them a different challenge that compliment each other.

Think Riviera #5 for example. If you could also visualize the original 12th, "Mae West" at Bel Air, and how it used to exist, where the chore was to get the ball to the hole over those two rather large mammaries in a sporty kind of way. That to me was the kind of carry that is fun and interesting. Don't get me wrong, I occasionally like it when I have to carry a bunker to a pin for a different line played, albeit the wrong line if I want to be near the pin or in the bunker.

The point is tha having the variety throughout the round and catching the golfer ungurded and unsuspecting, a balance instead of so much the same formula throughout the round being my point. I hope that makes sense.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff and Bill,
Instead of " do these pants make my butt look fat"  I was asked " am I too good looking for my height?"  
Anyway, Bill, I still don't consider it flogging.....
but what I was getting at was this, and let me try to explain in my words, and it may still not be clear.
In the ground game one was to keep the ball between them and the hole and so it was more critical to have an open approach in which to roll the ball forward but as we have evolved towards more modern equipment then distance control becomes much easier.
OK...let's say you have a dogleg left with an inside bunker at 290 and that if one carries this bunker he has an open approach to a green where the Direction of Play runs thru the length of the green which may be 100 feet long and 50 feet wide with a bunker on the front length.  Now if one bails out to the right on the tee shot....he is left with a carry over the bunker to much less depth than on the left side approach.  Having said all of this try to picture the area of dispersion from which one can land his green approach.  It is much narrower from the left side of the fairway than the right side of the fairway.  
IO bring this up because a Tour player was describing the scenario to me last week and it made sense.  His thought was that today  tour players know exactly how far they will carry the shot and hazards infront of the carry don't concern them at all.  Thus he would much rather miss the ball left or right o target at the correct distance.  Having said this strategy would be reversed.  JMO

[BCrosby]

Great post Jeff.

No doubt the modern game has obsoleted lots of the strategic features of Golden Age courses. Green openings mean much less today.

But one consideration that still affects strategic decsisons - even when all approaches are aerial - is line of sight. Even really good players want to see as much of the pin as possible. Preferrably all of it.

Greenside bunker may be irrelevant to a good player as a hazard.  But bunkers (and other features) can will block line of sight and that still matters. Even to good players. They still try to position their drives to mazimize their look at the pin. And that means fw bunkering can still have a classic strategic function.

Bob  

P.S. One of the things that Flynn seemed to do on all of his courses I've seen is to extend the brow of his greenside bunkers higher than the green surface just behind them. His bunkering does a very good job of messing with line of sight. Even on otherwise flat holes.

[Mike_Young]

And Jeff,
I forgot...no doubt strategy should still be "defend par at the greens"
But my point in this is........
If strategy has changed why RESTORE???

[JSlonis]

To answer your original question:  I'm not sure it is reversed, but it is definitely different.

It is my opinion, that the "ground game" options are way too overvalued, even on the great classic courses that allow for these types of shots.  To be honest, the only time I'd really consider hitting a run up type shot, is if I'm trying to play out of trouble, like having to hit a low punch to avoid trees, etc.  If the ball is in play, it's just an easier shot, with less variables, if the ball is hit up in the air.

If a course is set up very firm, for example like Huntingdon Valley CC, then you have to start thinking a bit.  You can bounce balls in from the front of the greens, but you are still hitting fairly high shots, you're just trying to land it at a certain point.  There aren't many guys hitting low bumps from 150 yards out...at least, not on purpose.

[BCrosby]

But my point in this is........
If strategy has changed why RESTORE???

Because for the 99.9% of golfers who aren't Tour quality players the location of the openning at the front of the green still matters.

Bob

[ForkaB]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  Good players (e.g. JH Taylor) could get backspin on 165 yard shots to hard links greens over 100 years ago.  When you can get backspin, the risk/reward equation favors the aerial game over the ground game on virtually every shot over 50 yards.  Ground game options are good and fun, as Tommy and others have said, but they are the strategically correct shot only for one who can't effectively play the aerial shot or are particularly risk-averse.  This is not a new thing.  It was so when all of the "golden age" courses were built too.  IMHO, of course.

[Mike_Young]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  Good players (e.g. JH Taylor) could get backspin on 165 yard shots to hard links greens over 100 years ago.  When you can get backspin, the risk/reward equation favors the aerial game over the ground game on virtually every shot over 50 yards.  Ground game options are good and fun, as Tommy and others have said, but they are the strategically correct shot only for one who can't effectively play the aerial shot or are particularly risk-averse.  This is not a new thing.  It was so when all of the "golden age" courses were built too.  IMHO, of course.

I agree.  But now one can dial in distance much more consistently than even 25 years ago.

[Jeff_Brauer]

J Slonis,

I agree for better players - the only time I saw Tiger use a running approach, it was to an on course restroom when he had gastric distress....its still a good option for about 90% of the players who show up every day.

Mike,

The scenario you describe is exactly why we use more flanking bunkers now, and fewer carry bunker than the Golden Age.  All players miss left and right, only poor ones miss short, so they punish the wrong player.

Another reason not to restore - we still have to account for space eating cart paths that weren't ever in the original design, not to mention flooding creeks and other conditions that have arisen that would have sent Tillie right back to the bottle. (I know from Phillip Young that he did go straght)

However, I think we have learned to be sympathetic to the general look of the course, rather than impose a new look, if the course is any good at all.  Adding a new style tends to look like putting six pounds of whatever into a five pound bag, no?

I agree with you that the restoration talk is mostly great sales more than an actual solution in all but a handful of courses.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

The importance of the ground game has always been over-stated.

But the aerial v. ground game is the wrong distinction. Mike Y touches on it above. Everyone plays aerial approaches.

Pros miss approaches east or west. Rarely north south. Fronting bunkers are largely irrelevant to them. Probably always have been.

Regular players miss approaches in all four directions. Theywant to approach through an opening not because they want to bounce it through the gap (nobody plays bump and runs) but because the opening means their fat shot (a miss on the south side) won't land in a bunker.  All things being equal, they would rather approach from an angle that takes a hazard out of the equation.

Though everyone plays the aerial game, traditional strategic schemes still have some teeth for the non-pro.

And that's why recovering classic strategic schemes is usually worth it.

Bob

[JSlonis]

Jeff,

I agree somewhat, but I play with guys of all skill levels at our club, and I just don't see the average player attempting "ground game" type shots that often. Obviously when someone can't hit the ball in the air all that far, these types of shots are hit, but in my view, they are hit more out of neccessity than they are hit because someone views it as an actual option.

The only time I really see the ground game being used by a player is when they are out of all other options.

Sometimes, a higher skill level is required to hit the run up type shots than any other.

[wsmorrison]

The slightly uphill 250 (from the tips) yard par 3 10th at Rolling Green is a hole that was designed with a low running draw in mind when it opened in 1926 and still plays that way today for nearly all the members and most players today particularly given the firmer and faster conditioning advanced by Charlie Carr.

Here's a photo from the My Home Course piece I wrote.  The photo was taken from the back of the members' tee, the championship tee is about 25 yards further back.  Too bad they don't put in Flynn's 260 tee as drawn.  While no longer my home course, it still remains a course dear to me and one I love to play:

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I agree somewhat, but I play with guys of all skill levels at our club, and I just don't see the average player attempting "ground game" type shots that often.

Well, they may not be attempting it, but it happens often enough nonetheless!

[Mike_Young]

Rich -

The importance of the ground game has always been over-stated.

But the aerial v. ground game is the wrong distinction. Mike Y touches on it above. Everyone plays aerial approaches.

Pros miss approaches east or west. Rarely north south. Fronting bunkers are largely irrelevant to them. Probably always have been.

Regular players miss approaches in all four directions. Theywant to approach through an opening not because they want to bounce it through the gap (nobody plays bump and runs) but because the opening means their fat shot (a miss on the south side) won't land in a bunker.  All things being equal, they would rather approach from an angle that takes a hazard out of the equation.

Though everyone plays the aerial game, traditional strategic schemes still have some teeth for the non-pro.

And that's why recovering classic strategic schemes is usually worth it.

Bob

Bob,
I agree with your statements but don't you think that the great old courses that host championships will continue to be defined by the scoring of the pros.  And thus it will trickle.  

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

I suspect most people play the 10th at RG on the ground because they can't reach the green in the air, even with their best Sunday punch.

Mike Y -

Yes, courses are defined by how the pros score on them in tournaments. Thanks goodness there are a limited number of tournament venues.

The concerns you and Jeff raise are interesting and real. What they point to is how thoroughly the game has become bifurcated. Most clearly demonstrated by the great old courses whose architecture is now irrelevant for top tier players. But those courses are still very relevant for the handicap player.

Bob

[George Pazin]

Not much I can add here, other than to note that it's bad to emphasize the aerial game at the expense of the ground game, imho. In other words, those fronting bunkers don't really test the pros, but they do cause big problems for those looking to run something in from a long distance.

As to why RESTORE, I still think the old guys understood most things, even today's aerial game, better than a lot of the new guys looking to change their work. Sorry if that sounds rude. I can surely say I've enjoyed the older classics I've played more than most of the newer courses (except for The Rawls Course, which may not emphasize the ground game, but does allow for it).

[wsmorrison]

"I suspect most people play the 10th at RG on the ground because they can't reach the green in the air, even with their best Sunday punch."

That's right, Bob.  Flynn was testing the ability to hit a low running draw on that hole.  For nearly every golfer in 1926 and most today, it is too far to carry let alone carry and hold.

[Mark_Fine]

Watch the Western Open when it is played in a week and a half at Cog Hill #4.  I just played the course last week and it is the poster child for aerial golf.  You feel on almost every shot that you have to hit something high and soft into the greens (particularly to the tougher pin positions).  This was a typical trait of Dick Wilson but at Cog Hill #4 it is very pronounced.  They also need a chainsaw out there but that is another story.

Recovery shots are one of the areas where the ground game option is so important.  There are few if any recovery shots on aerial golf courses (especially those heavily planted with trees) unless you can run balls through bunkers.  

[Bill_McBride]

You are so right about Cog Hill #4 - some of the lobes of those clover-shaped greens are so small the effective area is maybe 400 SF.  Very small targets, and lots of opportunities to bounce over into deep bunkers.  The softness of the greens is what keeps scoring low there, any hint of firmness would increase scoring dramatically.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

The slightly uphill 250 (from the tips) yard par 3 10th at Rolling Green is a hole that was designed with a low running draw in mind when it opened in 1926 and still plays that way today for nearly all the members and most players today particularly given the firmer and faster conditioning advanced by Charlie Carr.

Here's a photo from the My Home Course piece I wrote.  The photo was taken from the back of the members' tee, the championship tee is about 25 yards further back.  Too bad they don't put in Flynn's 260 tee as drawn.  While no longer my home course, it still remains a course dear to me and one I love to play:

Wayne -

I love the hole!

Much of the Pro Stategy today is a "Holding Shot."  They draw it against a left to right wind and vice versa because the shot is in greater control.  While I might be tempted to hit a drawn 2 iron here, many penalties exist in the ground game/ground hook:

1) I hit the dreaded straight ball into the right bunker and now am faced with a difficult up and down at the mercy of sand spin and green speed.

2) I crush it with the perfect hook and run it through the back of the green.

3) I overcook it into the left bunkers or worse.  While the up and down is uphill, chances are that the low running draw has worked towards the edge of the bunker, leaving me an awkward stance.

Here are the opposites to the draw on this hole's ground game strategy dictate by my contrastrategization by using the fade through the air:

1) I overcook it into the right bunkers or worse.  Covered above.

2) I crush it with the perfect cut and run it TO the back of the green since my cut/fade/slice is shorter than my draw/hook

3) I hit the dreaded straight ball into the left bunkers for an uphill up and down.  I might plug, but I've got an uphill shot.

Given the options, I like my odds with the faded 3 wood.  

So, I'll cut a 3 metal instead and try to hold it between the edge of the bunker and the pin.  I have less to worry about since my slice/fade/cut might listen (My draw frequently does its own thing), and I might be left with an uphill birdie putt.  Even if I miss it by the margin of the space from the edge of the green to the pin on the uphill side of the hole, the appearance of #10 at RG looks to me as if the shot could really get away from you with a less than perfect shot.  So maybe I am proving that the aerial game is negating strategic design.  Maybe we're getting smarter and better with our new implements?

I am not begging the question here, but aerial play on the risk reward on this hole will actually hold the shot better - all things considered that I have not played it.  But I have outlined my thoughts on the first time I would play it.

Mayday Malone, my Yale amigo from yesterday, what do you think of my strategy in playing #10 at RG???

JWK

"Chicks dig the Ground Game"

"When you throw the ball, 3 things can happen, and two of them are bad..."

[wsmorrison]

James,

You take in a lot from a photo and very well I might add.  There is a drop off behind the hole that makes chipping back to the green running away from you very challenging, especially to back pins.  Perhaps this is one area where the rear of the green might be cut short so that balls run a bit more down the slope.  Look, its a hard hole so nothing needs be done, but that might be worth a look.  

This is the third in a very difficult collection of holes with the steeply uphill 425 yard 8th (I proposed a new back tee +25 yards that brings a crossing stream more into play) and the 620 yard uphill 9th with a significant left to right slope.  A wonderful Amen Corner.

You should try and play Rollin Green if you get the chance, with Malone if you are desperate  

[George Pazin]

Recovery shots are one of the areas where the ground game option is so important.  There are few if any recovery shots on aerial golf courses (especially those heavily planted with trees) unless you can run balls through bunkers.  

This is a terrific point that is often overlooked.

Too often, all of the discussion of a course centers around options  when strategizing about how to play a hole. And just as often, this entails discussing what happens when you hit it in the fairway.

Obviously my playing level has a lot to do with this, but what generally interests me most is how one goes about playing a hole when one doesn't hit the tee shot as planned.