[Kyle Harris]

One of the nice things about gaining a perspective on maintence of golf courses is to discover the amount of emphasis placed on areas that one would not necessarily think are emphasized.

Approachs to greens are one of them.

They're typically mowed seperately in order to minimize the amount of turning down on them by fairway mowers near the green and also to provide shorter cut to allow for more "speed" on run-up approaches.

I've often found that some of the best of the Old Dead Guys put just as much (or even more) emphasis in the design of the approaches over that of the greens. Tillinghast seems especially good at building approaches that both tie in with the green and affect strategy from the fairway.

Why isn't more emphasis placed on approaches in the modern game?

[Gary Slatter]

On our Dick Wilson designed Lucayan Country Club  more "average" players are driving past the fairways on some par 4s, our approaches vary but most start 40 yards from the front of the green.  With our older bermuda grass we find that by working the approaches we also get better comments from our northern golfers who have not learned the art of bermuda short shot making, a different approach entirely.
I think it enhances what Wilson wanted, as you mention the short grass "speeds" up the ball, so on our bermuda doesn't have the regular velcro effect on a runner.

[TEPaul]

"Why isn't more emphasis placed on approaches in the modern game?"

Probably because most all architects and golfers today are so much more focused on aerial shots into greens than they were in the old days.

You're too young, Kyle, to really remember ground game golf but I'm not. My Dad who started playing top flight golf in the late 1940s and early 1950s was what I call a "transition" golfer. In other words, he was transitioning to the new equipment that was more aerial oriented but he and his friends still had their old ground game shots and they did not hesitate to use them when they had to or wanted to. The ground game shots they used to play you very rarely see anyone in America use anymore (unless they're coming out of the woods or something ).

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul has it right.  They aren't as important as they used to be, and won't be until they start making clubs and balls with "less spin!" and "More Roll!" A subtle bump here and there in front of the green rarely affects play, although I played one of my own courses yesterday and I recall that ten years ago, I used to put a solitary bump on the front of my greens more often than I do now.

Sadly, gca's probably put as much thought into the walk ups from the cart path as they do the approach areas.....these are the true new approach areas, and of course, we must now consider ADA and other things.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom/Kyle,

I've had some days where I've played the ground game quite unintentionally.  

I believe Tom witnessed one of those at Tavistock a few years back, with me playing a twosome with Jamie no less.  

Thankfully, my game seems to have come around rather nicely this year.   Perhaps all the stress, overwork, and lack of practice are finally working!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

If TEPaul is right, it's either by accident, or he overheard what I said and is merely repeating it.

Kyle,

Approaches suffered the most from the advent of modern irrigation systems.

Sprinkler heads which irrigated 360 degrees kept them soft and wet, hence golfers avoided using them since they lost their functionality due to unintended consequences.

Even today, many, if not most clubs have failed to realign their green irrigation systems or modify the heads to only water inward.

In addition, with many, if not most greens sloped back to front, the approach becomes a runoff point for water applied naturally or by man.

[JSlonis]

I would definitely echo what TEPaul stated above.  The modern game is predominately an aerial game.  I truely believe that the only time you'll see the good players of today's era play the ball to "run up", is if they are in trouble of some sort or have to hit a punch shot and that type of approach is the ONLY option left.  I realize the ground game is extolled by members of this site, but the reality is, it's a lot easier to hit a ball from point A to point B in the air, than it is to bounce it along the ground.  The aerial game eliminates the variables that occur with the ground game.  

I would also agree that today's irrigation practices and course conditions also discourage the approach areas from being more thought of in the design process.  Outside of a very few courses I play throughout the year, the idea of bouncing a ball into the green is ridiculous.  The approaches are simply too soft to even try that type of shot.

Tom/Kyle,

I've had some days where I've played the ground game quite unintentionally.  

I believe Tom witnessed one of those at Tavistock a few years back, with me playing a twosome with Jamie no less.  

Thankfully, my game seems to have come around rather nicely this year.   Perhaps all the stress, overwork, and lack of practice are finally working!!

Mike,

Didn't I tell you that you need to totally block out days like that?  

When TCC reopens next year, you have a standing invitation to come see the work that was done and exact your revenge on Mr. Findlay.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Didn't I tell you that you need to totally block out days like that?  

When TCC reopens next year, you have a standing invitation to come see the work that was done and exact your revenge on Mr. Findlay.

Jamie,

You're a more generous man than I am because I'm not so sure I'd have me back after that display, despite my birdie from the woods on the final hole!   I still cringe at the chilling memories, but am working on the "block", per your suggestion.  

I'd love to come back and I'm very excited to see all of the work Jim and Ron are doing out there.   Thank you very much for your generosity and obvious blindness to what was a horrific, nighmarish display of something similar to golf.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II, TEPaul & Jeff Brauer,

But, has the modern game become more aerial because of the soft conditions, almost universally created, by automated irrigation systems introduced and employed generously in modern times ?

You only have to hit ONE approach shot that stops short of the green to recognize that that's no longer the way to get close to a fronting hole location.

Conclusion, end of ground game, airborne all the way.

[JESII]

JES II, TEPaul & Jeff Brauer,

But, has the modern game become more aerial because of the soft conditions, almost universally created, by automated irrigation systems introduced and employed generously in modern times ?

You only have to hit ONE approach shot that stops short of the green to recognize that that's no longer the way to get close to a fronting hole location.

Conclusion, end of ground game, airborne all the way.

I guess that is my summons to get engeged in this thread Patrick? I miss you to, hence my attempt to start a little tussle with you on the Garden City thread. Sadly you and Gib missed the sarcastic humor intended by demeaning your golf game on that one.

Anyway, I assume you confused me with Jamie and his posts above which elevates me into a class beyond my qualifications.

My answer to your first question in the post above is no, I think the modern game has become more aerial because equipment enhances that apporach and green firmness (or lack thereof) permit it. I think the approaches are very important (the "lynchpin" as TEP labels it), but not as important as the green in determining ideal approach trajectory.

[JSlonis]

Pat,

The aerial game is definitely driven by conditioning.  Your example of hitting short of a green with a front hole location is a perfect example.  On too many courses the softness of the green approaches eliminates any type of bounce or run up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I miss you to, hence my attempt to start a little tussle with you on the Garden City thread. Sadly you and Gib missed the sarcastic humor intended by demeaning your golf game on that one.

JES II,

I didn't miss it.
I just ignored and/or deflected it through humor.

My answer to your first question in the post above is no, I think the modern game has become more aerial because equipment enhances that apporach and green firmness (or lack thereof) permit it.

You're viewing the issue in the context of recent enhancements to equipment.
Automated Irrigation systems came into vogue in the 60's.
I don't believe that there were any great enhancements in equipment in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Ping Irons were probably the first substantive enhancement in decades.

I think the approaches are very important (the "lynchpin" as TEP labels it), but not as important as the green in determining ideal approach trajectory.

Haven't enhancements in equipment muted that need as well ?

[TEPaul]

Up at the Lesley Cup this year at Hyannisport there were 4-5 greens you could definitely land the ball well short of the green and have it bounce right on beautifully. On a couple of them, particularly downwind you pretty much had to do that to hold the ball on the green. I just love that stuff, it's a ball to figure out the reduced yardage and club select accordingly.

[LBaker]

Tom, I agree that today's game is arial.  Does your IMM have a specific program or practice for the approaches?

Is it possible to bring back the old game with the new clubs/balls and the advancement of the golf course managment equipment?

My answer is No.  Unfortunately, most memberships want a pretty/green course to look at (mostly in America) and also want to spend $$ on high-end drivers and irons.

Why did Calloway stop making golf clubs with the Hickery Stick shafts?

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff Brauer,

If TEPaul is right, it's either by accident, or he overheard what I said and is merely repeating it.

Kyle,

Approaches suffered the most from the advent of modern irrigation systems.

Sprinkler heads which irrigated 360 degrees kept them soft and wet, hence golfers avoided using them since they lost their functionality due to unintended consequences.

Even today, many, if not most clubs have failed to realign their green irrigation systems or modify the heads to only water inward.

In addition, with many, if not most greens sloped back to front, the approach becomes a runoff point for water applied naturally or by man.

Pat,

At the 3 courses on which I've worked on the maintenance staff the approaches were maintained either seperately or as a part of the green in terms of watering and conditioning. Coincidentally, all three of these courses features more integrated approaches with the green features, especially here at Mountain Lake. Though my experience is limited, I have yet to encounter a course where approaches weren't maintained seperately or in a different manner than the fairway.

Often times, the location and design necessitate different cutting or watering practices. Having a fiveplex fairway unit turning in between two bunkers gaurding a tight approach would be suicide for the superintendent, and sometimes even a triplex is too much. Many courses hand mow their approaches and some go so far as to hand mow out to 50 or 75 yards (see Hudson National). The labor is costly, but the maintenance is different still. Indeed, the advent of direction heads has allowed irrigation to be VERY specific in differentiating between green and approach maintenance. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. It's the application that could be wrong.

My opinion is becoming such that the architecture of the approach can and will determine the maintenance practices of the approach.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't agree AT ALL that the aerial game is brought on soley by modern conditioning.

Read the Golden Age golf design books and those gca's are already lamenting that demise of the ground game that the old Scots played.  And that was well before irrigation systems had the ability to make courses too wet.  Yes there were systems, but they had 1/10th the capacity of modern systems and were generally for tees and greens only in those days. Our rose colored glasses are distorting history!  

In America, the ground game dissappeared once Wilson and Spalding started to improve their clubs and balls, using good old American ingenuity and Henry Ford mass production techniques, rather than the craftsman approach found at the old Tom Morris shop and others.

Golfers have wanted their shots to take flight forever.  Its the golf equipment, not the irrigation equipment!  If anything, the modern maintenance levels, which provide smoother turf than ever probably HELP the ground game.  Early, bumpy and unreliable fw and approach areas pre-irrigation probably discouraged the ground game, as in America, smooth turf in varied conditions couldn't be achieved as well as in Scotland with their fescues.

Pat, please stop perpetuating this myth!

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I think you've got that half right.

Modern equipment let the average player hit the ball in the air.  But then the average player was upset when his ball hit the green and didn't hold it, so he started asking for the greens to be pitched toward him more (the Golden Age architects debated this in their books) and also watered more.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I agree with your conclusions completely. Kyle mentioned Tillinghast earlier and Tilly considered the design of the approach to the green as the single most important aspect of course design. He began each of his holes from this perspective. But that was solely because the game  then was based upon shot-making and ball control. Eveb after technological advances from the teens and even earlier allowed for greater distance and truer and higher ball flight, the green entrances were still very much in play.

As technology further brought on distance, higher and truer ball flights, the importance of the green entrance lessened. That the 30-40 yards before a green is dry, tight and fast or wet, sloggy and slow means nothing when the vast majority of balls fly over them.

Tom, I'm not sure I follow your thought of how the average player being "upset when his ball hit the green and didn't hold it, so he started asking for the greens to be pitched toward him more (the Golden Age architects debated this in their books) and also watered more" explains the lessening of importance in the green approaches, but rather bolsters the idea that they disappear in importance with balls routinely flying over them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Yes, I considered posting that, especially since there was a time in the Golden Age (on good courses) and through the 60's (on lesser courses) when only greens were irrigated, probably as the most critical turf areas, and also, as you suggest, because golfers wanted shots to hold like the pros.

That probably accelearted the aerial trend because you couldn't rely on the bumpy ground to get near the hole but you could rely on a soft green to hold a shot.

Even if that was the case, it is golf course conditions that cause the aerial game or is it the mental conditions of golfers with golf courses simply reacting to what they demand?  If the latter, then its not conditionings fault in the big picture, is it?  

The tone of some posts on here suggests that golfers just have to accept the conditions forced upon them by the super.  In reality, the super is under constant pressure from the golfers.

[JSlonis]

I don't think Pat is saying that the aerial game of today is brought on solely by conditioning.  It is quite evident that it is a combination of equipment and conditioning.  The golf equipment of today is geared toward helping the player get the ball higher in the air.  This is occuring at all levels of play.  The new hybrid clubs are a great example.  They are becoming very popular at even the highest levels of play.  The traditional 2-3-4 iron is going by the wayside.  The newer hybrids are much easier to hit and help the golfer a great deal.

While equipment enhances the aerial game, I really don't think you can discount the role that irrigation and maintenance play in this discussion.  I play the majority of my golf here in the Northeast, and outside of just a few courses, conditions in this area are generally way softer than they need to be.  Unfortunately, the "green is good" theory is alive and well.  If the conditions simply don't allow for the golf ball to bounce along the ground, what's the golfer to do?  

[RJ_Daley]

Tom Doak, which golden age architect in the US designed with the idea of firm approaches and discouraging aerial assaults directly at the hole on the green?  I think from my readings of Chris Clouser's fine book, it may have been Perry Maxwell with his tendancy to build several front to back slopes per course.  I haven't played PD but would be curious of those who would comment on any tendancies of approach and fall away greens that promote or offer this style of play.

Do we need to see uniform GCA from hole to hole that always considers the option of the ground game with firm open but nosey approaches encouraging the exciting bounding into the greensite option?  I don't think so.  But, to have a few holes like that, with specific maintenance ability and philosophy on those approaches would be nice, I think.

I believe Jim Thompson has two holes at Angels Crossing with this sort of possibility in #s7 with the big sweeping kicker slope down seft to right to the large angled green, and more so at the moderately downslope all the way into #14, with the green continuing to fall away.

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:  They weren't as prolific as some, but Walter Travis and Max Behr both railed against the tendency to build up the back of greens.  The most passionate on the subject though was old George Low, who wrote that EVERY green should fall away from the line of play.

Jeff:  The most important thing I was told in my year overseas was from Walter Woods at St. Andrews:  "The good player sees the conditions, and allows for them."  That is their attitude about golf.  Americans complain about the conditions and pay big bucks to change them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, et. al.,

Aren't most modern greens/approaches oriented to optimize the direct approach, from 90 degrees, as opposed to offset approaches which favor one side of the fairway over all others ?

How many greens favor an approach from the extreme left or right of the fairway ?

While I realize that many fairways have been narrowed, do you ever come across greens that favor an approach from the right or left rough, areas that used to be fairways ?

And, on modern courses, how many holes do you find that resemble # 6 at Pacific Dunes where the prefered angle of approach is from an extreme angle, which is difficult to get to (read risk/reward) ?

JSlonis,

You're correct in interpreting my post.
Soft approaches exaccerbated the problem, they weren't the sole problem

[TEPaul]

"While I realize that many fairways have been narrowed, do you ever come across greens that favor an approach from the right or left rough, areas that used to be fairways?

The 8th at Shinneock is one of those.

But speaking about severely front to back sloping greens do you remember my so-called "Play-back" hole from about 5-6 years ago?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

In light of your comments, has your thinking changed with resepct to the presentation you make to golfers approaching your greens ?

Have you revised your thinking with respect to the "tilt" in greens ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()