Forcing the ground game.....

« **on:** January 28, 2007, 10:55:25 PM »

.....by maybe designing a minimum of 3000 sq' or less of pinnable area integrated with 3000 sq' or more of apron or collar......hmmmmm......zzzzzzzzz.

« **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:04:02 PM »

......but would you incorporate contours and movement from the outside and the inside and treat them as one?

« **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:05:14 PM »

duh.......yes

.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:18:03 PM »

Quote from: paul cowley on January 28, 2007, 11:05:14 PM

duh.......yes .

Paul, I am not trying to question the design aspects, but I do think a lot of superintendents might have a problem with the small amount of pin areas.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:26:05 PM »

Quote from: paul cowley on January 28, 2007, 11:18:03 PM

Quote from: paul cowley on January 28, 2007, 11:05:14 PM
duh.......yes .

Paul, I am not trying to question the design aspects, but I do think a lot of superintendents might have a problem with the small amount of pin areas.

Paul, it obviously depends on if its public or private...and how many rounds....but 3000 sq' of pins should accomodate most.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2007, 12:05:58 AM »

Especially if the green gets lots of sunlight everyday.

not Paul C

« **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:29:11 AM »

James....you know you could always start your own thread instead of trying to hijack mine

.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:52:03 AM »

Sorry Paul, if you prefer, I'll delete my two posts.

Actually, I assumed you were just talking to yourself, and wouldn't notice my post.

And, 3000 sq feet is fine for an occasional green IMO.

James B

« **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2007, 09:34:05 AM »

...no worries James...just fooling around.

Hey, why don't we get together and try to take this thread to 10 pages?
...but we need to add an additional challenge.....neither of us can write in any of our posts the word Mer**n.

OK?

« **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:08:58 AM »

The most straight-forward way to force the ground game would to suspend a tarp 15 or so feet above each green. Balls landing and coming to rest on the tarp would be assessed stroke and distance.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:09:53 AM »

Paul - How does this relate to the 10th at Merion? You need to get with the program.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:10:50 AM »

Paul,

Did I hear you mention Meri*n?

$:-\$

« **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:43:45 AM »

Bob...you might be confused....I said 10 PAGES, not the 10th at Mer*on.

Mike...sorry, but I was suggesting to James that we don't use the word MerLIn.......not Mer**n.

....but stay strong with your program and you will find that these urges decrease more with each passing day.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:29:32 AM »

Paul

I think we need more holes built like the 5th hole on the East Course at Ardmore Ave. Now that is a green which rewards the ground game.

James B

PS I had a Fonz-type moment. Just couldn't bring myself to use the 'M' word. Just like when Fonzie recognised he was incorrect and tried to apologise. He couldn't say the 'W' word, no matter how hard he tried. "I was wrrrr........." is all he could say.

Perhaps it would be safer to discuss Marion (as in Hollins).

« **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2007, 01:53:37 PM »

What an interesting idea. I know just the place to try it out on at least one hole, Paul.

If you did something like that though, you'd have to leave some permanent instructions with the club that it was really supposed to be that way or 50-75 years from now some "Know-it-all" will restore the "lost green space".

« **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:01:12 PM »

There is no architectural way to "force the ground game".

« **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:03:37 PM »

Paul:

How would you feel if that kind of thing tended towards the visually decepetive?

The reason i ask is---you know me I just hate that art priniciple of EMPHASIS if it means automatically focusing the eye on the most important part if that only means showing the golfer exactly where he should hit the ball.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:05:51 PM »

"There is no architectural way to "force the ground game"."

Actually there sort of is but it's very rare.

There certainly is a maintenance way to force the ground game, though. That British Open at St George's basically did that.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:08:23 PM »

Tom,

I understand the maintenance method, please expand on this very rare architectural method for "forcing the ground game".

« **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:09:32 PM »

Why "force" any particuliar shot?

« **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:12:13 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on January 30, 2007, 02:09:32 PM

Why "force" any particuliar shot?

Because it can take people away from their preferences, on purpose. In the USA, the preferred shot is aerial..almost always.

Joe

« **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:12:57 PM »

There are the occaisional greens with overhanging trees and tree branches that effectively force the ground game, if not totally, then from some angles.

Forcing it from some angles is fair, but I agree, forcing it totally would be unpopular. Strongly suggesting it is probably what Paul C is getting at, no?

« **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:16:13 PM »

JES;

Well, there're some holes like Inniscrone's #15 or maybe even a couple at Oakmont where it's generally not a good idea to try to land the ball on the green even in moderate condtitions. Greens that severely run away from the approach is the reason. It seems like it's just a better and safer idea to filter the ball on somehow from off the green. There's a few like that at NGLA if the ground is relatively firm. Or at least that's the way I feel about them.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:21:17 PM »

OK Tom, I can certainly understand that, but I think you'd agree that those circumstances are driven as much by maintenance as architecture. I could also counter by thinking a shot ahead and deciding that if the green is really that severe (#13 at Bellewood here near Philly) I might just prefer to have my miss over the green as opposed to slightly under-hitting the run up shot and being left with a chip to a severely downhill green. We're picking nits, but short of a low ceiling I can't see it.

The overhanging trees work, but with soft greens, it doesn't much matter.

« **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2007, 05:29:59 PM »

I guess my title was poorly descriptive of what I was envisioning at the time.....which was a smaller green whose design incorporated and utilized more of the surrounding 'ground' for effective play.....and by a variety of methods that some of you [the top shelfers], have already mentioned...filtering, run ons and off, both front and back slopes that require the use of areas outside the green to access areas inside, funnelling swales and bowls. Essentially allowing for decreased greens surface by using the surrounds as part of the shots play area. Whether these shots are low bumps or high aerials is up to the individuals skill set......just just subtly 'forcing' the player to use more of the surrounding ground as part his approach to a green.

Hey, call me crazy, but I just love to see balls running hither and yon and all around the greens complex.

News:

paul cowley

paul cowley

paul cowley

paul cowley

paul cowley

James Bennett

paul cowley

James Bennett

paul cowley

Tim Bert

BCrosby

Mike_Cirba

paul cowley

James Bennett

TEPaul

JESII

TEPaul

TEPaul

JESII

Craig Sweet

Joe Hancock

Jeff_Brauer

TEPaul

JESII

paul cowley

An Error Has Occurred!