Hazards That Defeat the Aerial Game

[Niall C]

Melvyn referred to penal in that quote you used in your OP. It strikes me that what you propose isn't inherently penal but whether it was would depend on its deployment. I'd be interested to hear what sort of hazards Melvyn was referring to.

My thought was that Melvyn tried to express two separate thoughts in the same sentence.  I agree that defending against the aerial game is not necessarily "penal", as a lot of features can be built on diagonals to encourage a particular angle of approach ... the essence of the strategic school.  When thinking of penal hazards, I think first of cross hazards, and those do nothing but ENCOURAGE the aerial game. 

Indeed, on the old courses, features like cross hazards and blind shots were an attempt to balance the aerial and ground games by dialing UP the need to display an aerial game from time to time.  Taking the same perspective today we would need to dial DOWN the aerial game but hardly anyone is trying.

Tom

Cross hazards - to an extent I agree that cross hazards were originally used as a test of the players ability to get the ball off the ground. However I've seen at least one routing plan from the 1890's which shows that there was room to go round the cross hazard at the expense of not being able to go for the green, a basic risk reward approach. And of course there is the angled hazards that you refer to.

Blind shots - I'd disagree that blind shots necessarily encourage an aerial game. I can think of at least two holes, both at Silloth, where the green sits nestled on the other side of a high ridge where experience tells you the best play is landing the ball on the up slope or on top (ie. where you can see it) and allowing for the run over the top and down the other side, rather than attempting an aerial game which invariably results in either catching the down slope on the ridge and shooting through the green or landing too far up the green and running through anyway.

I can also think of a number of par 3's where half the green is blind due to a mound/dune/hill side in front, and which calls for a shot landing on the slope and allowing for the run down onto the green (for some reason the mound/dune/slope etc is always on the left !). Spey Bay, Elgin, Strathlene, Kingsbarns (2nd) all have this kind of hole. Of course to top class golfer can still go straight for the green but I doubt that's the percentage play for the average golfer.

Niall

[Niall C]

The plateau green argument is an interesting one. When I came back from Dornoch in June, I started a thread asking which links courses were examples of promoting the aerial game, citing Dornoch as one. But in reality, low raised plateaux with open fronts like many at Dornoch promote a partial ground game, certainly downwind. If I think of examples on Portmarnock (because I know it far better), then the 18th could be taken straight from Dornoch. The only way to approach that green from a distance is to land it short and take a run up the bank after one or two bounces.

Similarly when designing, if you can choose a raised green site with 15-20 yards of fairway run-in at approximately the same level, this allows for most ground game options. The only options ruled out are the genuine 'don't break the wrists' 5-irons from 90 yards.

Ally

Dornoch is a terrific course but the one reason I disagree with the distinguished panel of experts in the Confidential Guide (who all gave it a 10 if memory serves correctly) on how good the course is is because of the plateau greens. At best I'd give it an 8. For my money, on most of the plateau greens the fronting slope is too steep and too high to encourage the run up. Of course prevailing conditions such as wind direction, wind speed, distance from the green etc play a large part however I expect in most conditions hitting it over the top would be the play. Particularly as in a lot of occasions it's hard to determine where the hole is on the green.

I think other courses do it better and dare I say it, the plateau greens at Lossiemouth are better. They allow for the run on shot with a fair degree of expectation of success provided you hit it right whereas I think a lot of the times Dornoch plateau greens are hit and hope.

Niall

[archie_struthers]

 


I don't know if you can defeat the aerial game anymore. Just watched a couple days of Rory and company in the British Open last year. Doesn't seem to be any way save Mother Nature cranking up the wind machine that will stop the hi ball hitter.

It's been fifty years since Arnie was the "king" of golf in a playing sense. Nicklaus came along and save for a genius named Trevino there hasn't been a low ball hitter. (Faldo ? ) since who dominated the game .  Think Watson, Norman , Mickelson , Tiger , and now Rory . Day in day out the tournament leaders at almost every level hit it high.   

Equipment and technique have made this possible and I really doubt if architecture is goin to change it anymore . Love the firm and fast game but even that doesn't stop high ball hitters IMO.

[Niall C]

Archie

Why worry about Rory and the gang ? Just leave them to it and concern yourself with what works for the average golfer (even if the average golfer doesn't know it).

Niall

[Paul Gray]

Archie

Why worry about Rory and the gang ? Just leave them to it and concern yourself with what works for the average golfer (even if the average golfer doesn't know it).

Niall

I say things like that and usually get accused of thinking I know the minds of average golfers better than they do.

I do and you're right.  

[archie_struthers]

 

Well said Niall !  I'm with you on that. But the question asked specifically for "hazards that defeat the aerial game " . My point is that anything that might  defeat it would certainly affect the rest of us even more , given the skill set of the best players.

I'm all for removing hazards that only impact the average player right off the tee and having entrances that allow for run up in almost any case entering the green . Yet designing something to benefit this would almost require employing a funneling  or gathering effect on the approaches . Maybe this could be accomplished but I'm having a little trouble visualizing just how you would do it . It's an interesting thought !

Will stay with it and report back !

[Ian Andrew]

I've enjoyed this thread a great deal.

Upper front tier like Kawartha's 2nd green

photo by Mark Saltzman (esquire)

[archie_struthers]

 


Tom , Ian , do you think you could envision a collection area funneling balls onto a green that accepts the question being posed here ?  Or do we have to channel Mike Strantz for this one?

[Joshua Pettit]

I'm a big believer in trying to make the aerial game as hard as possible for the guys who are good at it....A few things I've tried:

1.  Fallaway greens.

2.  Ridges in front of greens, or in the greens.

3.  Raised edges of the greens next to bunkers.

4.  Trees near the green!

5.  Anything else you'd find on a Walter Travis golf course.  Travis was a short, low-ball hitter and tended to feature all of the things I've noted above on his courses.

That should get the discussion rolling.  I'm all ears for more ideas on this matter, as I may be the only architect out there who's interested in this particular fight.

Tom,

While I agree with your strategies for combatting the aerial game (with the exception of No. 4) and think Travis is an excellent example of an architect who successfully utilized those ideas, I disagree that you're the only active architect interested in this fight...there aren't many but I could name a few others.

At the risk of offending anyone stuck in the theoretical world, and possibly diminishing the academic nature of this exercise, I would propose that the list of ideas compiled on this thread be prefaced with the stipulation that such tactics not create excessive challenges for the greenkeeper tasked with maintaining and SUSTAINING the features in question.

[JESII]

Gotta tell you Shivas...if I ever go to a course and they have 60 yard wide fairways with a strip of first cut down the middle I'll definitely think of you...but likely never return.