Well, I do agree that f&f is a matter of degree and relative.
I absolutely do not agree that controlling runout is matter of luck.
Then it's your stated opinion that the random/varied terrain has no impact on the roll of the ball ?
Sure, as with any shot, there is an element of luck, but I think it is generally far more skillful to choose a landing spot and then determine the runout.
But, there's more certainty and less luck in the aerial game.
This is why good players choose the aerial route - its generally easier to predict and execute.
Then the same would have to apply to lesser skilled players [/color]
There are plenty of good courses over here that really don't play any shorter in the summer because the sensible player knows his limitations and accepts that a layup is the sensible option - thereby gaining no advantage in distance off the tee.
Would you say that that's true of TOC, Troon, Prestwick, Western Gales, Gulane, Muirfield and Carnoustie ?[/color]
Beau Desert strikes me as a great example. Many of the fairways turn at the landing zones away from harsh rough and trees. Sure, if you can shape the drive well then Bob's yer uncle. However, if you are offline with this aggressive play there is a good chance you will not see that ball again. To be honest, I think Beau would benefit from tree/rough removal to encourage folks to risk the driver option, but I don't hold any sway at the club.
It sounds as though the culprit is doglegs, not F&F.
But, I'm not familiar with Beau Desert so I'm not qualified to comment.[/color]
So far as well aimed and well struck shots being punished, it happens all the time. Its called over-clubbing - which happens to be a very prevalent mistake in f&f conditions.
Well aimed and well struck shots are called great shots.
Over-clubbing is far, far, far rarer than under-clubbing.
It's in the great minority.[/color]
Basically, guys don't properly estimate the runout - which is a skill.
After the first hole, why would they improperly estimate the runout unless the ground is inconsistent, which is one of the strongest arguments for the aerial game.[/color]
I would generally rather approach from 150 rather than 180 - for sure, but it depends on the risks involved to get to 150. I am saying that often times those risks are increased in f&f conditions because the runout has to be properly gauged.
But, the golfer has to go through the same mental exercise in determining club selection when playing the aerial game. The runout game has a large aerial component. It starts with the aerial game and transitions to the runout game. If you know you have to hit the ball 150 to get to 180 you select your 150 club, it's that simple.
You're overcomplicating it[/color]
Otherwise, on well designed courses, there is often trouble ahead such as bunkers, rough, blind shot, awkward stance, or simply a bad angle into the green.
I'm afraid I don't understand you on this point.
Are you saying that on well designed courses the features become more penal as you get closer to the green ?
Can you identify 5 courses with that configuration ?[/color]
So, the way your question was posed carried little meaning in this debate.
Only if you didn't understand it.[/color]
Pat
I am saying that so called random and varied terrain doesn't effect grounders. I am saying that the vast majority of these types of shots are predictable. Its just that they are often more difficult to pull off than an aerial shot because folks don't take the time to learn what happens when the ball is played on the floor. Its often a standby shot when in certain circumstances an aerial shot seems more dangerous and/or less predictable. must stress that I do agree that there is more certainty with aerial golf, but I don't believe the role of luck plays any greater or lesser part with either type of shot.
I still think you are failing to understand my point. When conditions are f&f it often brings into play elements of a hole that are often ignored - such as where the fairway turns. Most folks can't reach the point of trouble in normal circumstances. Once a thinking player realizes that more trouble is in play than usual he may often elect to layup - thereby gaining no extra distance. Again, recall that we are talking about good courses for which f&f conditions are taken into account for the design. Often times a problem occurs these days where f&f conditions may prevail, but the course is permanently setup for softer conditions are conditions with little wind.
I agree that under- clubbing is a the most often made mistake for the average golfer, but I also contend that over-clubbing increases with f&f conditions - which is part of my point. Golfers don't take the time to learn courses when they are f&f. They usually site words like luck or impossible which we all know isn't the case - its a lack of skill which is the problem. Again, playing the ball on the ground is a highly skillful way of playing golf, but most folks in our age of carrying the ball massive distances don't give it much credit - mores the pity.
I also agree that players must go through a similar mental approach whether the play the ball in the air or on the ground. The main difference and difficulty for most is visualizing the landing zones. In f&f conditions these zones are blurred if will. Partly because of unfamiliarity with these areas of the course and partly due to losing a measure a good measure of how far the ball will travel after hitting the ground. There is often uncertainty beyond the presented landing zone. Hence the reason guys layup. They are playing to the known parts of the course. This is all part of the reason why I thought Tiger's performance at Hoylake was masterful. He accepted that distance wasn't the issue and that normal distances and visual cues didn't apply to nearly the same degree as in the aerial game. It still amazes me that no other players cued into this, perhaps it was a lack of experience. In which case, shows how very rare true f&f conditions are these days. Its a real shame.
Ciao