[JNC Lyon]

Today I was playing at a course where, on the par five 18th hole, trees overhang the fairway severely.   The branch encroachment is so great that if a player is between 150 and 100 yards from the green in the fairway, he will have no aerial shot to the green.  The only option is to play a low runner into the green.  Initially, I believed the finisher was a miserable excuse for a golf hole.  However, the more I think about it, the more I am intrigued by the idea of a forced bump and run approach.

Many golfers, particularly on this website, lament the loss of the ground game in modern golf.  While the Trent Jones era has come and gone, most modern courses still provide serious rewards for golfers who can carry the ball high and far.  Architects can do all they want to reinstate running approach shots, but even courses by Doak, Dye and C & C exceed 7,000 yards, meaning that the high ball hitter has a distinct advantage. 

A solution to this problem would be to force players to use the ground game as their means for attacking a hole.  It would force players to control trajectory and resist the urge to blast away with a high, hard straight shot.  Is it fair to force players to use the ground game?  Is it any different from forcing players to use the aerial game in the way that Trent Jones and many architects do?  Is it more to force the use of the ground game than to force the use of the aerial game because golf was originally and, arguably, meant to be played along the ground?

[Carl Rogers]

I think the most difficult combination to play is the soft fringes and approaches with the very hard quick greens ... very often the case at Riverfront.  Front pin locations downwind are way too hard for me under these conditions.

[JESII]

JNC,

Any chance to avoid the 100 - 150 distance?

I think more than providing the ground game as an option, most on this site prefer options.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC,

Any chance to avoid the 100 - 150 distance?

I think more than providing the ground game as an option, most on this site prefer options.

The only way to avoid that distance is to give the green a go from 220 over a lake or layup inside 100 yards.  The latter option requires a difficult second shot that is almost as tough as going for the green in two.  For the most players, a standard layup leaves a forced bump and run approach.

I recognize that most (including myself) are very interested in having multi-option holes.  However, my point is that most of today's holes, while providing options, usually give an advantage to the high-ball hitter.  A forced bump and run approach negates the high-ball hitter's advantage and opens things up for more players.

[Bill_McBride]

I think the most difficult combination to play is the soft fringes and approaches with the very hard quick greens ... very often the case at Riverfront.  Front pin locations downwind are way too hard for me under these conditions.

I am very unhappy with our third green at Pensacola CC.  Short par 4 with a cross bunker 80 yards in front of the green, hole's about 350.  There is a ridge across the small, firm green so it's very important to be on the right half of the green front to back.  When the pin is in front, the play should be a pitch just short.  Unfortunately there's a flat spot there that gets the runoff from the green and it stays very moist so a lot of those little pitches stay short.  I'd like to hit a little bump and run but that doesn't work so well over the cross bunker to the semi-blind green.

Dear Abby, what should I do?   

[Ben Sims]

JNC,

IMO, nothing worse than being in the fairway and being forced to hit a low runners where the green is protected or the ground isn't conducive to run up.  I played a course in Galt, CA with my father-in-law quite a bit called Dry Creek that had this problem.  I remember two separate holes where 120-170 yds out was dead unless you could hit high hooks (doubtful for 90% of us) or a bullet under the trees that could hold the green.  Basically I became accustomed to purposely getting in greenside rough and bunkers to at least try and score.  We played with the course record holder and he hit high draw/hook time and time again.

In short, the course setup has to allow for the required shot.  I guess the antithesis of my comparison is something like the 17th at Sawgrass with really hard greens and fescue. 

[Rob Rigg]

I am a bit advocate of F&F conditions that promote the bump and run.

However, using trees to force that shot is just bad design IMO.

I played Royal Oaks in Vancouver, WA this weekend and I was frustrated with the number of holes in which trees dictated lay ups and/or how the golfer had to play into the greens.

The architect has other arrows in his quiver to make the ground game the "best" shot to play without taking away other options . . .

[Matthew Runde]

In my opinion, out of about 72 shots (for par), one or two forced bump-and-run shots would not be that many, since they spice up the game.  Just as a couple of penal holes can make things interesting, a forced bump-and-run can be exciting, if the majority of the holes are strategic/heroic with many options.  I think it's part of the humor of the game - the architect and/or superintendent is giving you a wink.

[Emil Weber]

In my opinion, out of about 72 shots (for par), one or two forced bump-and-run shots would not be that many, since they spice up the game.  Just as a couple of penal holes can make things interesting, a forced bump-and-run can be exciting, if the majority of the holes are strategic/heroic with many options.  I think it's part of the humor of the game - the architect and/or superintendent is giving you a wink.

I agree. As long as you don't have to play 72 forced bump-and run shots it only makes play more interesting and varied, although I think I have never been FORCED to play such a shot.

[Anthony Gray]

  No 16 at Sawgrass can leave you with the same shot if you lay up too close to the tree.

 Anthony

[JNC Lyon]

I'm still wondering: how is a tree forcing a player to play a bump and run into a green any different or worse than a fronting bunker forcing a player to play an aerial shot into a green?

[Charlie Goerges]

About the only thing that can "force" the ground-game is an aerial hazard. To my knowledge there are only 2 aerial hazards: Wind and Trees. In areas where the wind isn't reliable, strong, or both, trees are the only alternative aerial hazard.

Now, other things can be done to "encourage" the ground game (those are discussed at length on this site all the time), but as for forcing it, not many options exist as far as I can tell.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm still wondering: how is a tree forcing a player to play a bump and run into a green any different or worse than a fronting bunker forcing a player to play an aerial shot into a green?

The difference is, one occasionally occurs on the scottish links courses and the other (trees) doesn't.

[Kalen Braley]

It would seem the 18th at Cypress Point is similar to this.  With trees left and right, unless you hit a perfect tee ball, your likely going to have to hit some type of low shot into that green unless you can really nuke your irons way up there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()