It's mostly in the "approach"!

[Mark_Fine]

One of the main things I always look at when studying a golf course are the approaches and how they are "typically" maintained.  I think firm approaches are critical to giving almost any golf course "flexibility" and more options of play.  Firm approaches allow weaker players to run the ball on to the greens while allowing better players to choose from a wider selection of golf shots.  If approaches are kept soft, shot options for everyone are dramatically reduced (regardless of how the greens themselves are kept).

This question of how the approaches are maintained is one I always ask the superintendent or someone who plays the golf course regularly.  A green open in front isn't quite as interesting if balls that are hit short, stop and/or spin back!
Mark

[Chris Kane]

Mark,

I agree with you entirely, and it perplexes me that here in Australia people have become obsessive about fairway quality, while allowing the approaches and greens to be left soft and patchy.

Firm approaches adds the the architectural merit of the design, and, as you said, allows all levels of player to have a chance while giving the better player more options.

[Ran Morrissett]

Chris,

What was the story with the soft approaches at several of the holes during the Hienken, for instance on 17E?  

I seem to remember the area in front of the 17th at Kingston Heath as always being soft as well, tournament after tournament?  :-/

Cheers,

[Chris Kane]

Ran,

There was a terrific storm on the Friday night of the Heineken, where an incredible amount of water come down.  Awful from a golf course standpoint though!  The sandy base of RM came to the fore - walking around on the Saturday you wouldn't have known about the storm, except the massive black marks on 5W where lightning had struck!

I can't talk about specific holes being soft, but as a whole the course wasn't as firm on the weekend as many of us would have liked.  Mike C might be able to tell you more.

17 at KH is a hole you'd think would be as firm as possible, considering that the run-up shot is a very legitimate method of approaching that bunkerless green.

Its the Metropolitan syndrome again (known in America as Augusta Syndrome).  The emphasis is on green green green, to the detriment of design intent.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Most definitely! See the last few posts on "Is there any strategy in the professional game" topic for an elaboration of this!

[Richard_Goodale]

There is a really delicate balance required to this.  When they (rightly) softened up the approaches to the punchbowl 8th and 17th greens at dornoch 5-10 years ago (primarily through vertidraining of highly compacted ground), for the first few years, it both seemed unnatural, (balls that used to bound on were suddenly stopping, short of the pins) and WAS "unnatural" (the softeneing process needed to be overdone to get deep down into the root structure).  Now, however, it is all coming into place, and the VERY PROPERLY STRUCK "ground game" shot will release to the pin on these holes, but the improperly struck one will scuttle into some sort of hazard.  Of course, the aerial game, properly played, is still preferable.