[Greg Tallman]

Can a course be considered great if it offers zero options on the ground?

Any examples within the GOLF Top 100? (Answer is yes... what are they? Why are they consodered great?)

[Rich Goodale]

I'm sure Tiger B. will disagree, but if you play the ground game at Cypress Point, you will have mostly skulled your ball rather than played it properly and strategically.

[Stephen Davis]

I haven't played Cypress point but I have yet to play a course that lacked ground game that wouldn't be improved by it. BallyNeal v Sand Hills is a good example for me. I wouldn't say S H entirely lacks ground game, but I would say it would be a better golf course if ground conditions more closely resembled those at BallyNeal.

Brian,

Are you saying that you feel that Ballyneal is a better course than Sand Hills? (Honestly curious. This isn't one of those "how dare you" statements, just an honest question.) I have played Ballyneal and loved it, but I have not played Sand Hills. To answer the OP question. I think that the majority of great courses (or at least what many of us would consider great courses) involve the ground game.

[Steve Salmen]

Great question Greg.  I've been going over in my mind whether I believe Crystal Downs is a better golf course than CP for this very reason.  I had no shots at CP that required a bump and run and a few at Crystal that did.  That being said, I know neither course that well to come to that conclusion.

[Mike Hendren]

   Peachtree GC

[Greg Tallman]

  Peachtree GC

What makes it great?

Design?
History?
Lineage?

[Greg Tallman]

Is the concept of ground game though of too narrowly, in terms of approaches only?

[Sven Nilsen]

Looking back at The Open this past weekend, there are courses where the ground game is not related just to approaches and other shots around the green.  Part of the key to figuring out Lytham is playing shots with the line, shape and intended rollout to avoid the fairway bunkers or ending up in the rough.  This becomes even more important on sites with canted fairways, like Olympic. 

Unless every shot you hit is going to stop where it lands, the ground game is a factor.  Congressional last year is probably the best example of a course that played in conditions where the ground game was a very negligible factor.  It did not play that way this year.

The softer the conditions, the less the player has to worry about what his ball will do on the ground. 

Whether its a must for any great course comes down to personal preference.  I'd bet there are certain touring pros and other score fixated folks who would prefer playing on courses and under conditions where the outcome of a shot is easily discernible.  There are others on the reverse side of the equation who cherish the added thought processes and increased chance of the influence of randomness that comes when the ball is rolling out and where a course provides avenues for the ground game to be used.

[David Stewart]

I have not played Pine Valley, but from reading and looking at the aerial, it has several holes that do not allow for a ground game. Just from the aerial I assume you have to fly approaches in on 2,3,7,8,10,14,17,18. I think most consider it great.

[Tommy Williamsen]

No.  Why do we think that every course should have any one thing in common?  Some of my favorite courses do no allow for the ground game very much.  Pine Valley is at the top of the list.  one of the beautiful things about golf is that courses can be dissimilar from each other, unlike tennis or football which are played on the same boring courts and fields.

[Mark Saltzman]

How do we define great?

I think the ground game goes a long way in  ensuring a course will be fun to play over and over.

[Jared Kalina]

"I am no authority" -Brian Sheehy

Truer words have never been spoken.

Mr. Sheehy, don't you have to actually WALK a golf course to attribute to its difficulty?  Because you were out at Sand Hills for your first time last month for two days and never walked one hole.  I'm not sure you have the right to chime in on the matter.  I also don't think you can add your two cents when it comes to the watering schedules and routines of both Ballyneal or Sand Hills.  You talked to no one from the grounds staff in your time here about water.  You are passing off your perception as fact.

My name is Jared Kalina, I'm the first assistant at Sand Hills Golf Club.  I was recently offered membership to GCA after lurking on the site for the past 5+ years.  I was going to write a nice introductory post about myself, but I'd like to "pop my cherry" so to speak on this matter because it is far more important than where I'm from and how I got to this position in my life.

The more I become educated about golf architecture and the industries surrounding golf, the more I find this site frustrating.  Frustrating in the fact that guys like Mr. Sheehy take their opinions and premonitions and speak of them as if they are the truth.  Don't get me wrong, I love this site.  I'm sure there are many young, hungry, impressionable minds lurking as we speak throughout this forum looking for answers to their own burning questions.  I just find it disappointing that almost daily I'm able to find someone speaking on a matter they can not fully represent and passing it off as 100% truth.  

Maybe it is a simple overstatement, and maybe they don't mean to come off that way, but I think a greater emphasis must be placed on when someone is writing something they can back with references and sources and when someone is writing something they themselves hold to be true.  Because a fabrication is like a wildfire - it can spread fast and wide.  Usually it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things what someone makes up on a golf architecture website, but when we start delving into the world of agronomy and golf course maintenance, and a person takes something they read on here as gospel and brings it to their club/course superintendent or greens committee, it can have ugly consequences.  Unchecked, untruthful statements don't have positive endings.

I don't mean to call out Mr. Sheehy, I'm sure there's a sizeable contingent of contributors that advertently or inadvertently said something they can't back up.  

Off my soapbox, I apologize.

Regarding Ballyneal vs. Sand Hills -- Having played both multiple times, I would say there are more times at BN where the ground shot is easier to execute.  But I wouldn't say it has more of them throughout the course.  Those options are available at SH as well, but some of the severe slopes makes the ground shot more intimidating/difficult.  

As for what course is better overall, it's no contest. And that is my OPINION.

[Kalen Braley]

Jared,

That's a fantastic opening post in terms of reality check time.  Big kudos to you and welcome to the site!!!

P.S.  Back on Topic...how well does Pebble Beach accomodate the ground game?  I've yet to play it, but from what I've seen on TV from the pros not much.

[Chris DeNigris]

Jared,

Welcome to the site...that was an interesting intro post.

Sand Hills takes a lot of unwarranted pot shots around here and it's good to see that her honor will now be well defended against scurrilous and obviously ill-informed Irishmen.  

BTW, have you ever played Lahinch?

[Richard Choi]

I really don't want to get in between a quarrel, but...

I have walked Sand Hills and Ballyneal and I agree with Brian that, IN MY OPINION, there are more options for ground game at Ballyneal then at Sand Hills. This is mostly due to the fact that there are far more raised greens at Sand Hills and more movements around the green at Ballyneal that invites creative ground play. Also, the fact that fescue greens and fairways promote more consistent speed between fairways and greens compared to fescue/bent fairways and bent greens.

Whether or not I agree with everything that Brian has said (I don't), he is presenting it as his opinion and should be respected as such. We can certainly have healthy and educational discussions about the ground game at both courses without degenerating into a shouting match.

[David Davis]

This post is one that of course does not have a true answer, you will always have opposing factors. I love the ground game offered on links courses and I personally find this game while it may help out on occasion does not fit on hardly any parkland courses, which (also in my opinion) boils down to grasses and maintenance issues. I don't have the feel to play an effective bump and run shot consistently through a parkland fairway. I did use a few bump and run shots at Cypress but I wouldn't by any means say they would be my first options there.

If you look at the Top courses according to Golf Digest or Golf Magazine, pretty similar, are courses like Augusta, Pine Valley, Oakmont, Merion all inviting of the ground game? No question they are perfectly maintained. My personal opinion is they are not, yet no-one will argue whether or not they are great courses. The courses on the list that do really open themselves to all types of shots and ground game are obviously (in my opinion) what's left. RCD, Portrush, Ballybunion, Muirfield, Old Course, Dornoch, Pacific Dunes etc etc.

Again I'm not saying you can't play a ground game at those non-links courses, no more than I'm saying you should always choose the ground on a links course from a tight lie as apposed to pulling out your 64 degree wedge and playing a flop shot, I'm just saying golf is a percentage game and some shots are just easier and work better in different conditions on different grasses.

I'm sure many will disagree but this is my experience and preference when playing these types of courses. At the end of the day I'm a hacker.

[Keith OHalloran]

Brian,
You know I love ya, but I think you have to pump the brakes on ts one a bit.
First off, saying Jared kept tabs on you is a bit disingenuous. You played as the unescorted guest of the owner, and there were a maximum of 54 golfers there at the time. It was also 107 and you had pants on the first day. It is fair to say that even if the staff were not aware of you, so that a guest of Dick's did not have a bad time, that hey would have been aware if you walked and carried in that heat.
Second, you said the Sand Hills was a long tough walk. Jared was responding to that determination when you had not walked the course. I think hat I can tell that Lake of Isles in Connecticut is unwalkable without walking it, but the courses in the sand hills are a different monster. As I have said, walking Sand Hills from the diamonds is a nice walk. Don't forget that a lot of people who had never walked Dismal told Eric Smith it was unwalkable, and there is a school in Tenn thankful that he didn't listen.
Lastly, you are free to think whatever you want about any course you want. As long as there is no agenda behind your posts, I don't hunk people object. I personally believe, and have told you as such, that your myopic hunt for firm and fast affects your  critique a bit too much, especially off one play. That being said, it is you opinion, and I don't have to agree, the same way you don't have to agree with me.

[Jared Kalina]

Brian-

1.  I don't mean for it to seem as a personal attack.  It was an unfounded statement or two of yours that started as a jumping-off point in my diatribe that we need to be careful in what we disseminate on this site.  Because I think it's a travesty when misinformation is spread.

2.  I don't think I would be doing my job to the best of my ability if I didn't know who was playing the golf course on any given day.  Ask any superintendent or assistant who visits this site.  There is a certain bit of politics that come with this job, even if it is as little as knowing what members are here, where they are from, who they are with, etc.  It's important I can put a name to a face and vice versa, that they can recognize managers in all facets of their club so they can direct their questions and comments towards the right people.  I could take you up to Ben's porch right now and within a few minutes tell you what group is on 12 tee and what group is on 3 green.  

As for your part about publishing information about guests of this club on this site, I'm fairly positive Mr. Youngscap wouldn't mind if I was clearing up a few statements from a sponsored guest.  But feel free to take your concern up with the powers that be.

3.  Once again, please don't take this as an "attack".  I apologize for any offense.  I do find it interesting that you didn't address my main point, you didn't walk the golf course, until a re-edit of your reply.  It was hot, yes, as it has been all summer long, but plenty of people, some much older than you, walk the place daily.  

The rest of it (how SH is softer, a tougher walk, with fewer fun holes), however, is of your opinion and I can't really address that.  I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good.  But again, that is my opinion and since it's just an opinion, it can't be refuted by anyone else.

I apologize for the sour introduction in my tenure on this site.  I promise to not be the protector of Sand Hills because it certainly  doesn't need me to protect it.  I'll play nice, promise.

[Jared Kalina]

I wasn't talking about playing the golf course when I asked if you had to walk the golf course to attest to its difficulty.  I was referring to your statement it is a difficult walk.  You re-edited your last post to say you walked 8 holes.  I'm still not sure that gives your opinion credibility, but I could be wrong.

And thank you Keith for mentioning he was wearing pants on a 103 degree day.  I remembered that but feared saying it to further cast myself as the guy who has "files" on everyone who tees it up.

[Carson Pilcher]

As to the OP, I would consider Augusta National great and it has a very limited ability for a ground game (even though that was the original intent).  Off hand, I can only think of #2,8 and 14 that even have a considerable option for a ground run up shot.

As has been well discussed here, turf maintenance in the U.S. is not conducive for he ground game....unfortunately so.

[Josh Tarble]

I have not played it but seen numerous times on TV and am not sure a ground game would be very conducive at Pebble Beach.  Maybe a few approaches but I would guess not the majority.

[Mark Chaplin]

Land that provides for the ground game but isn't utilised is a "crime", however there are many great courses on land that doesn't provide for the ground game.

[Tom_Doak]

I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good.  

Jared:

Allow me to introduce myself.

I was going to chastise Mr. Sheehy for making his weird distinction between describing the playing conditions at Ballyneal as ideal and then saying that Sand Hills was "more manicured" [which typically means it's overwatered and overfertilized] .  I've played Sand Hills on several occasions, and I rate it as one of the very best courses in the world, but I have seldom seen it play anywhere near as linksy as the typical course in the UK.  

But then you got on the site ahead of me, took him to task, and submitted the backhanded "compliment" above.

Most people play golf to have fun.  Only a few are egotistical enough to believe that there is some higher level [whether in playing competitively or designing or maintaining or whatever] and that they hold the key to it.  If you are going to represent Sand Hills publicly, I would guess that your boss doesn't want you putting yourself in that position.

P.S.  Say hello to Mr. Youngscap for me.  I keep promising myself I will find time to visit when I stop through Dismal River, but whenever I get there I am working like a dog.  One of these days I will be happy to show you around what we've been up to ... maybe it will open your mind a bit.

[Tom_Doak]

Greg T:

To answer your question -- no, the ground game is not a must for any great course.  But, in my opinion, it's a lot easier to get to the level of greatness if you've got some of it.  A lot of people here think that courses with ocean views are overrated, but I think that a lot of the bonus they are given is really the wind and the playing conditions that go hand in hand with being by the ocean.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg T:

To answer your question -- no, the ground game is not a must for any great course.  But, in my opinion, it's a lot easier to get to the level of greatness if you've got some of it.  A lot of people here think that courses with ocean views are overrated, but I think that a lot of the bonus they are given is really the wind and the playing conditions that go hand in hand with being by the ocean.

Okay, let's narrow the focus. How about a seaside course on pure sand that offers nary a run up option throughout? Still can be great? Not enough info? Missed opprtunity?

Just curious as to the general perception after stumbling upon this revelation about a particular course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()