[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
It sounds like you believe that the Olympic decision was made for non golf issues. After reviewing the winning plan, are you convinced your proposal was better, and the choice was not a golf related one?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
It sounds like you believe that the Olympic decision was made for non golf issues. After reviewing the winning plan, are you convinced your proposal was better, and the choice was not a golf related one?

Keith:

No, I didn't say that.  Gil's plan looks excellent.  I think ours was, as well, but it was more complicated, too, and that probably didn't help our cause.  Really, I would guess that there were several excellent plans presented, and therefore that other factors were considered, too.

I think that Gil set himself apart by promising to be there every day.  But I also think that the Tour was in his corner, because they've worked with him before; and that they were opposed to me being the choice, because I'm still thought of as "controversial" [not without reason].  But of course, none of us really know the whole story.  Only a handful of people even got to see all the presentations, and their deliberations were done in private.  Maybe in four or five years someone will tell me if I have it right.

[Tom_Doak]

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

I like this question, and I'm disappointed it didn't seem to get the attention it deserves. I could swear I posted something about it in the thread, but must not have.

I think most people's idea of the ground game is indeed far too narrow. It seems most think it means you should be able to top it around the course, or get around with a putter. To me, I think of the ground game as anything that requires more thought than "What's my drop and stop yardage?"

That's the opposite approach of Greg's question - it uses a definition too broad - but I think the ground game has a certain negative connotation among better golfers, as they simply view it as a means of appeasing lesser golfers (like me).

Certainly there will be occasions when the best option - maybe even the only option - is a high spinning shot. I just think it should be minimized, and there should be a distinct emphasis on allowing players to get around in almost any way possible. Yet the exact opposite seems to be preferred by most, on here and elsewhere.

To me, the essence of golf - and golf course architecture - is: Here is the tee. There is the hole. Get it in the hole in as few strokes as possible.

In a weird way, I think that's the most unheeded lesson of TOC (guessing here, haven't had the pleasure myself). There seems to have been a move somewhere along the way toward the architect decided the path to the hole, and the manner in which said path is approached. I don't know when it happened, but the shift was rather complete, as I see very few holes that evoke the spirit I desire.

That theory also explains why I never win the armchair architect contests...

George:

Great post.

Your opening lines made me think you were taking a different direction ... it's also true that the ground game can be in play for steering tee shots or in the short game, but most people think of it strictly in terms of approach shots.

You are dead right in your inference about St. Andrews (and all early links courses), that there was no prescribed "right" way to play them.  That's what I hate about those "risk-reward holes" with the alternate fairways that most people go gaga about ... really, it just creates two distinct ways to play the hole and forces the golfer to choose one of the two, instead of allowing for the subtlety of 100 different ways based on the strengths of each golfer.

One other thing I love about the ground game (done right) is that there are shots on links courses that are actually easier for the senior golfer than for the professional.  When we were filming the video on Old Macdonald, I watched an elderly woman golfer roll a 3-wood to six feet on the 11th at St. Andrews, on a cold and windy day when a low-trajectory 170-yard shot was clearly the best way to get there.  But none of the professionals have that shot -- they would have been lacing long irons and hybrids up into the wind.  I liked the lady's chances better just then.  Come to think of it, Bobby Jones was beside himself with admiration for the way that Joyce Wethered played St. Andrews.

[Sean_A]

George

I hope folks don't think of the ground game as mainly about approaching or working around greens.  If they do, why bother with gathering fairway bunkers or even worrying about carry distance?  After not paying enough attention to his rollout on the 72nd at Lytham, I bet Scott will give his ground game more thought in the future.   

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill?  I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).

Peter

[Sean_A]

George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill?  I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).

Peter

Peter

I do think you have something there. These days, folks don't imagine cracking a putter off the tee 150 yards to a green. While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up.  This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.

Ciao   

[Peter Pallotta]

Good one, Sean. I hadn't thought at all about cross bunkers and their possible use -- which use is the first I've read that, for me at least, justifies their placements on modern courses/restorations.

Peter

[Ben Sims]

While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up.  This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.

Ciao   

What a fantastic line of posts these past 6 or so.  And it is to date the clearest definitions what snarky scratch golfers will never understand.  That the ground game isn't an architectural excuse for poor golfers. 

[Adam Clayman]

And sometimes it rains.

It just sucks when it rains every night for 20 mins per head.

Every other day will still keep your grass alive and allow the more sophisticated plodder a chance to feel good about golf, again. It might even teach the stock and stop aficionados a chance to experience something foreign.

The answer to the orig posit is resounding Yes. A course can not be great unless it's elasticity includes the ability to be creative, when the ground is firm and wind is a blower.

[Sven Nilsen]

I think there's a correlation between windy sites and ground game options that is not getting enough emphasis on this thread. 

When you look at the total influence that the elements can have on the game, I think you get a better idea if a course can be great without ground game options.  I can't imagine having to play anywhere where it howls without having the option to play a runner below the breeze or the ability to watch a downwind shot run out before getting to where you want it to end up.

When the wind doesn't blow, the architects will need to find another way to defend par, and limiting the ground game options is one method of doing so.

[Philip Caccamise]

Ben-

You made one omission from the praise you heaped on Dave Hensley -- the guy has a limited amount of water to work with each year.

Maybe that's not the case anymore - it was three years ago - but at that time when I visited with him over the 4th of July they were on pace to run out of water.  I can't imagine how nerve-wracking that would be.  Sand Hills doesn't have that issue, thank God.  It definitely would have been depleted by now.

Granted, they don't get the cart traffic to create all those nasty burns, but with a summer like this, I don't know how he does it.  Sleep would surely be difficult every night.

Jared:

It might actually be a blessing in disguise.

Another of our courses, Stonewall, also has a very limited water supply, and in case you've never been there, Philadelphia has its share or brutal summers, too.  The superintendent, Dan Dale, uses this fact to his advantage.  When the course starts to get a bit brown in early summer, and the members start to question why, Dan just looks them straight in the eye and tells them if he starts watering now, he'll run out in August and the place will burn up -- so the limited supply has reduced the pressure on him to water for the sake of color.  And over the years, he's wound up with a sward of turf that's pretty resistant to drought, or it would have died by now.

Stonewall is a walking-only course, too, and you are right, that helps reduce the stress [and the need for cosmetic watering] a lot.  I'll bet not many people think about how much more water their course uses because they have golf carts driving in the fairways.

P.S.  I hope that Dave H. and Dan Dale are not losing too much sleep over their situations.  You can only do what you can do.

I caddied during a very hot summer at Stonewall in 2000. The greenskeeper did a MASTERFUL job. Didn't know they had water issues. The North Course was still under construction, but I loved the "Old" Course!

[Tom_Doak]

George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill?  I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).

Peter

Peter

I do think you have something there. These days, folks don't imagine cracking a putter off the tee 150 yards to a green. While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up.  This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.

Ciao   

If you've got a really firm and fast course, having a handful of cross bunkers might not be a bad thing.

But, Peter's premise is really the heart of the good player's objection to the ground game ... that sometimes someone will get away with a topped shot and actually win the hole.  It's this idea that the architect must solve this problem FOR EVERY SHOT that is one reason so many courses are over-bunkered.  If a topped shot yields a good result and allows the B golfer to shoot 89 instead of 91, so what?  And if it allows him to square his match against you, that's the sort of test of character that golf is about.

Dr. MacKenzie compared hazards to the fielders in a game of cricket -- they won't catch every mistake, but you can't keep making mistakes without being caught out.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I think you are right except that I would add that championship mentality also greatly increased bunkering.  There is no need for an archie to purposefully try to cut off all luck.  What is interesting is that centreline bunkers will stop a lot of topped shots and 1 centreline actually does a better job of bunkering so long as greens and fairways are designed around the idea of them. 

Ciao   

[BCrosby]

Tom D writes:

"Peter's premise is really the heart of the good player's objection to the ground game ... that sometimes someone will get away with a topped shot and actually win the hole.  It's this idea that the architect must solve this problem FOR EVERY SHOT that is one reason so many courses are over-bunkered.  If a topped shot yields a good result and allows the B golfer to shoot 89 instead of 91, so what?  And if it allows him to square his match against you, that's the sort of test of character that golf is about."

Interesting. The above brings to mind what were called 'leveler' holes during the Victorian era. If you could get away with a foozle, the hole was badly designed. It was a 'leveler'. Such holes were thought to be marks of bad architecture. The notion was pretty simple. If all bad shots should be punished and all good shots rewarded, levelers violated that rule. The ideas behind it are still very much with us, though sometimes not consciously. But back in the GA it was very much on the minds of people like Low, Colt, Mack, Simpsn and others. In important ways the emergence of key ideas behind strategic golf architecture was only possible if you could get past the notion that there should be a strict, equitable correlation between the quality of a shot and it's outcome.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, Bob. You raise/contextualize a central point - i.e. if strategic architecture requires the architect to transcend a strict correlation between execution and outcome, what degree of that correlation most/best ensures both the enjoyment of all levels of golfer as well as the shot-testing/challenge that is essential to/inherent in the 'game' that is golf.  While I share the tastes of many on this board, I do think it legitimate for better players to question the choices architects make in regards this degree of correlation.

Peter

[David Davis]

I only agree on this leveler principle to a small extent. If you are going to use examples of shots that are 1 and 1000 or worse, pure luck and fortune then there is no valid arguement here. I could also shank my ball left from a 100 yds out off a tree and have it bounce onto the green with full speed hit the pin and go in, if this happened on a hole that didn't allow for any ground game would that be a leveler hole?

I would say the objective should be to have 18 different holes requiring many different options and allowing for many different methods of play not to discriminate against people that may be not quite as strong as other or hit the ball as far but do have a great game. Which is exactly the kinds of courses that are not often being designed these days. These long and tough championship courses being built now for the modern game for the most part follow the same patterns, boring, longer, narrower, just ad water and let the rough grow deep. Clearly that's what the tour wants and needs. How many of them do we see coming into for example Golf Magazine's Top 100 after they open? The ones that do seem to be the likes of Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Chamber's Bay, Castle Stuart. All these courses for the most part provide the option classic option of a strong ground game.

What am I missing here? I don't know the lists by heart but what new tour ready courses or even target golf courses are ending up being rated as top courses? In Europe I can think of Bro Hof Slot, 8000 yds from the back tees, which they don't utilize but the course is still quaint in a lovely setting and not typical industrial tour golf.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Tom.

People - even thoughtful, well-meaning people - always throw on the idea that luck shouldn't be the deciding factor, or that randomness is the worst thing possible.

Question: Is it even possible to design a hole where this is the case (that isn't complete nonsense)?

I'd argue that even a completely random course would likely favor the better golfer, as he would be better able to handle the mental strain.

But really, as Tom says, if you're worried about the bogey golfer shooting a couple strokes better by luck, that's just silly.

Of course, I've long contended that most golfers want a course that is incredibly hard - for the golfer just a hair worse than themselves...

[Greg Tallman]

George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill?  I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).

Peter

Peter

I do think you have something there. These days, folks don't imagine cracking a putter off the tee 150 yards to a green. While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up.  This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.

Ciao    

If you've got a really firm and fast course, having a handful of cross bunkers might not be a bad thing.

But, Peter's premise is really the heart of the good player's objection to the ground game ... that sometimes someone will get away with a topped shot and actually win the hole.  It's this idea that the architect must solve this problem FOR EVERY SHOT that is one reason so many courses are over-bunkered.  If a topped shot yields a good result and allows the B golfer to shoot 89 instead of 91, so what?  And if it allows him to square his match against you, that's the sort of test of character that golf is about.

Dr. MacKenzie compared hazards to the fielders in a game of cricket -- they won't catch every mistake, but you can't keep making mistakes without being caught out.

Tom, Same premise but at a different level. Frist time I ever visited Cabo del Sol I played golf with the then DOG on The Desert Course. We are playing the 15th hole, a par 5 of about 520. I hit what for me is a great tee shot and have about 215 left while Brad hits his normal bomb and has maybe 175. I have every intention of running it on but come off my shot a bit and it never gets more than head high, terribly hit shot, but it skirts what is supposed to be a cross bunker and rolls, and rolls and rolls some more... ends up about 7 feet from the hole. Brad hits a perfect high iron shot to about 5 feet.

While it may as simple as a poorly placed "cross bunker" it is a scenario like that which drives a ball striker crazy.

[Mark Pearce]

Greg,

What proportion of mis-hit shots get a result like that?  The ball striker needs to learn to live with the fact that that will happen. You can't eradicate luck, nor should you want to.  And bunkers can play a roll in luck, too.  In a recent match in our club's foursomes (alternate shot) knock out competition, one of our opponents skulked a chip.  It travelled at a velocity that would have taken it through the green into the deep crap behind.  However, it entered a green side bunker on the fly, lost most, but not all, of it's velocity, climbed to the top of said bunker and popped out forwards, onto the green, 20 feet from the hole.  David bunker saved bogey, which, with their shot, halved the hole.

[David Bartman]

"Dr. MacKenzie compared hazards to the fielders in a game of cricket -- they won't catch every mistake, but you can't keep making mistakes without being caught out."  TD

What a great quote, thanks going to keep this in my back pocket!!

After reading all the posts on this thread, it's pretty clear to me that a great course doesn't necessarily need to have a ground game, some terrain and grass types simply won't allow it, however most great courses have a mixture of aerial and ground features on their holes.

As some have mentioned in this thread, some ground game elements could be tee shots, layups and not simply approaches.  A windy course, even with zoysia or kikuyu , will require low shots that will roll some, especially downwind. 

The 4th hole at Riviera has some ground game element to it for a lesser player, or a moderate player playing the back tees, to hit the ball with a boring trajectory and use the slope right of the green to roll it onto the surface. 

I've seen average golfers roll the ball on holes 1,2,3,5,11,13,15 at Riviera, so its available, but better players would rarely use this shot type unless it was the only way to get the ball to the green, ( impeded by trees.) 

[Adam Clayman]

Mr. Bartman, You speak as though there's a plethora of great courses. Very good, sure. But it's widely accepted in the treehouse there's but half a top 100 list of great. Thankfully the list is growing due to the efforts of thoughtful designers.

[David Bartman]

Mr. Bartman, You speak as though there's a plethora of great courses. Very good, sure. But it's widely accepted in the treehouse there's but half a top 100 list of great. Thankfully the list is growing due to the efforts of thoughtful designers.

Not sure how you derived that I think that there are an abundance of great courses from my post, I most certainly do not, but I would say that for each person the definition of a course as great or not , is entirely up to them , in or out of the tree house. 

FYI - I have played 28 of the top 100 classic courses (18 of top 50 and 10 #51-100)  and only think 11 are great, 2 of which are over #50 and I have played 36 of the top 100 modern with only 4 as great and only 1 of those was over #50.   I think I am pretty hard to get a great out of. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()