[Mike Hendren]

Many observed that at both Cheschessee Creek and Wexford Plantation approaches landing short of the green (often desirable, particularly at Wexford given the firmness of the greens) often landed softly and failed to kick onto the green.  This, without any intentional lowering of the ball flight by the player. 

With today's higher ball flights, it is reasonable to assume that a ball landing short should bounce onto the green, or should the player be required to make a shot by lowering the trajectory?

Stated otherwise, does the ground game begin with the ground, or with the club?

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

That's a great question.

Over the years, the manufacturers have made it steadily more difficult to hit a shot that bounces forward or curves in flight, by optimizing the technology so that shots fly straighter and higher and land softer.

Years ago, I would have said it was up to the player to make the changes necessary to get his shot do what he wants to.  But it sure would help now if there was some regulation to try and make it more difficult to hit a high shot, instead of (inadvertently) making it hard to hit a low shot.

[Mark Pearce]

Or the ball?  Isn't it possible to choose a lower flying, less spinny ball?

[David_Tepper]

To quote or at least paraphrase Jack Nicklaus, "there are no bad bounces in the air."

[Mike Hendren]

Or the ball?  Isn't it possible to choose a lower flying, less spinny ball?

But you can't change balls mid-round.

Mike

[Mark Pearce]

Or the ball?  Isn't it possible to choose a lower flying, less spinny ball?

But you can't change balls mid-round.

Mike

It's rare, though, for a course where balls land softly in some places to have other places where it lands firmly.  On a hard, fast links course I want the softest, spinniest landing ball I can find because the ball is going to bounce and release.  On a soft, slow course I can play with a rock all the way round because the ball will stop soon in any event.

[JESII]

Agree Mark...I see a maintenance issue more than an equipment or architecture issue...at least for this specific case.

In general I think the player should be encouraged to hit a lower shot if they're trying to bounce the ball in from short of the green. The real firm links courses I've played do this with small humps and hollows (I guess naturally occurring) that would stop a high shot but only slow down a low shot. Even a green a foot or so above grade can do this.

[Jon Wiggett]

Return to the small ball perhaps?

[Rich Goodale]

Bogey

The problem at Chechessee was that the course was slow and soft rather than fast and firm.  The lead caddy in our group told me that this was normal.  I'm not sure that the course drains that well, but I would be glad to learn that I was wrong, as otherwise it is a superb golf course with a lot of fun off the tee and some great greens.

Rich

[Ken Moum]

Or the ball?  Isn't it possible to choose a lower flying, less spinny ball?

But you can't change balls mid-round.

Mike

Sure you can.

The one-ball condition of competition is almost never in effect outside of elite-level championships.

K

[hhuffines]

The best run up shot I saw at Dixie Cup was from Matt when he ran a hybrid onto 17 from about 60 yards.  It bumped along and setlled about 10'.

[Dan Kelly]

I think you need to learn to play with the prevailing conditions -- of your clubs, your ball, and the course. If the approaches are hard, hit it high! If the approaches are soft, hit it low!

I'm now playing at a course where the ground game is possible at at least 17 of the 18 greens. I presume I will have to adjust my trajectory to accommodate different conditions of the course from day to day.

Personally, and playing with modern equipment, I don't think it's hard to hit shots that curve and shots that stay low.

Am I a Party of One in rejecting the apparently prevailing opinion that modern equipment has made it unduly difficult to control the ball's sidespin and trajectory?

[Eric Smith]

I think you need to learn to play with the prevailing conditions -- of your clubs, your ball, and the course. If the approaches are hard, hit it high! If the approaches are soft, hit it low!

I'm now playing at a course where the ground game is possible at at least 17 of the 18 greens. I presume I will have to adjust my trajectory to accommodate different conditions of the course from day to day.

Personally, and playing with modern equipment, I don't think it's hard to hit shots that curve and shots that stay low.

Am I a Party of One in rejecting the apparently prevailing opinion that modern equipment has made it unduly difficult to control the ball's sidespin and trajectory?

Good post, Dan and no - we're a party of two!

[Mark Pearce]

A ball and clubs haven't been invented that I can't snap-hook.

[Mike Hendren]

Or the ball?  Isn't it possible to choose a lower flying, less spinny ball?

But you can't change balls mid-round.

Mike

Sure you can.

The one-ball condition of competition is almost never in effect outside of elite-level championships.

K

True, but in my book there's nothing cheesier than switching balls to meet the shot demands. 

Bogey

[Mike Hendren]

Bogey

The problem at Chechessee was that the course was slow and soft rather than fast and firm.  The lead caddy in our group told me that this was normal.  I'm not sure that the course drains that well, but I would be glad to learn that I was wrong, as otherwise it is a superb golf course with a lot of fun off the tee and some great greens.

Rich

Rich, first off it was a delight to see you again.  I enjoyed watching your solid play even if you and Chris beat us like red-headed step children with freckles.  Chechessee will struggle with this issue since so many of the greens either feature false fronts or slope down to the front.  The water has nowhere to drain except toward the approaches.  (Though Ross often left a side drain near the front of his greens).  Maybe sand-capping would fix this.  BUT, I still think front pins were accessible by low runners.  

Wexford was another matter - a ball high ball flight landing 1 foot short of the green stayed there while the same shot landing 1 foot on the green rolled out as much as 30 feet, even when struck with a wedge.

Mike

Mike

[Garland Bayley]

...
Am I a Party of One in rejecting the apparently prevailing opinion that modern equipment has made it unduly difficult to control the ball's sidespin and trajectory?

Yup.

The modern multipiece ball spins high off a more angled strike, low off a less angled strike. So if your club face is very open or closed, you get the same result as formerly, but for slightly open or closed, you get less spin. Therefore, it is more difficult to get small fades and draws, because you have to more radically alter the club face than in times past.

[Brent Hutto]

I think it is the apex of Treehouse tomfoolerly to blame equipment regulations for insufficiently firm conditions at a high-end private golf club. Really, guys, a little perspective is in order surely.

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting how demographics yet again plays a role in gca.  Only a small percentage of all golfers are currently scratch players, and in turn I'd imagine that only a fraction of those is older than 50. Which means that the majority of 'good players' out there today have learned the game with and become proficient using the modern equipment and the longer straighter drives and high flying irons this equipment helps generate. It's no wonder then that we sometimes here complaints from 'good players' about courses/architecture that many of us think wonderful -- it is that architecture that asks for the kind of shots/skill set and the kind of choices and the kind of imagination that these 'good players' have no experience with.  It's not the pros or the truly great players who don't like greens that repel 'well struck shots' or short par 4s that 'don't reward distance', it's the 'good player' (or, to be more accurate, the players who think of themselves as good....)

Peter 

[Rick Shefchik]

I think you need to learn to play with the prevailing conditions -- of your clubs, your ball, and the course. If the approaches are hard, hit it high! If the approaches are soft, hit it low!

I'm now playing at a course where the ground game is possible at at least 17 of the 18 greens. I presume I will have to adjust my trajectory to accommodate different conditions of the course from day to day.

Personally, and playing with modern equipment, I don't think it's hard to hit shots that curve and shots that stay low.

Am I a Party of One in rejecting the apparently prevailing opinion that modern equipment has made it unduly difficult to control the ball's sidespin and trajectory?

Good post, Dan and no - we're a party of two!

Sorry, Dan -- I know how much you value your iconoclasm. But you're in at least a party of three.

[Josh Tarble]

Getting back to the original question.  I think it's absolutely fair to demand a lower ball flight for the ground game.   I think the best type of green complexes are those that accept aerial shots or running approaches and not necessarily a combination of the two.  The shot just needs to be executed properly.

If a player chooses to play an aerial shot, it should be executed properly and carry the necessary distance.  Likewise, if its a running shot, that shot should roll the proper distance.  Each are a unique skill.  

[Mike Hendren]

Getting back to the original question.  I think it's absolutely fair to demand a lower ball flight for the ground game.   I think the best type of green complexes are those that accept aerial shots or running approaches and not necessarily a combination of the two.  The shot just needs to be executed properly.

If a player chooses to play an aerial shot, it should be executed properly and carry the necessary distance.  Likewise, if its a running shot, that shot should roll the proper distance.  Each are a unique skill.  

+1.  Stated another way, the player can't have it both ways.

[Lou_Duran]

...

[John Kirk]

With today's higher ball flights, it is reasonable to assume that a ball landing short should bounce onto the green, or should the player be required to make a shot by lowering the trajectory?

Stated otherwise, does the ground game begin with the ground, or with the club?

Bogey

I'll answer the original question.  I think the player should be required to hit a low trajectory shot to get the roll.  Most of the time.

[Tim Pitner]

Getting back to the original question.  I think it's absolutely fair to demand a lower ball flight for the ground game.   I think the best type of green complexes are those that accept aerial shots or running approaches and not necessarily a combination of the two.  The shot just needs to be executed properly.

If a player chooses to play an aerial shot, it should be executed properly and carry the necessary distance.  Likewise, if its a running shot, that shot should roll the proper distance.  Each are a unique skill.  

I'm thinking of very firm greens in which even high shots will have quite a bit of bounce forward--I'm amazed at how some players don't seem to adjust to this.  They're so used to flying their shots to the flag that even taking one less club and playing essentially the same aerial shot, but allowing for some bounce on the green, throws them.  So I think there is a place for a green that accepts a combination of the two. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()