Question for you "ground game" experts...

[Mark Pearce]

Wasn't Hoylake in '06 a course that "demanded" the ground game?

[DMoriarty]

It may not be entirely fair to Mike, because it was a different thread, but I read his opening as a continuation of his thought expressed a little while ago in the Joe Lee thread:

Golf is an air game...and at times a ground game.  When ever I hear some guy talking about nothing but the gorund game it usually menas he cant play UNLESS he is an older guy.  The pros can play the ground when it is called for.  But when I see some guy trying to show me how cool it is to roll the ball in form 100 yard out just because he can't hit the proper shot I have to call BS.  

There is a common perception that the "proper shot" is an aerial shot, and for most boring tour professionals playing most boring tour stops, it is true.  But it isn't necessarily true for golf at its best, nor is it true on many better and more interesting courses.  Or at least it wouldn't be true if they were properly maintained.  

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  your question dictates the conclusion.  If you use the pro's as the standard, you are using the best players.  They are paid to shoot the lowest scores.  They are not playing for fun.  Accordingly, they will select the shot that is best suited to shoot the lowest score.  Given their skill level, absent extreme wind or very firm greens, there are less variables if the game is played in the air so that is what they do.  From the time that steel shafts came into common use and greater consistency in ball flight and the ability to practice and groove a swing without breaking shafts became feasible, the aerial game took over at the highest levels.  For those who say pro's can't hit half shots, they aren't watching what the pro's usually call "knock downs".  But again, pro's seek the highest percentage shot; they are paid to do so.

For the rest of us, we are not as skilled and there are fewer consequences if we make mistakes, so the percentages change and the cost of miscalculation is less.  We need the ground option more often as we have less ability to carry the ball and have less consistency, even those of us who are single digit handicaps.

What does that say about design?  If you want to defend par against pro's, or provide a good challenge, firm conditions are very useful.  Guarding against an aerial approach with small target areas and significant penalties for small misses is advisable.  If you also want to appeal to the average player whose ego allows him to concede that he need not play like a pro, alternate routes which give ground options are a solution.  MacDonald noted that when he advised alternate routes where one favored the long accurate hitter.  He also favored greens with open approaches on one side and possible aerial approaches on others.

If your point is that better players play differently and we should recognize that, nobody should dispute you.  The greater question is, what are the consequence for course design and maintenance?  Can we build a course that is sufficiently challenging for the great players while providing enjoyment for the rest?  Does every course have to try to do that?  How do we want our courses maintained?

[Pete_Pittock]

Mike,
It still applies. I haven't read the three pages, but my only hole in one was a deliberate ground game shot. Narrow rear tier of a green with a soft slope off the right edge which doubled the effective landing width.
As long as they keep making low spin balls....

[Paul Gray]

Has no one else noticed the elephant?

Wind.

It is however, I concede, a sad truth that perhaps we literally only see one tournament per year where the ground game becomes relevant, perhaps two now that the Scottish Open has moved to the links.

[BCowan]

 ''For those who say pro's can't hit half shots, they aren't watching what the pro's usually call "knock downs".''

   Never said the pro's can't hit knock downs.  Many of them choose not too.  More or less the modern pro hits everything 90% even with wedges, there is only a few that hit chippies (the guy with 14 majors, i won't say his name for Joel's blood pressure).  The pro's in the 80's were more shot makers IMHO.  Hitting a knock down is different then hitting a chippie....  It comes down to design of green complexes and maint.  Mike made the best point, that most of the pro's don't want to adapt and they would skip an event that required more ground game.  Tom noted about Bill Coore redoing a green for the pro's couldn't get up and down from one side of the green, oh poor things. 

[SL_Solow]

Ben,  don't kid yourself.  while there are certainly degrees, there isn't much those guys can't do with a club and ball.  The difference is, they do what gives them the best chance to score. Steve Stricker, for one, can play any short game shot you like, on the ground or in the air.  I have seen it, up front and personal.  But on the course, you only see it if its the best shot under the circumstances.  

[Mike_Young]

It may not be entirely fair to Mike, because it was a different thread, but I read his opening as a continuation of his thought expressed a little while ago in the Joe Lee thread:

Golf is an air game...and at times a ground game.  When ever I hear some guy talking about nothing but the gorund game it usually menas he cant play UNLESS he is an older guy.  The pros can play the ground when it is called for.  But when I see some guy trying to show me how cool it is to roll the ball in form 100 yard out just because he can't hit the proper shot I have to call BS.  

There is a common perception that the "proper shot" is an aerial shot, and for most boring tour professionals playing most boring tour stops, it is true.  But it isn't necessarily true for golf at its best, nor is it true on many better and more interesting courses.  Or at least it wouldn't be true if they were properly maintained.  

David,
You are correct...the Joe Lee post made me ask this question and I think as you state maintenance is often the big issue in defining ground games use.
_________

But  SL-Solow says what I have been trying to say best in his post above:  He says the pros "Accordingly, they will select the shot that is best suited to shoot the lowest score. "   Isn't that what it is all about???  I would like to know how many on here select shots that would NOT be best suited for shooting the lowest scores.   If they do they have to be the same types that think all little league team players need to get a trophy whether they win or not...

[David_Tepper]

Repeating a post I recently made on the Joe Lee thread -

To loosely quote Jack Nicklaus, "there are no bad bounces in the air."

[BCowan]

Great video of Seve, i wonder if that was before Stadler got the penalty for putting the towel down to prevent his pants from getting dirty.

SL, I agree.  When I meant chippies, I meant using more club to take off too much spin on soft greens.  It is a result of set up and maint. and native soil.  With Stricker that makes sense.  I think he would use more of his arsenal if set up was different, but I agree with your point.  Do you think set up is the main issue?

   A University (MAC) my friend played golf for was able to recruit some top players from N Ireland and New Zealand.  Supposedly one of them was highly rated in UK/Europe.  He hit most of his shots 10 feet in the air when arrived.  When he got over to the states he had trouble breaking 85.  After 6 months or a year he was able to compete very well.  Also those guys from N Ireland didn't own a pair of shorts till they got over here, imagine that.  

[BCowan]

Does anyone think that the ground game will be a factor at #2 this year?

[Mike_Young]

I think it will be BUT not sure you will see it used directly as much as you will see guys play away from specific pins and toward the middle of greens.  If they miss and have to chip etc then you will see the creativity of the pros and a lot of running shots...

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  your post is a little unfair.  There are some folks, including our friend Shivas, who often play purely for fun and don't worry about the score.  So they will try to hit shots that they find challenging or interesting even when those shots may not be the highest percentage.  On occasion there will be  (or was) a pro who sees the game as more of an art form and tries to test his ability to hit shots.  Thus he may try to hit a cut to a tight pin on the left just to see if he is able.  Dave Hill was notorious for that  type of shot selection back when woods were persimmon, balls were balata and nobody hit a straight ball.  But Hill usually lost to the percentage players.  Some of the rest of us often indulge in the same type of thing just because it is fun.  Now in a tournament or a money game, that attitude may change.

Ben;  there is no question that firmer golf courses require more thought and more shots.  When the wind blows, it creates uncertainty and allows for more creativity.  Combine the 2 and the equation changes some more.  But we all should remember, the a pro's are the best in the world and they are doing it for a living.  That doesn't mean they always make the right choices, but they have the ability to hit more shots well and they are incentivized to pick the ones best suited to lower their scores.

[Mike_Young]

Mike;  your post is a little unfair.  There are some folks, including our friend Shivas, who often play purely for fun and don't worry about the score.  So they will try to hit shots that they find challenging or interesting even when those shots may not be the highest percentage.  On occasion there will be  (or was) a pro who sees the game as more of an art form and tries to test his ability to hit shots.  Thus he may try to hit a cut to a tight pin on the left just to see if he is able.  Dave Hill was notorious for that  type of shot selection back when woods were persimmon, balls were balata and nobody hit a straight ball.  But Hill usually lost to the percentage players.  Some of the rest of us often indulge in the same type of thing just because it is fun.  Now in a tournament or a money game, that attitude may change.

Ben;  there is no question that firmer golf courses require more thought and more shots.  When the wind blows, it creates uncertainty and allows for more creativity.  Combine the 2 and the equation changes some more.  But we all should remember, the a pro's are the best in the world and they are doing it for a living.  That doesn't mean they always make the right choices, but they have the ability to hit more shots well and they are incentivized to pick the ones best suited to lower their scores.

SL,
I don't see it as unfair.  The object of the game is to shoot as low a score as one can.  If you are just out for fun and are practicing shots etc then you are not playing a game of golf.  you are practicing golf shots....that's an entirely different thing than playing golf....and I have no problem with such...JMO

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  Fair enough.  2 points in response.  First, for a long time there has been a debate among those who are characterized as "pencil and scorecard" types and those who are not.  The "anti"s" suggest that they can appreciate the architecture better because they are focused on more than score.  I don't agree that appreciating the art and trying to score are mutually exclusive but you must recognize that many people play golf for reasons other than shooting a great score and its not just about drinking and telling jokes.  Some just enjoy being out there.

Second, if you never try a shot when you are playing for score, you will never know whether you can hit it. For the pro's, that means practice rounds.  But you never know what is a percentage shot for you until you try it when it matters.