I don't think Mike is full of BS.....at least not this time. (insert smiley) Brian S mentions courses that "demand" the ground game. Years ago, I introduced a thread asking what it would take to force you to use the ground game. I don't recall any real responses other than it would be a nice idea if it was available. My memory could be off.
As far as I am concerned, the only thing that forces a ground shot is me being under trees off the side of the fairway, but wait....the "intelligentsia" here would also say trees by the side of the fairway are verboten.
But, I will ask again here...."What features in architecture "force" the ground game?" (I will accept "strongly encourage it")
Since golf began, golf balls and clubs have been improved, all with the idea that the ball should fly higher and further, with more spin. As an architect, I do allow for a run up shot on most greens, because lord knows, seniors and women need it and use it. However, until I see advertisements for clubs and balls that "fly lower!" and "have less spin!" I doubt I will change my design approach too much. I see "ground game" as a bit of nostalgia, like art deco buildings, maybe.
And again, I do understand the lower running recovery shots as opposed to flip wedges all the time, but maybe from 20-30 yards off the green, 50-60 yards tops, as per my conversation with Player and others. Funny story, while playing golf in China recently, the female caddy automatically handed me the wedge on every recovery shot and seemed insulted that I handed it back in favor of a 6 or 7 iron.....so I do understand how ingrained the wedge shot is in the minds of most golfers, when it really shouldn't be, either.
But another funny thing is, I got a new appreciation for the low approach from the Pelz short game school, but when I mentioned that, some here poo pooed that, saying they would prefer golfers play with "feel." What I think Mike doesn't get, is how many here think the object of the game is to hit creative shots, and any attempt to standardize the golf swing is bad. However, most golf instructors (including Pelz) will tell you standardization leads to lower scores, which of course, is the point of golf, always and forever. I get that standardized architecture that gets as repetitive as the golf swing should be is usually the response, and eventually gets tired. I just think that the basic structure ought to be designed for how golf is played now, and variety instilled with a range of features based mostly on that.
Or, reintroducing, as most have, old features like the Redan and Biarritz (although not many play it like CBM intended). Funny, but most here blanched at the US Open at Shinny when the pros figures cutting a shot into the Redan was the best way to play it, as if they should cow tow to our demands to play the wrong shot, because some guy thought it should be played the other way a century ago....As we all know, nostalgia is the LAST thing on any players mind when in an important match. Have we ever hears a pro say "I won't try to shoot a 63 to respect the design heritage of XX famous dead guy course?"