[Jason Thurman]

How will a good course design incorporate the ground game, specifically into approach shots? Will it mandate it, accommodate it, or regulate it?

I say accommodate it. Allow a weaker player to bunt the ball around, but no reason to make it especially easy for him by avoiding things like upslopes into greens or the occasional fronting bunker. Trying to mandate it is a fool's errand on anything but the best of sandy sites considering the playing characteristics of modern equipment and how much height and spin even a good high-school player generates.

Truthfully, the more designs from the '80s I play, the more I can appreciate the idea behind regulating it. There's a lot to be said for courses that regularly present no real chance to get the ball onto the green with a running-approach provided that they still allow players a ground-friendly bailout just to either side of the green. A disciplined player willing to minimize their risk by playing for those safe bailouts can really use them to equalize a match with a stronger player. If they lack that discipline, odds are that they'll pull off the approach to the green once or twice during the round and come away with a lifelong memory in spite of shooting a triple-digit score. Win-win-win.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not sure you can "mandate it" unless you can mandate the weather.

For purposes of discussion, let's ignore the few Ozymandias clubs out there with unlimited resources for Sub-Air (tm) and intensive maintenance practices. A normal course is going to have occasions when it plays too soft to "mandate" a ground game for decent players. So I think "accommodate it" is the most that a typical course can hope for.

Nothing sadder than experiencing a course that obviously was designed around the ground game but is soft and/or wet on the day.

[JESII]

Two questions:

1 - How could it possibly be mandated? Equipment with no ability to get the ball in the air?

2 - How many people have the skill to consistently hit these "ground friendly bailout" areas?

Accomodate is really the only answer I'd say.

[Jason Thurman]

Most links courses mandate it, though they have the benefit of excellent soils for golf. Even in those cases, I'd generally prefer to see it accommodated rather than mandated.

In my part of the country, there are a lot of old pasture golf courses with tiny greens that are often rock hard and will only accept a perfectly weighted ground approach. There's not a shot in golf more demanding than the approach to the third hole at Bogie Busters Golf Course (sic) at Coal Ridge in Georgetown, KY in firm conditions.

[Brent Hutto]

"In firm conditions" is operative clause here. Conditions can mandate landing the ball other than on the green. The hand of the architect can "accommodate" such conditions if that's what the architect wants to do. But the firmness needs cooperation from nature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have seen greens with trees right in front, which sort of mandate the ground game approach, but which aren't popular at all.

As mentioned, firm greens (and approaches) and perhaps reverse slope greens which make holding a high shot harder.  However, I have built these only to see better players just put more spin on the ball.  For that matter, think Shinney No. 7 and the pros playing a classic Redan with a high cut to hold it, rather than a low draw.  Sometimes, I think we need to just accept the fact that good players aren't going to use the ground game unless coming out from under trees or avoiding that tree front green.

I agree with Jason that accommodating it, since it is used/required/helpful for the 90% of golfers who are less strong, is the way to go.  He mentions not worrying about upslope, but I have seen some seniors gripe that their ball was heading to the green and stopped by about a 10% slope.  Probably need to keep them as low as possible to really make the ground game possible.  Also, saw those Dick Wilson greens at La Costa, with most having 10-17% ramps up to the green....frontal bunker or not, those were aerial greens.

[Thomas Dai]

How will a good course design incorporate the ground game, specifically into approach shots? Will it mandate it, accommodate it, or regulate it?.....

With or without fairway irrigation?

Even links, heathlands and other free draining courses that have had fairway irrigation installed are no longer as playable using the ground game as they once were. See the - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59449.0.html - "Bucket List. Play an unirrigated Links course." thread and also this one which started out about Dooks but branched off - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59431.0.html

atb

[Jason Thurman]

I agree with Jason that accommodating it, since it is used/required/helpful for the 90% of golfers who are less strong, is the way to go.  He mentions not worrying about upslope, but I have seen some seniors gripe that their ball was heading to the green and stopped by about a 10% slope.  Probably need to keep them as low as possible to really make the ground game possible.

Jeff, this is one of the main concepts I wrestle with and one of the ideas that prompted this thread. I guess I don't believe it's a bad thing if a handful of approach shots require a very deftly struck approach and a bit of luck for a player taking the ground route. Assuming that they'll generally have a fairly simple up and down with short grass under their ball if they do get stopped by an upslope, I'm not sure that I find it any different than significant contours that feed an aerial approach away from the pin for players taking an aerial route. Accommodation to me means allowing a player to get their ball around the course, but not necessarily letting them do it easily or without paying an occasional price of a stroke or two for the fact that they can't get the ball in the air regularly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Understand your POV.  I was thinking of playing in a few grand openings this year (or re-openings). In playing with so many average golfers, I was reminded that their definition of a good shot is one that gets airborne, and generally flies at the green.  They hit so few good approach shots, that when they hit a "good one" they get frustrated when even those don't find the green, if on line.  Really frustrated, although chipping from front fw is better than bunkers blasts.

[David Davis]

I might say it has it's place and that IMO is on sand based soil, I've not played many parkland courses in the US where I missed the ground game or ability to utilize it. I've rarely experienced conditions firm and fast enough to allow a bump and run to easily be judged on a parkland course. Therefore as mentioned by Jeff it's only being used when there is absolutely no other option due to trees etc.

Now if you move in the direction of a Bandon Dunes resort, Chambers Bay or anything sand based overseas in the UK/Ireland/Scotland then I'd say it should be mandated. While you don't have to utilize it all the time it is one of the principles that makes links golf/proper heathland golf so interesting. The fact that there are many ways to play the shot and allowing for maximum creativity given the various weather conditions and firm surfaces one must deal with.

It also seems you are considering that it's what allows weaker players to participate but few weaker players can stand at 50, 100, 150, 200 yards into gail winds and judge the distance of a low or punch 4 or 5 iron. I'd argue that requires far more skill than hitting a 56 or 60 degree wedge pin high over a bunker in front of the green.

[Brent Hutto]

Yeah but a lucky chopped 4-iron will bounce up onto the green often enough to give some (faint) hope. The chunked wedge followed by skulled wedge combination never works out well. Ever.

[Jay Mickle]

As one who plays with hickories as well as modern clubs I really appreciate the accommodation of courses to the ground game. There is just something special about hitting an approaching cleek from 125 yds and watching the ball run along the ground up to the pin. The old classic courses accommodated both and now many of the more recent courses by Doak, C&C and others provide both air and ground options.  A local newer course that provides both options is Dormie Club.
The right back pin at the 9th hole at Mid Pines requires a ball with considerable backspin (something not possible with hickories) to hold the green. In redoing the green Kyle Franz made sure to accommodate the ground game by allowing a running ball to be directed, off the right side of a spline at the back of the green, to the right back location. Both shots require skill and finesse and struck well are quite rewarding.

[George Pazin]

Allow a weaker player to bunt the ball around, but no reason to make it especially easy for him by avoiding things like upslopes into greens or the occasional fronting bunker.

What makes you think the player who chooses the ground game is looking to have these things eradicated? Most are simply looking for a way around, and are prepared to live with the consequences should their plans go awry.

Regulate? That's the last thing I'd do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, Jason - one man's view: on most public courses I play, and assuming standard maintenance practices and turf conditions, those 7-10% slopes are absolutely non starters when it comes to accomodating the ground game.  They are fool's gold -- convincing the average player (even though he should know better) that an averagely struck run up shot will actually run up there, but it never does.  I think it's the "fool" part that gets golfers angry; they'd rather see a clearly elevated greens with bunkers all around because at least that honestly tells them what they have to (try) to do, even if they know they can't do it very often at all.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I might say it has it's place and that IMO is on sand based soil, I've not played many parkland courses in the US where I missed the ground game or ability to utilize it. I've rarely experienced conditions firm and fast enough to allow a bump and run to easily be judged on a parkland course. Therefore as mentioned by Jeff it's only being used when there is absolutely no other option due to trees etc.

David:

Do your mom or dad play golf?

My guess is that if they do, they are hitting 4-woods or hybrids into nearly every green on the course, and they need a way to get them there other than in the air.  That's why there should be a ground game option in most settings ... unless you are setting out to build a course like Pine Valley which does not cater to such players.  The fact that you won't be tempted to use the ground game option doesn't mean others will have the same choice.

However, Peter is also correct, above ... if the ground game option is a pronounced upslope to a raised green, it isn't helping many golfers.  The typical Rees Jones course was a great example of this.

[Sean_A]

The truth is, golf is game that should be dictated by weather so mandating the ground game or accommodating the ground game both have their place.  What we want to try to avoid is regulating the ground game.  To me this means that the goal is to present the course the same every day.   

Ciao

[Steve Salmen]

I played a course in the US recently that traditionally plays pretty firm and fast though it is not a links course.  They have been adding a lot of sand to the whole course to try to make it play like a links course.  I was playing with a low handicap golfer from Scotland.  On one hole, we both had about 70 yards to the green, straight downwind.  It may have been the tightest lie I have ever seen.  The thought of hitting a wedge never even crossed my mind.  We both rolled six irons up.

I think this is an example where the ground game is becoming mandatory, not an accommodation.  I personally do not have a problem with this.  Anything that makes golf more linksy is fine with me.  I also suspect that this is an outlying event.

[David Davis]

I might say it has it's place and that IMO is on sand based soil, I've not played many parkland courses in the US where I missed the ground game or ability to utilize it. I've rarely experienced conditions firm and fast enough to allow a bump and run to easily be judged on a parkland course. Therefore as mentioned by Jeff it's only being used when there is absolutely no other option due to trees etc.

David:

Do your mom or dad play golf?

My guess is that if they do, they are hitting 4-woods or hybrids into nearly every green on the course, and they need a way to get them there other than in the air.  That's why there should be a ground game option in most settings ... unless you are setting out to build a course like Pine Valley which does not cater to such players.  The fact that you won't be tempted to use the ground game option doesn't mean others will have the same choice.

However, Peter is also correct, above ... if the ground game option is a pronounced upslope to a raised green, it isn't helping many golfers.  The typical Rees Jones course was a great example of this.

Tom, I see your point. My parents don't play but on the other hand what you are saying is that, for example there is little to no place for greens completely surround by bunkers or water or center line bunkers with little likely option to play around? How else would these players that cannot get the ball off the ground at all complete their rounds.

I realize you have to try and accommodate everyone but like you said, the players you are describing would have an impossible time trying to get around Pine Valley or many other courses. Maybe they would just have to choose their golf appropriately.

I think it's a tough ask and many of these players should be encouraged to take lessons in order to learn to play a little smarter to avoid these hazards. Maybe lay up just in front of them and chip over them, for example.

I'm sure there are exception to my experienced in the US where the top courses have nearly all been lush and green with perfect carpeted fairways and conditions where you could run up balls perhaps but not with the consistency and predictability that I like to utilize the ground game with.

[jeffwarne]

I played a course in the US recently that traditionally plays pretty firm and fast though it is not a links course.  They have been adding a lot of sand to the whole course to try to make it play like a links course.  I was playing with a low handicap golfer from Scotland.  On one hole, we both had about 70 yards to the green, straight downwind.  It may have been the tightest lie I have ever seen.  The thought of hitting a wedge never even crossed my mind.  We both rolled six irons up.

I think this is an example where the ground game is becoming mandatory, not an accommodation.  I personally do not have a problem with this.  Anything that makes golf more linksy is fine with me.  I also suspect that this is an outlying event.

"the tightest lie I have ever seen"
agreed that in places it is becoming mandatory.
I'm never afraid of tight lies on links in the UK and Ireland, and hit shots with all wedges, mid irons, short irons and putters.
The high end faux links over here with their super tight, constantly sanded, crazy tight lies (all in the name of ground game options)...terrify me.
If you have a brain in your head, there are no options on this type of turf-just putt.

I don't consider such lies linksy, just tight , and reduced/eliminated options due to super tight ultra modern high end agronomy are as boring as soft lush turf-and WAAAY more expensive.

[Lyndell Young]

Accommodate I say, different options for different playing abilities. I think this was the main problem with a lot of the courses built in the 80's and 90's ,LONG ,TIGHT AND OVERLY BUNKERED. It takes the fun out of the game if you are a high handicapper or short hitter. Aerial game gets a little monotonous even for a good player. One thing I do not appreciate is rock hard greens and soft mushy surrounds= no options.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()