[Ivan Lipko]

I would like to start this thread that may sound like I am trolling the respectful members of the board. But instead I am just trying to get more knowledge and bring to life a very important question of forced carries and air game, of which there seems to be a consensus here it is bad and the sign of poor golf architecture.

I  honestly believe that while golf is a great game and playing low flying shots is a ton of fun, it gets incredibly more spectacular when you can bomb the high balls. It looks better to the spectators and to the player alike. After all any hack can top the ball, and produce low flying nothing shots. Thats all that the beginners are doing when playing golf. And all they dream about is to learn how to get the ball airborne. I remember the pure excitement I felt after reaching my first 200 yard carry with the driver. It was almost like a first kiss, or something. And I didn't want my five iron to fly 140 yard carry to then roll for another 30 yard. I always wanted it to fly the full 170-180 yards carry.

I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.

Thus, why would you bash the air game all the time? I want those heroic carries that make you feel goosebumps before hitting the shot and fill your body with pure exhilaration after you achieve your goal. A good course should have  those shots as well as the holes that will give you options to play a low-flying roller, especially in some conditions.

Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?

I realize there are some elderly gentleman who can not hit the ball long way physically, but you have forward tees for them. For the rest, why not man up and go for it? Golf is a multi-faceted sport and it is interesting when it is variable and requires all type of shots - long and short, high  and low, rolling and with backspin. What I am missing?

PS: sorry if I offended somebody with this post it wasn't my purpose.

PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.

[PCCraig]

Ivan,

People who hate forced carries are bad golfers who can't consistently get the ball in the air or are playing the wrong tees.

I don't hate forced carries, unless they become overly repetitive throughout a round.

[Brent Hutto]

Nevermind

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think the objection is based on personal game around here, as most of the clamor for the "ground game" around here is basically nostalgia and a feeling that somehow golf isn't as challenging or shots aren't as much as a unique adventure as they used to be.  Probably so, as golfers have tried to standardize swings and club makers standardize (and improve) clubs.  If everyone is playing to shoot their best score, playing the most efficient way makes sense in the long game.

And, for short game, the running shot still makes sense in many situations (keep it lower to the ground when you can) and the only real gripe is elevated green designs with only bunkers and rough which dictate a flop shot, when there are so many other shots that might be played in the short game with bump and run, etc.  In some ways, the better modern maintenance should be a boon to the short game with more predictable bounces, and most designers take advantage.  Since Pebble Beach in 1992, the trend towards short game recovery areas has done nothing but increase.

But as to the long game, its much like air travel is safer than Amtrak - just a lot less things to run into up there. Until the offer clubs and balls that "fly lower" with "less spin" everyone is going to play an aerial game.  Over time, the curved shot has replaced the bouncing ball as the biggest element of shot making.  Probably just as difficult and challenging, but just different than it used to be.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It's an ongoing story, as suggested by this March, 1914 article:

[Thomas Dai]

Ivan,

I played several games many years ago with an elderly gentleman who had been a pretty reasonable player, easy single figure hcp, able to get the ball into the air no problem. As he got older he lost the ability to hit the ball high. A hole on his home course, a par-5, required a carry of about 75 yds just short of the green. There was no way around, it was a forced carry or bust.

Once-upon-time this was no problem for said gentleman, but alas in later years it was not possible for him to carry this distance. Instead he used to play up to the edge of the hazard, pick his ball up, walk to the other side, drop the ball and play on. He was still playing golf, but he could no longer compete in club competitions and matches etc with his friends and fellow members. An element was now lost from his life. A great shame as he had been a stalwart of the club, competitions and inter-club matches for decades.

I am of the school that wants a route to play each hole for all players, young bucks, old guys, juniors of both sexes, ladies, men, seniors etc. Everyone, even if they have to 'tack' their way around hazards. Perhaps this is an unrealistic goal, but it's something I think should be desired and aimed for.

They may not realise it yet, but todays young bucks and bombers will be tomorrows elderly gentlemen.

Atb

[Paul Gray]

Ivan,

Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.

Yours,

Paul Gray
3 handicapper that obtained that handicap easily enough whilst playing at an aerial course and now struggles to maintain it on a proper links course which requires shot variation.  

[Doug Siebert]

When I was in my 20s I probably hit the ball higher than anyone you've ever seen.  Even today I still hit it higher than most.  But having the ability to do something, or finding it the best way to attack a shot in a lot of cases, doesn't mean it is the best for the game.  What's so exciting about hitting a high ball?  If I hit a long sky high drive dead down the middle of the fairway, I won't even bother to watch it more than a 150 yards into its flight, I'm picking up my tee while it reaches its apex.  I'm putting the headcover back on my driver while it lands.  What's the point in watching, it is going to end up a few feet from where it lands...there's no suspense.

It is much the same thing if you hit a high ball into a soft green - in that case you watch it long enough to see it hit since you know whether it is on line or not but don't know distance wise until it lands.  So that's more fun to watch, and keeps your attention for the 6 or 7 seconds it is in the air.  Once it hits, the fun is over unless you hit it onto a slope that'll let it move.

The longer it takes for the ball to stop moving the longer the excitement (or fear!) of the shot lasts.  Isn't that what you play golf for?  If you just want to hit high balls and watch them fly, you can hit a lot more of those in less time for less money on the driving range.

As for forced carries, I don't believe in giving people too much advantage simply because they have more swing speed.  Length is already its own reward, having forced carries that give longer hitters an even bigger advantage is unnecessary - it needs to really be one hell of a carry that entails some risk, not something that simply shortens a hole from the back tees to be the same length as it is from the front with a crappy little 200 yard carry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Didn't even see the forced carries part, but I believe over time, we have found out that they don't bother good players but torture average ones, who make up 90% of players.  Statistically, they just don't work out in very many ways as good design for a wide variety of players. 

As mentioned in the HHA thread and like skydiving, its really only the last inch that matter.  Strategically, a skinny angled protruding and/or cross bunker at the critical point achieves the exact same strategic objective without terrorizing the golfing populace.

[Tom_Doak]

Ivan,

Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.

I'll try to condense it for Ivan:

What Thomas Dai said, above.

[Paul Gray]

To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you? Do you often find yourself thinking about the ball moving an inch left in a particular air pocket before breaking sharp right? Do you wonder how severe that hidden air pocket thereafter might be? Thought not.

Again, it's a massive simplification but, as I said, a full answer requires a book. Although at this rate.....

[Dave McCollum]

I was playing alone in Ireland on a links.  There was plenty of breeze.  I thought to myself the cool thing about this shot is you have to read it like a putt.  It was far more important what happened to the ball after it hit the ground than what it looked like through the air.  If you just took the yardard to the pin and fired a high one at it, you had no chance.  If you aimed away from the pin, kept it low, let it release, and used the slope, you had a chance.  More often than not, that’s the essence of links golf.  When you see it and pull off the shot, for me, there is nothing better in golf.

[Joe Zucker]

David has nailed it.  The aerial game is essentially entirely within the players control.  With much difficulty, it can kind of be mastered and you can see all of the possible shots.  There no chance of ever seeing all of the ground options on a great course.  The aerial game can be anticipated and get boring, where as the ground game is infinitely variable.

David's explanation shows why the ground game is so much fun and why pros hate it.

[Daniel Jones]

A perfect example happened to me just a few hours ago... I was walking a quick 9 with a half dozen clubs when I arrived to the par5, 7th. I had 240 to the front, but the longest club I had was my 4 iron, which only carries 190ish. I elected to close it down, hit a low boring hook, and watched as it ran down the hard pan, up the slope leading to the green and onto the front edge. If I had been carrying my entire bag, I probably would have pulled out the 3 wood, and my guess is the identical result wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying.

[Dave McCollum]

"Because golf is more fun and frankly more demanding when the strategy of the game more closely resembles pool than darts."

Another great line.  If I had read David's post before posting mine, I wouldn't have bothered.   

[Philip Hensley]

Didn't even see the forced carries part, but I believe over time, we have found out that they don't bother good players but torture average ones, who make up 90% of players.  Statistically, they just don't work out in very many ways as good design for a wide variety of players. 

As mentioned in the HHA thread and like skydiving, its really only the last inch that matter.  Strategically, a skinny angled protruding and/or cross bunker at the critical point achieves the exact same strategic objective without terrorizing the golfing populace.

This.

Forced carries/air game hurt the average golfer and work in favor of the really good players disproportionate to their ability. Give everyone ground to work with and the differences in score are more proportionate to each player's ability.

Today's better players are swing robots that can repeat the same shot over and over again but that is different from the "playing" of golf. I can shoot a basketball really well but that doesn't mean I'm good in a basketball game. Forced carries and forced air game on a course only determine if you can execute your swing well that day, they don't test how well you can navigate the course and get the ball in the hole.

Someone like me (5 hcp) scores much better on cartballer, driver/range-finder/target green golf where I break 80 and my friends struggle to break 105 and we have a 25-35 shot difference. But at a place like Dormie Club I've only broken 85 once and usually struggle to break 90. My short game and touch isn't good enough to navigate the last 50 yards of the hold and all around the green. But out there my friends aren't shooting 115-125 and we all have a lot more fun.

When I played in Scotland a couple of years ago I was around 8-10 hcp, maybe lost 1 ball all week, never got in a fairway bunker, and broke 95 every round. I never went "low", but I never went shot a 110 either. And even when I made a double or triple bogey I could attribute it to my inability to pull off the shot I was attempting to hit, instead of the architect forcing one type of shot on my and basically saying "hit this target or you will make a triple".

[mike_beene]

The 11 th hole at my club had a pond across the approach that required a 90 yard carry. It was immediately the hole Bill Coore said was his least favorite and had been for all the years he worked on the course. I never thought much about it but he mentioned watching several groups go through not capable of the carry and mentioned we will hopefully all get there some day. He moved the pond where there is now a strip of fairway. It doesn't change the hole for most people but allows some to finish a round by the rules. It was consistent with the whole idea of making golf more fun for the high to mid handicapper but making it tougher on the good player( in a more fun way of course).

[Brett Wiesley]

I find the more I enjoy architecture the more I find a blend of the two concepts. There really can be great challenge in a course with no penalty hazards such as water/OB. These and courses with slopes and gentle fall offs from green surrounds are likely the best.  You can fly ball to the green, but need to position correctly or you will squander shots away with the shot game or have miraculous recovery. This still allows an aerial approach, but with touch. Playing links is still aerial to a point where you are targeting a landing point to then allow for your intended bounce and roll.

My disappointment with new courses designed with a ground intent is when the conditioning doesn't match and the course thus does not play properly and is thus a mess. You cannot force links golf and intended design on ground and turf not suited for this.

[William_G]

It's really no more complicated than the fact that algebra (due to variables) is harder than straight arithmetic, when you think about it...

LOL

it's all about the bounce which may lead to another bounce etc...etc...


for instance at Bandon the yardage to the hole is almost irrelevant   

[Mark Pearce]

There are plenty of shots on great links courses which require the ball to be hit in the air.  The difference between the "air game" and the "ground game" is that the air game, with soft fairways and greens requires control of only two things, carry distance and direction.  The ground game, however, requires control of three things, carry distance, direction and trajectory.  Even amongst the very best golfers there are few with mastery over trajectory and that is what divides the great ball strikers from the rest.  That's one of the reasons that hard fast courses do well at identifying the very best golfers.

[Sean_A]

Ivan

I don't wish to pile on so I won't.  I do think golfers who always want a way out on every course are misguided. There is a time and a place for forced carries over water, but they should be reserved for the right situation using the right hazard.  This almost universally means the hazard shouldn't be a long forced carry.  Instead, the placement of the hazard should be the worry of archies.  There are a lot of short forced carries that are wonderful holes, but I am struggling to think of many which involve a 75 or 100 yard carry. 

Can you tell me about any long carry water holes you think are great an have you seen older people, kids and women trying tom play these holes?

Ciao

[Niall C]

Ivan,

Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.

Yours,

Paul Gray
3 handicapper that obtained that handicap easily enough whilst playing at an aerial course and now struggles to maintain it on a proper links course which requires shot variation.  

oh I don't know Paul, I don't think it takes 50 pages to explain why the ground game is perhaps more interesting and has more variety than hitting high shots into receptive greens.

To my mind it is all a matter of control of the golf ball. If all you're doing is hitting a high ball to a receptive green/fairway then you are not really required to take into account how the ball will react when it lands, it will simply go splodge. No real control is required. Now as Ivan says, there is some satisfaction to be gained in seeing a ball get airborne also knowing you've hit it on the right line with the correct weight.

However how much more satisfaction is there in hitting that same shot to a fast and firm green/fairway and having to allow for how the ball will react when it lands or to hit it in such a way that it will react as you plan it to. Note, that this doesn't exclude the high shot. High or low ball flight, it doesn't matter, it's about controlling the ball from start to finish ie when it rolls out and not just when it goes splodge.

Now Ivan might say that's all very well but what about the hacker who can barely get the ball up in the air, why should they get an advantage by being able to employ the ground game ? Well, the hacker still needs to control the ball to get the required result, does he not ? Just because he sclaffs the ball doesn't mean it will nestle up to the pin in the same way that hitting a ball high will guarantee a short putt for birdie. I recall my best golf was played when I was a member at Silloth, and I regularly went round in 5 over and less in bounce games and at that time I didn't carry a driver in the bag and was hitting a skanky low fade on most shots. However I was able to control those shots and that was the key.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you?

Unless of course, you consider wind, the oldest hazard in golf!

[jeffwarne]

I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.

.

Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?

I'd say maybe? 5% of the participants in the game can drive 230 in the air?

Not even sure the rest deserves a response, but I can't think of a way to drastically shrink the game than to adopt attitudes like this.
But good news, there's plenty out there for you to love!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think its actually 15% or so.  Or, at least that many are capable of it.  Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()