Hazards That Defeat the Aerial Game

[Ally Mcintosh]

I haven't cleaned the grooves on my irons for about 7 years. This is certainly a hazard that defeats the aerial game.

[Paul Gray]

I haven't cleaned the grooves on my irons for about 7 years. This is certainly a hazard that defeats the aerial game.

We're allowed to clean them? 

[RDecker]

One of the arguments against hard/static objects on and around the playing surfaces is that they provide a safety hazard.  A skulled 8 iron off a brick wall hitting Mrs. Sloan in the noggin wouldn't go over too well.  As for the debate about ground versus aerial game isn't it a bit like Football and the argument about passing versus running the ball.  Some days one works better that the other and depending on the course and the conditions wouldn't one make more sense than the other and therefore it benefit a player to be able to play the game both ways.  The fact that more pro tracks and tournaments seem to favor the aerial game is a function of television more than architecture or the equipment industry.  The ball in the air is simply easier for the tv audience to follow isn't it?  The ground game is less sexy I'm guessing, at least from a madison ave. perspective.  Why would the ground game take over when it doesn't sell, be it equipment or airtime.

[Matt MacIver]

Tree - I think the large one ~90 yards from the green on the left side of Sawgrass #16 vexes countless amateurs along with some pros each May. Maybe the pros don't often play a runner under it for their third shot, but I did, and I do see a few pro's get their V1s hung up there occasionally. Of course playing away from the water on the right helps too.

Around the green what about deep, anti-gathering pot bunkers vs what we usually see today, part eye-candy and part necessary?  Wouldn't they promote the ground game?

Or a scab bunker that only allows one direction to play out of, no matter where the flag is.

[Jason Topp]

Greens that tilt significantly towards one of the front corners present interesting challenges for the aerial game while also providing interest for those hitting it along the ground.  At my former club there are several holes were you are better off being short and on the side of the green below the hole than you are being in the middle of the green above the hole or even pin high wide.  With a shorter club the player is always tempted to try and stick it close but if you screw up putting off the green becomes a strong possibility. You try to hit it below the hole and there is always the question of how much margin you want to give yourself.

By contrast if you run it up to the low corner, par is a very easy proposition.  Hitting that shot requires discipline and skill but because balls feed to that area anyway the shot is within the range of all.

[David Davis]

Definitely side on the main hazards defeating the aerial game being fast and firm conditions, ridges, run-offs etc and wind.

What I'm really interested in hearing are everyones examples of non-links courses where these practices are heavily put to use. I'm not sure I can provide a single personal example though some of you will undoubtably remind me of a few that I'm not thinking of.

[BCowan]

Trees near the green!  Probably not what Melvyn had in mind  Cheesy  Of course, these have to be used judiciously, because if they're on the south-east side of the green they will cause the superintendent more trouble than the aerial golfer ... but having an overhanging tree fairly close to the green or just past the landing area is much more problem for the aerial approach, than for the low-ball hitter who may not tangle with its branches.  [On the other hand, trees in other positions cause a lot more problem for the low-ball hitter than for the guy who can play comfortably over them.]

This really should be a thread of its own.  Added headaches for Keepers should be avoided at all costs imo.  I think tree(s) around greens are horrible.  They block wind patterns, cause air stagnation, soften greens, and poorer playing conditions.  I think it is a lazy/UN-imaginitive design feature similar as a pond to add strategic value.  

[Paul Gray]

My, my, my...

After reading this whole thread, I have just one thing to say:  how quickly we forget the flyer strip.

Everybody is focused on where the ball lands and contacts the turf.  That's fine.  But if you want to hurt the aerial game, it's about where the club contacts the ball.  Flyer strips, pinched fairways, minimal fairway turf acreage in the approach areas that long hitting aerialists drive to will do more to inhibit the aerial game than anything I can think of.  At least couple this with the green site ideas...

For the new guys asking "what the hell is a flyer strip?", its first rough cut grass strategically placed (preferably on an angle or like an "S" for a bit of randomness) where long hitters hit the ball (slightly longer than the rough cut at ANGC), so the next shot could produce a flyer.  Even from the middle of the fairway lines.  Not horribly penal on any given shot.  Just cumulatively penal over time.  I originally proposed this idea as a way to bifurcate a fairway without having to put a bunker or other hazard right in the middle, but it would also serve the purpose (if used correctly) of hindering the aerial game by causing players to lay back shot of the flyer strip zone, thereby putting less loft in their hands on the approach shot or at least forcing them to hit a perfect tee ball to catch actual fairway.  

It's not about the landing, guys; it's about the launch.  

Narrow fairways, minimal bump and run options???

Not narrowed by rough, per se.  Narrowed in the sense that ANGC is narrowed by their "first cut".  It creates imprecision on the approach.  I wouldn't merely narrow fairways.  And I'd leave playing corridors as-is.   This is fairly cheap and easy to do.   There are two options: bottleneck them where the big hitters hit it with a large first cut OR keep the fairway just as wide, and put a little of that "first cut" in the middle or on an angle across the fairway. It's just a function of mower height, and doesn't cost a lot.  And it makes it tougher for a guy to bank on precision in the aerial game.

I didn't know anyone here was still making this argument.

Narrower fairways, regardless of the length of the rough adjoining them, are still narrower fairways, meaning strategic 'running game' options are replaced by driving range golf. The same applies to longer grass around greens. Surround a green with longer grass and is there any option other than an aerial one from 20 yards out?

Of course the facts speak for themselves and it is interesting that the opposite of what you're still proposing saw only one man break par at Pinehurst last year where there was exactly zero first cut rough. That must be proof enough that the aerial approach of the modern pro was defeated in that instance. We could go on to talk about the Open Championship but I'm sure you get the drift of it.

Clearly we have diametrically opposed opinions on what constitutes good architecture.

[Craig Disher]

Another way of defeating the aerial game is to do it indirectly by changing the target so that playing to the green is less preferable than playing an approach. Shrinking the green's width or depth - but not necessarily the size - does make the aerial approach more difficult, especially from distance. But adding features - mounds and ridges - in front of greens that act like catcher's mitts or chutes to funnel an approach to a preferred location on the green would make a running shot a better option. Of course this requires some firmness around the green. 

[Joe Hancock]

Dave,

I'll bite.

What if we just cut everything at that perfect "flier height"? Then, the shorter, and lesser skilled get that propped up lie that is easier to get a club on and will encourage more roll at the end of the shot. The highly skilled player who relies on spin and distance control has difficulty in their normal world of shotmaking. And, if that isn't incentive enough, it simplifies maintenance which reduces cost, the time needed to do maintenance and reduces the opportunity to muck things up, visually.

Sounds like the progress just might be rooted in the past.

Joe

[jeffwarne]

Dave,

I'll bite.

What if we just cut everything at that perfect "flier height"? Then, the shorter, and lesser skilled get that propped up lie that is easier to get a club on and will encourage more roll at the end of the shot. The highly skilled player who relies on spin and distance control has difficulty in their normal world of shotmaking. And, if that isn't incentive enough, it simplifies maintenance which reduces cost, the time needed to do maintenance and reduces the opportunity to muck things up, visually.

Sounds like the progress just might be rooted in the past.

Joe

Of course that depends upon one's definition of "flier height"

but cutting fairways at a more reasonable level would provide more enjoyment for most players, and put a degree of thought, feel, and fear into the higher clubhead speed player using a modern ball.

and would go a long way to lowering inputs to fairways, with the added benefit of more firmness without fear of losing the grass

[Thomas Dai]

Length of cut - I still need more convincing about 'flier' length grass as a limitation of the aerial game.

I'm thinking almost the opposite - particularly the difficulty for the average Joe in hitting a modern wide sole cavity back iron off really, really short turf, dimply lies etc. I think I'd prefer a thin blade and most likely the resulting lower trajectory than a head high fizzer type strike. I know a few folk who when Uk courses get really parched and burnt-up put their wide sole cavity back irons back in the cupboard and take their old set of blades or semi-blades out. Guess it depends on how good a striker you are or how we define 'flier' length grass etc.

Atb

[Marc Haring]

Dave,

I'll bite.

What if we just cut everything at that perfect "flier height"? Then, the shorter, and lesser skilled get that propped up lie that is easier to get a club on and will encourage more roll at the end of the shot. The highly skilled player who relies on spin and distance control has difficulty in their normal world of shotmaking. And, if that isn't incentive enough, it simplifies maintenance which reduces cost, the time needed to do maintenance and reduces the opportunity to muck things up, visually.

Sounds like the progress just might be rooted in the past.

Joe

The old old greenkeeper at Swinley used to cut his fairways at 1 1/4" (I kid you not) and it achieved exactly what you said.

I tried it at my club at the time and narrowly escaped being publicly lynched.

[Ronald Montesano]

Are we equating aerial game with long hitters? Are all aerialists, by nature, bombers?

[Paul Gray]

Dave,

Fair enough if what you are in effect referring to is grass bunkers, although you still seem interested in referring to pinch points which, for me, do nothing to demote the aerial game put simply but a 4 iron in a players' hand.

Fairway cut generally, and I digress a little, I would always advocate being a little longer as a matter of course.

Forgive me for thinking you were referring to the sort of approach taken at Augusta. Clearly I was misled by the fact that you used Augusta as an example of what you were referring to.

[Marc Haring]

Ridges fronting greens and built up bunker surrounds that can be utilised for the running shot would appear to be the best features that encourage the ground game and penalise the aerialphile but I can't think of any hole where the mound or ridge fronting a green is anything other than fairly insignificant. A say 5 foot ridge with severe downslope that would make a high shot almost impossible seems non-existent in golf and yet it would fit into landforms and offer the odd very interesting hole. I guess that all the good players would take the aerial route, kick over the green and claim it totally unfair.

Is there such a hole in golf?

[Colin Macqueen]

Tom,

"Ridges in front of greens, or in the greens.  The aerial player has to be afraid of hitting the back side of the ridge and skittering away to the back of the green.  The low-ball hitter lands short of the ridge and his ball runs up and over it like it wasn't even there."

An absolutely perfect and very timely example of this was on the 18th. at St. Andrews Beach just this past December 30th.  My compatriot hit, from the right side of the fairway, a high and what he thought was a very well struck pitching wedge to the pin in a front right position. His ball hit the wee downslope to the right and front of this portion of the green sending his "perfect"strike "skittering away" to the back of the green where a bunker embraced it!! This canny Scot hit a low six iron which skipped to the right hand front edge and took the roll to the pin for an eight foot putt ........which I missed of course.
So …yerr "architectooral" philosophies are working for me here in Oz!!!

Cheers Colin

[John Kirk]

I'm taking the coveted 75th spot.  I've thought about this for a few days, and I think the only features which favor lower trajectory shots are:

1)  a tree, especially a deciduous tree with a canopy wider than the base.
2)  wind.
3)  modify the ball to have different flight characteristics.

and maybe...

4)  an uphill approach shot, where the trajectory of the ball is less steep at impact.

In all other cases mentioned, it is always more accurate to fly the ball as close to the target as possible, and stop the ball as quickly as possible after impact, either with a steep angle of impact, or by imparting backspin.  Otherwise, the modern professional player would play these shots in a different manner.

If the approach shot cannot be hit high and soft, either shorter than a full wedge or a longer approach, then I can see a mound or rise short of the green, coupled with a fallaway green, better approached with a low trajectory shot.

There's really no way to defeat the aerial game.  The player who hits it high and soft takes the horizontal error out of the shot.

[Chris DeNigris]

Wouldn't a downhill approach more encourage a bouncing, trundling and funneling attempt than an uphill shot? Better optics too.

[Paul Gray]

Wouldn't a downhill approach more encourage a bouncing, trundling and funneling attempt than an uphill shot? Better optics too.

I can think of examples of exactly that but, again, only when conditions are firm and fast. Otherwise, the downhill nature of the shot simply means the steeper approach will result in any aerial attack stopping up quickly, thus it will be easier to judge.

[John Kirk]

Theoretically, a downhill shot, one where the elevation drops, will impact the ground with a higher angle of descent and bounce a shorter distance.  The ball will "bounce and funnel" in other case.

Speaking for myself, I can lose some accuracy when taking a full swing, so occasionally it makes sense to take an easy swing with a longer club, sacrificing height for accuracy.  It helps to have experience hitting less than full shots.

[Chris DeNigris]

Wouldn't a downhill approach more encourage a bouncing, trundling and funneling attempt than an uphill shot? Better optics too.

I can think of examples of exactly that but, again, only when conditions are firm and fast. Otherwise, the downhill nature of the shot simply means the steeper approach will result in any aerial attack stopping up quickly, thus it will be easier to judge.

Yes, I was assuming reasonably firm conditions.  I just can't envision too many uphill shots that would encourage me to hit anything other than a high shot.

[Marc Haring]

When faced with this shot at Deal I felt the ground route was the best option especially as I had a slight downhill lie. That bank was just waiting to run one up whereas the high shot required too much precision for my skill and nerve level.

[Paul Gray]

Wouldn't a downhill approach more encourage a bouncing, trundling and funneling attempt than an uphill shot? Better optics too.

I can think of examples of exactly that but, again, only when conditions are firm and fast. Otherwise, the downhill nature of the shot simply means the steeper approach will result in any aerial attack stopping up quickly, thus it will be easier to judge.

Yes, I was assuming reasonably firm conditions.  I just can't envision too many uphill shots that would encourage me to hit anything other than a high shot.

Ah yes, but your shot will naturally be coming from a shallower angle, hence the greater need to think about the ball running on.

[Joe Hancock]

One thing that isn't a hazard, or a design feature, that dictates the ground game is (lack of)clubhead speed. Most golfers don't hit it high with spin to stop the shot.

More of a reality that only the architects need to consider, I suppose.

Joe