The Ideal Course For Considering Trajectory Control

[John Kirk]

  (I transferred this for Microsoft Word, and there are a few minor formatting problems)


Introduction
 
This February I met Ran Morrissett.  During our brief conversation, I mentioned that I thought Ballyneal was the best course I had played for considering shot trajectory.  Morrissett suggested The Old Course as one alternative superior choice.  The exchange caused me to ruminate on the subject of trajectory control in golf.  The resulting essay will hopefully be of interest.  I will begin by introducing a few basic and well understood concepts.



Trajectory Control
 
Under typical playing conditions, relatively few golf courses require a decision to control the height of the shot.  Distance control is usually accomplished by hitting the proper club, and making a full, repeatable swing.  However, under certain playing conditions, controlling the shot trajectory yields a more reliable and accurate result.
 
Here are some methods I’ve used to control trajectory:
 
To hit the ball higher:
 
·      Swing at full speed, or swing hard.
·      “Hands high”, finishing the swing with hands held high.
·      Place ball further forward in stance.
 
To hit the ball lower:
 
·      Swing as less than full speed, i.e. the “change-up”.
·      Keep wrist bowed through impact.
·      Place ball back in stance.
·      Flatten swing.
·      Stand further away from ball at address.
 
(Note:  Please suggest other common methods for flight control, if you think of any.)
 
Why Control Trajectory?
 
Reasons for hitting a high shot:
 
·      Land soft, minimize roll after landing.
·      Maximize distance of chosen club.
·      Recognized as a good way to control distance on downwind shots.
 
Reasons for hitting a lower shot:
 
·      Greater direction (and sometimes distance) control in both crosswinds and headwinds.
·      Greater distance and direction control in headwinds.
·      Maximize distance on shots into the wind.
 
What Features Discourage A Run-Up Shot?
 
I tend to divide lower trajectory shots into two categories, those that are intended to fly onto the green, and those that land short of the green.  These course characteristics discourage the bouncing and running approach shot:
 
·      Golf holes with narrow entrances to the green, perhaps flanked by hazards on each side, discourage the running approach.
·      Large mounds, or other types of convex shaping which pushes bouncing and rolling balls away from the green, or into difficult recovery areas.
 
Discussion
 
The golf course needs two important attributes to encourage the consideration of trajectory.  Wind is the most important.  Without wind, there is little incentive to lower shot trajectory.  Firm and bouncy turf increases roll, which enhances the possibilities for bouncing and rolling shots.  Under soft conditions, a player may hit a low trajectory shot onto a green to control distance and direction, but is less able to play a shot that rolls a significant distance.
 
Not everyone manipulates the trajectory of their golf shots.  Tom Watson was renowned for winning The Open Championship five times, while never attempting to manipulate the trajectory of his irons, simply choosing the club that best traveled the proper distance, given wind and other playing conditions.

 
I’m under the impression that most advanced players think of trajectory as a two or three option decision.  Either the player will hit a “stock” or “full” shot, or they will hit a “punch” shot.  You could expand this list to include a “big” shot, such as the difference between a “stock 7-iron” or a “big 8-iron” shot.  Truly outstanding players can turn the ball in both directions for all types of shots.  Let me introduce a fourth "hybrid" option, where the player hits a longer club with a controlled ½ to ¾ swing, a modified version of the chip and run shot.
 
The number of club choices that can be selected for an approach shot is limited by shot length.  If a shot requires at least a full 4-iron shot, then the only alternatives are longer irons and woods, which have limited utility for this purpose.  But a shot with a distance that can be covered with a full pitching wedge shot can also be negotiated with a numbered iron to control distance and direction.
 
I told Ran Morrissett that Ballyneal was the best course I had played for considering shot trajectory.  Please allow me the benefit of the doubt on this opinion.  I am a member at Ballyneal, and not as well traveled as many contributors here.  Club members exhibit a bias for their home courses.  On the other hand, being a club member allows me the luxury to experiment and try shots I might not try when playing a course a limited number of times.  If I’m playing a great golf course just once or twice, I will be compelled to try and score my best, especially since I’m not familiar with the course’s finer details.  I know few people willing to play a renowned golf course once or a precious few times, only to experiment with different shots.  I played the Old Course once, and I wasn’t going to try and bounce one into the 16^th green just because.  With that said, the approach to the 17^th green so strongly suggested a defensive, running approach that I did just that.  I almost succeeded, running the ball halfway up the rise before falling back behind the Road Bunker.
 
Choosing Ballyneal as a great course for considering shot trajectory is not so far-fetched when you consider this — Ballyneal’s fairway turf is a combination of bentgrass, fescue and bluegrass, and is maintained a bit longer than the other modern links style courses built in the last twenty years.  A few years ago, they were mowing the fairways at .500 - .750 inches in the summertime, but they may have lowered mowing heights in recent years.
 
Because it is kept a bit longer, the player imparts less spin on his irons, since he is not required to “pinch” the ball off an ultra-tight fescue surface.  The extra cushion also affords a greater margin of error for attempting ½ and ¾ shots.  On many occasions at Bandon and other modern fescue courses, I have misjudged a downwind short iron approach shot when the ball spun to a quick stop, well short of the intended target.  I contend that a slightly longer cut of turf not only assists the less talented player, but also yields a less spinning ball flight that rolls longer and more predictably.
 
Ultra-tight lies affect an aging golfer like me.  Greenside chip and pitch shots must be struck perfectly; skulled and sclaffed shots are common.  Ultra-fast greens make short putts a test of nerves, and require such a tiny movement to propel the ball.  I like fast greens, but I also like a true, medium speed green that allows me to “take the break out” and make a bigger stroke on a five to ten foot putt.
 
Designing The Ideal Course For Trajectory Decisions
 
I had an epiphany while on the same February vacation.  I was playing golf at a seaside course high on a bluff above the ocean.  The 10^th hole was about 380 yards long, and I pushed my drive into the right rough, leaving me with about 165 yards to the hole, across hilly but predictable ground.  I was in a beautiful fescue rough lie, with the grass leaning towards the target, so I knew the ball would fly.  Even though the shot was into a 10 mph breeze, I selected a 7-iron, set the ball back in my stance, and hit a low bouncing "knuckleball" that flew 2/3 of the way there, and then bounced and rolled 40-50 more yards to the front of the green, where I sank a 35 foot putt for my only birdie of the day.
 
These types of shots, where I must read the grass lie and consider both the proper club and the swing speed, are perhaps the most satisfying part of golf.  I knew that ball would travel a long way, even into the wind.  I would rather play a game where all trajectories of shots are played, and not simply hit full, high shots all day long.  There’s a minor resurgence in the use of hickory clubs for this reason, for golfers who want the joy of judging shots with greater roll.
 
I don’t much care for heavy rough lies.  The range of lies in deep rough is such that success depends primarily on player strength. 
 
Consider a golf course that has these characteristics:
 
A.   Like the great modern courses of the current era, playing corridors are wide, averaging about 70-80 yards for par 4 and par 5 holes.
 
B.    Fairways are narrow, only 25-40 yards wide, placing a premium on accuracy for skilled players who want to hit spinning approach shots. Expand fairway width as the fairway approaches the green, increasing roll for bounding shots.
 
C.    The rest of the course is cut as short rough, which encourages a variety of different lies, with a high percentage of “flier” lies.  Typically, this would be 0.75 – 1.50 inches for most grasses.
 
D.   The course features a modest number of specimen trees to be navigated on a somewhat regular basis.  The trees should be medium height, broad shouldered, with ample room underneath the foliage to stand, swing and play under.  The average round includes two or five encounters where a tree’s presence must be considered.
 
E.    The greens are surrounded by an equal measure of fairway and short rough for greenside recovery play.
 
F.    Since the course encourages flier lies and long rollouts, the course should be long, perhaps a bit longer than the typical full-size course.
 
G.   The ideal course also offers a grand variety of approach shots.  The ideal course for considering shot trajectory merely shifts the balance to include a few more of these opportunities.  This course should offer a comprehensive test of skill, with the occasional forced carry, and the approach shot that demands an aerial attack.
 
H.   Everything else stays much the same as other great golf courses — undulating greens that dictate hole strategy, handsome sand bunkers at varying lengths from the tee and green, and natural tributaries — are all part of great course design.  I can’t emphasize how much I've enjoyed the modern era of golf courses, and the state of the art agronomy that makes them firm, fast, and smooth.

Concluding Remarks
 
A stated goal of course design is to make the course difficult and challenging for an expert player, but playable and enjoyable (and not demoralizing) for the casual, less competitive player.  The prevailing philosophy for deluxe designs is to provide a wide corridor for strategic positional play into difficult green complexes with undulating greens.  Typically, these wide corridors are predominantly "ultra-short" grass with a narrow strip of rough between native ground and golf course.  From ultra-short grass, a skilled player can execute a spinning shot to stop his/her approach near the point of impact.


Let’s consider an example hole, a straight par 4, with a green that slopes hard from right to left, with a large bunker guarding the right side of the green.  All other things being equal, an approach shot from the left side is strongly favored.  The expert player has great incentive to play left; even a wedge approach from the right rough won’t reliably spin to a stop.  The casual player who misses right has a pleasing cushion of grass under the ball, and can more reliably hit a high, soft approach that clears the front hazard.  From the left side, greater options from a short rough lie to bounce the ball in present themselves.
 
I struggle with short grass lies near the green, and believe they are generally more difficult for the casual player.  A nightmarish scenario is being on short grass and needing to loft a pitch over a bunker onto the green.  If the grass is long enough to offer any sort of cushion, it’s a reasonably enjoyable play with a lofted wedge, whether or not I am successful.  But on short grass, my chances of a fat or thin shot are very high, perhaps 50% or more.  I sometimes adopt a foolproof, less precise method of chipping, brushing the ground with a putting type stroke, just to avoid a bad outcome.  I don’t practice the short game much, but it seems to me that only the best players are adept at short grass recovery shots with lofted clubs.
 
Do short grass green surrounds actually level the playing field for golfers?  That appears to be the current philosophy.  Or do they strongly favor the expert player, who can pitch the ball cleanly, and impart spin that makes the ball do the two bounce and check?  Mishitting chip shots is demoralizing, and I question the modern design practice of ultra-short grass surrounding the greens.  I can use putter for most of these shots, but that just means the green is effectively larger, and I’m just taking more putts per round, while only attempting a few chip and pitch shots each round.
 
To use a political analogy, short grass surrounds benefit the 1%.  Remove the expert’s ability to spin the ball, and you take away a primary weapon.  Make the expert hit a straight drive to gain that advantage.  Don’t give the expert a supreme advantage around the green by making the whole green complex a short grass recovery area.  Thirty years ago, pro players would sometimes “lay up” to full wedge distance, because they were unable to control a half wedge shot (40-60 yards) with spin.  Modern equipment and improved technique have largely removed this layup decision.
 
There are problems with this proposed “ideal course for trajectory control”.  Aesthetically, a course with wide, open playing fields, where 40-60% of the grass is a second longer cut, will look funny or ugly.  Strategically, having a significant percentage of rough somewhat defeats the purpose of wide corridors for directional strategy.  However, the penalty for playing from the “wrong” side of the corridor may be greater for the expert player, and perhaps less for the casual player.  I can also imagine more agronomic problems if one attempted to maintain large pure stands of high quality golfing grass at “short rough” height.  It seems you’d keep invasive plants out best by mowing at low heights.  I could be wrong, though.   
 
Because of the firm turf and commonly windy conditions, virtually every hole at Ballyneal periodically demands a punch or other low trajectory approach shot.  Sometimes crosswinds on par 3s and shorter par 4s make the low trajectory ½ to ¾ shot seem appropriate.  All par 5s are sometimes reached with a long, full second shot that bounds onto the green, even up the steeply uphill approach to the 4^th green.  The thought provoking wind holes at Ballyneal are the four long par 4 holes in downwind conditions, the 2^nd, 6^th, 10^th and 18th, that make me consider a variety of options for approach shot height and weight.  This is not particularly unique, but the playing conditions for this type of golf are uncommon, and Ballyneal’s fairway turf is a bit longer and more forgiving than most.  But the same remarks could be made about the 4^th, 8^th, 9^th, 12^th and 18^th holes at Pacific Dunes, where a long, controlled chip iron may look like the best play.  I can only comment with authority on courses I’ve played multiple times, or studied through pictures and stories.  The most underutilized educational tool on GolfClubAtlas is the anecdote, where a contributor explains how he/she played a hole, and how the architecture interacted with the shot decision and execution.
 
I’m not 100% sure whether all of this is true.  Would a course with a narrow fairway, flier rough and a few well-placed trees be strategically superior?  It may provide a superior pre-shot planning process, as the player considers the obstacles presented and decides the shot he/she will attempt.  It also may support the effort to make golf more enjoyable for the casual player, while maintaining a high level of difficulty for the expert.  I believe the idea is fresh enough to merit a theoretical discussion.  Thanks for the opportunity to summarize my thoughts on the subject.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Very fine work, John - a pleasure to read.

You will know that I can't add much at all, but I will note what your essay brought to mind: I thought of Ben Hogan, and I thought of Seminole. The former a shot-making master who was highly adept at trajectory control; the latter a Ross course with sloping and elevated greens on a windy site.

I wonder if one of Mr Hogan's rules-of-thumb re shot-making was engendered by the many rounds he played at Seminole. If I remember it right, he said that his basic approach to a hole location cut near the front of the green was to take less club and hit it hard, while his approach to a hole cut near the back of the green was to take less club and hit it more softly -- ensuring a high flying and quickly stopping shot with one, and a low-flying and running/rolling shot with the other.

This strikes me as the most basic but fundamental aspect of trajectory control -- and I'm not surprised that the skill would come in very handy indeed when tackling Tom's large and undulating greens at a windy site like Ballyneal.

Thanks again for a thoughtful piece.

Peter
     

[Bill_McBride]

Nice thoughtful work, John.  I agree with pretty much everything you say here. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

All I know is I have 4 different trajectory shots. From high to low:

1. Full shot
2. Full punch shot ( in to wind and stops dead)
3. Half punch shot (bounces, checks, slow roll out)
4. Low pitch and run ( no breaking wrists, runs out a long way)

These shots were developed - without much thought, only second nature - by playing 90% of my golf on the links. In my experience, every links course I've ever played benefits from them and it comes down to wind and firm conditions above all else.

[Thomas Dai]

Pretty much as Ally says having also been brought up playing a great deal of windy links golf. I would add gripping up-n-down the shaft and more obscure shots like the chip/punch with a driver/hydrid/long-iron on short downhill crosswind par-3' or the 3/4 thin driver off the fairway into the wind!


Ball type has quite an effect on trajectory too as does thin vrs wide flanges/bounce on irons.

The best way to learn trajectory control (and more) IMO is to play with only about 5-7 clubs.


Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

I thought this was a timely thread about Harbour Town. I love hitting over, under and around trees.

[Peter Pallotta]

I thought this was a timely thread about Harbour Town. I love hitting over, under and around trees.

Nice. Trees, tight fairways and small flattish greens 'working' the same way that wind, width and big contoured greens do re trajectory control. That's why Pete Dye is the rare genius of gca , i.e. he 're-frames' and 're-invents' principles and concepts in his head and then on the ground.

[Steve Lang]

   Nice composition John.


I'm not sure I'm persuaded that Ballyneal or TOC (which I've both played once) are Ideal courses relative to trajectory control.  Can't remember any specimen trees unless you're considering stub and gorse...  Play any course enough and you'll be faced with plenty of need to control trajectory and curve the ball around things or loft shots over or under stuff.


I don't see any consideration for how few people truly hit straight shots, though modern game control clubs have helped, and the 3-d nature of trajectory in the wind fields really needing fairway width to be provided.

Peter, I believe Hogan generally endorsed playing a fade to a front pin and a draw to a back pin, i.e, as the only way to stop a shot and the best way to get to the back of a green.


.. and i played with 3-5-7-9-SW irons pretty much through college 

[John Kirk]

Thanks for all the responses.  I appreciate it.

Steve, I have noticed that more shots seem to fly dead straight, just in the last couple/few years.  The ball doesn't move near as much as it used to.

And there are no trees at the two courses mentioned, but they both have bouncy turf and wind, which are the most important attributes.

A great hole for trees is the Cottonwood hole, a medium length par 4 with a pair of tall cottonwood trees flanking the fairway about 80-100 yards from the green.  Some people think that's among the weaker holes at Prairie Dunes.  I don't think so.

Another superb tree hole is the 7th hole at Crystal Downs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

What Features Discourage A Run-Up Shot?
 
I tend to divide lower trajectory shots into two categories, those that are intended to fly onto the green, and those that land short of the green.  These course characteristics discourage the bouncing and running approach shot:
 
·      Golf holes with narrow entrances to the green, perhaps flanked by hazards on each side, discourage the running approach.
·      Large mounds, or other types of convex shaping which pushes bouncing and rolling balls away from the green, or into difficult recovery areas.

I have worked with many tour pros, most of them short hitters, and at least on mid length par 5 holes, they requested a narrow run up to allow them to compete with the longer hitters who can fly the green in two shots.  So, not sure a narrow opening discourages the run up.  Granted, they would like at least 20-25 yards wide (about 10% of approach length to match their expected dispersion patterns, but were willing to accept as little as half that, especially, as you note, if the approach is concave to effectively widen it.

As to what constitutes a mid length par 5, well, these guys still thought it was 540-550.  Of course, the Larry Nelson's, Notah Begay III and Jim Colberts of the world were never much more than 285 hitters, and maybe 255 on the second, so they could just barely reach a 540 yard par 5.......

I would also note that most of them did consider trajectory control in almost any wind, with lower being better.  I never heard them analyze the type of hole that might promote it more, but somewhere in there, those thoughts probably existed had I thought to bring them out.....which I may try to do now that I have read your piece.

I tend to agree that wide courses with narrow fairways would look a bit odd to most.  I think the slightly higher cut everywhere would look better.  But, I do agree rough only needs to be long enough to create a potential flyer lie.

Over the years, I have tried to get folks to consider different length rough cuts on either side of the FW, so missing the fw one side would really be advantageous over the other, with longer, punch out rough.  Maybe that would look even more odd, who knows.  Play to the edge of the deep side rough and get best shot or have to chip out.  Play away and you may have to hit a runner from the fw or a lighter rough.  Not necessarily a penalty, just a different shot.
 

[Mark Chaplin]

John Ballyneal plays pretty close to a seaside links. I don't see any difference in the shots required or trajectory control benefits.

[Tom_Doak]

I have worked with many tour pros, most of them short hitters, and at least on mid length par 5 holes, they requested a narrow run up to allow them to compete with the longer hitters who can fly the green in two shots.  So, not sure a narrow opening discourages the run up.  Granted, they would like at least 20-25 yards wide (about 10% of approach length to match their expected dispersion patterns, but were willing to accept as little as half that, especially, as you note, if the approach is concave to effectively widen it.

Don't they just want the par-5 green guarded by bunkers because they are very good bunker players?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Well, that's not the way they framed it.  Most would say "Greg Norman will be lofting a mile high 2 iron to that green.  The only way I can reach is by running up a 3 Wood, so give me just a narrow gap and I can maybe reach the green with my accuracy."

Architecture giving accuracy a chance.....not a bad idea!

Interesting debate as to whether the high 2 iron would be more or less affected by wind, and thus whether a pond guarding all but 5-10 yards of the green might actually even hurt the high drop and stop shot more, in addition to giving the low running shot a chance.

[John Kirk]

Jeff,

Aren't you using accurate professional players as a guide for who to design the width of the green's entrance?

Mark,

I issued a disclaimer, stating my bias for Ballyneal, and suggesting that the ability to play a course repeatedly enables experimentation with different types of shots.  Ballyneal does have a bit fluffier turf that many modern seaside courses.

[Niall C]

John
 
That’s an interesting essay. Thanks for posting.


In your OP you say that "The golf course needs two important attributes to encourage the consideration of trajectory.  Wind is the most important.  Without wind, there is little incentive to lower shot trajectory.  Firm and bouncy turf increases roll, which enhances the possibilities for bouncing and rolling shots."

I think you significantly underestimate the other main reason for hitting low shots or certain other kind of shots, apart that is from JK’s obvious example of trying to avoid above ground objects such as trees. The other main reason to hit low (and high) shots is that the trajectory, and the spin on the ball, dictate how the ball reacts on landing (as per Ally’s and Thomas’s posts), and that is the real essence of the ground game IMO.


Of course if the ball lands with a splodge then the ball flight is largely irrelevant. However assuming firm conditions then contour can readily dictate the type of shot played.


As an example, I remember the year Ben Curtis won the Open and hearing Davis Love complain about how unfair one of the fairways was because his drives could bounce anywhere. Clearly it hadn’t occurred to Davis that if he hit his trademark towering drives that went to a great height and then dropped straight down on to a heavily contoured fairway that was/is basically a series of moguls then the ball could bounce any which way depending on the face of the slope the ball landed on. Alternatively if he had hit a low shot with or without side spin to the very same fairway, it have might got deflected to some extent but would likely have gone in the direction of travel dictated by the ball flight and spin.


That’s maybe an extreme example but the main thing for me is definitely how the ball reacts on hitting the ground.
 
Niall

[Ben Sims]

Unsurprisingly I agree with John. I'm on the record elsewhere thinking that Ballyneal is pretty close to the ideal golf course. Other courses in that category that I have experience with include Riviera, NGLA, and Augusta National. I'm told by knowledgeable friends that know my preferences that Tara Iti and Shinnecock are other courses in this mold. These courses offer a large degree of disparity in their golf holes, i.e., variety. One of the benefits of the disparate shapes, lengths, and concepts on these courses is that positive results require an entire repertoire of shots. Of the choices a player has when making a shot, trajectory is often the most consequential. Am I avoiding a hazard? Is wind a factor? Do the ground contours dictate a certain landing angle, spin rate, and bounce characteristic?

[/size]I do not agree that links courses inherently capture the essence of shot variety. In fact, often times on the new American links courses, I find that a high shot isn't in my bag. The lie is either too tight, or there isn't sufficient incentive to take the ball high.

[/size]Places like I mentioned above are different. Turf conditions allow for less skilled players to get the ball airborne. Surface firmness and the speed of the turf are well adjusted for one another. Hazards are placed in such a manner that trajectory selection will cause wildly disparate results. Green and green surrounds are sufficiently sloped to have preferred ways in which to approach (both high and low). Lastly,  wind has a profound effect on trajectory selection.

[/size]The last time I visited Ballyneal, I hit more different types of shots than I can remember. The entire arsenal was fired. I don't mean to say that every shot had six options; that idea is a fallacy in my opinion. But over the course of the rounds, carefully considering trajectory was much more important than hitting solidly reliable stock shots. That's fun--and challenging.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the most interesting conversations I've had about golf course architecture was with an engineer who worked for one of the big equipment companies.  I could tell right away that he thought in 3-D -- not many people do! -- and appreciated the interaction between the trajectory of golf shots and the topography of the ground.  It is especially important when a shot is being played to a green with slopes falling into it.


Many architects try [wittingly or not] to take the third dimension out of the equation by building up their greens artificially so that the slopes around them aren't really a factor in play, and the slopes at the edges of the greens are all toned down to eliminate "a bad bounce."  Note that a "bad bounce" can also be used as a potential hazard by a designer who thinks differently.



Ballyneal, Barnbougle, and Tara Iti all have a few examples of that.  They also have a few holes where there is a backstop of short grass that can be used from certain angles to certain hole locations, once you know the course well.  They wouldn't be great courses if you didn't have some balance between the potential bad bounces and the helping ones.

[Steve Lang]

   Last time I played Bakersfield CC, i think i played every shot I could imagine... and had great fun and challenge.


There's plenty of courses that could be cited by many folks. 

[Niall C]

One of the most interesting conversations I've had about golf course architecture was with an engineer who worked for one of the big equipment companies.  I could tell right away that he thought in 3-D -- not many people do! -- and appreciated the interaction between the trajectory of golf shots and the topography of the ground.  It is especially important when a shot is being played to a green with slopes falling into it.

In essence this is what I was trying to say in my post above. Perhaps it's a mind set developed through experience but I'd suggest most regular links golfers view it the same way. It's not really rocket science and you would need to be pretty obtuse if after a bit of of golf on f&f courses you didn't understand that the trajectory of the ball and where it lands will determine where the ball is going to end up.


From there you either learn to hit different shots or more likely, learn to live with the one you have ie. make allowances for bounce accordingly.


Niall 

[John Kirk]

I'll add that flatter approaches or runways into greens are less interesting.  There are few shots more satisfying to watch than a running approach shot that takes the expected bounces and moves vertically (up, down) or horizontally (left, right) according to plan.

So my perfect golf course has some topography, and flattish courses are less attractive in this regard.

[Mark Chaplin]

John for me the two toughest approaches at Deal when it's dry are 5 and 10, both are runway flat from 100 yards out. Pure distant is immaterial as you cannot fly the ball all the way and judging the distance is really difficult.

I thought Ballyneal played very links like, we were lucky enough to play 3 or 4 rounds so got a fair idea of the course. Sand Hills looked like it would take the running game but sadly didn't,it was sandy target golf.

[Bill_McBride]

John for me the two toughest approaches at Deal when it's dry are 5 and 10, both are runway flat from 100 yards out. Pure distant is immaterial as you cannot fly the ball all the way and judging the distance is really difficult.

I thought Ballyneal played very links like, we were lucky enough to play 3 or 4 rounds so got a fair idea of the course. Sand Hills looked like it would take the running game but sadly didn't,it was sandy target golf.

Ah, number 10 at Deal!  Every time I've played that hole I get suckered by the line of instinct into a drive tight up the left side.  From there it's just impossible to hold that green, which is angled to allow the running shot you describe, but only from the right.  Every time I've been over the green with a difficult chip.   

[Bill_McBride]

One of the most interesting conversations I've had about golf course architecture was with an engineer who worked for one of the big equipment companies.  I could tell right away that he thought in 3-D -- not many people do! -- and appreciated the interaction between the trajectory of golf shots and the topography of the ground.  It is especially important when a shot is being played to a green with slopes falling into it.


Many architects try [wittingly or not] to take the third dimension out of the equation by building up their greens artificially so that the slopes around them aren't really a factor in play, and the slopes at the edges of the greens are all toned down to eliminate "a bad bounce."  Note that a "bad bounce" can also be used as a potential hazard by a designer who thinks differently.



Ballyneal, Barnbougle, and Tara Iti all have a few examples of that.  They also have a few holes where there is a backstop of short grass that can be used from certain angles to certain hole locations, once you know the course well.  They wouldn't be great courses if you didn't have some balance between the potential bad bounces and the helping ones.

Tom, that last play off short grass behind the green works at the Valley Club too, the way it's maintained.  18 is the best example.     15 is another when the pin is well back.  Lots of fun. 

[David Davis]

John,


Nice essay. Can't say that I disagree with anything really. I do suspect when anyone grows up on a traditional links like Ally they will answer in much the same way. Trajectory control is essential in the wind, no doubt about it. The more the wind the more important naturally and pretty much any seaside links will be similar if not even more important than the Ballyneal I played together with Eric Smith. I loved it too but didn't find it to play quite as firm and fast as Deal for example when we played. The weather however was far better at around 85-90 degrees.


We didn't have much wind to speak of but I'm sure it can blow there which would make the course all the more fun. My favorite approach is to take more club and swing much slower (knock down shot), when elevated however I usually prefer a punch though find it a little more difficult to avoid rolling over the hands, when it comes off perfectly it sure is a fun shot to play in high wind.

[Niall C]

David


I think in terms of playing in wind, spin control is probably just as important if not more important than trajectory. As you say, taking much more club into a wind and hit three quarter shot is a good way to retain control. Easier said than done mid you, or at least it is for me.


Niall