"Doak took the ground game out of play."

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm not positive that is a totally accurate quote from Rory but the meaning is the same as quoted on TV coverage of the Scottish Open. The point being that there is so much slope and undulation on the greens that it is better go through the air than on the ground around the greens.
What think ye who have played the course? Does a lot movement on the greens diminish shot options?

[Bernie Bell]

Stenson said because of conditions (no wind and soft) it's playing "a little bit more toward target golf than links golf maybe, and some of the design features here [are] kind of heading that way . . . "   

[Michael Dugger]

Sounds like mother nature took the ground game away.


Are we talking about approach shots, or chipping and pitching, to boot?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think Rory was talking about both shots into the greens and around the greens.

[George Pazin]

I would guess for the best players, aerial options are almost always the best.


The thing is, for us mere mortals, and those of us who are less than mortals, the margin for error is much greater with a more conservative, lower, ground based approach. It's the same sort of thinking that led to the old maxim "The worst putt is closer than the worst chip."


The pros, they pretty much all need to go for everything, all the time - there's simply too many great players out there, someone is going to go low. so you have to go for it. Worst case, there's always next week. Sure, there's weeks that this doesn't necessarily apply (I call them majors), but by and large, that's the rule.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Doak interview today:


https://www.golfchannel.com/video/2019-scottish-open-tom-doak-talks-renaissance-club

[Tom_Doak]

That's a pretty weird quote.


It certainly isn't true for the short game.  I've watched a ton of chips from around the greens the past three days, and nearly all of them were played along the ground - lots of bump and run, and more putters from off the green than I expected.


Long game, no, these guys aren't landing the ball short of greens after two days of rain.

[Peter Pallotta]

Didn't hear anything like that (the quote) from Rory in his own interview  -- he seemed to 'see' what I saw re contours and ground options, but he noted the recent rain, the lack of wind, and the green speeds (which he predicted would increase in the coming days as tournament officials -- heretofore being cautious given the course's debut and the variability of the weather etc -- got a better handle on things). Watching some highlights, what I noticed most is how good Rory et al are at playing that variety of shots around the greens.

[John Kirk]

Five 63s and seven 64s.  Looks like they'll have to toughen the course up next time.  A few more rain showers are on the way, and winds will be relatively mild, says the weather forecast way over here.  As of today, it looks like 20 under wins.


On a less sarcastic note, I'm a bit surprised the course, in its current maintenance meld, is considered too narrow.  Maybe it's hard to tell by watching on TV, but it looks like the fairways average 35-45 yards wide, something like that.  It's showing very nice on TV, and the short game shots look fun, a bit different than typical short play for either parkland or links courses.  The Renaissance Club is kind of a hybrid course that way.  Another thing I noticed...the way the course is set up, the last couple of holes on each nine (8-9, 17-18) were quite difficult in today's wind.  If the wind stays the same, making a par or birdie to win on the last hole will be pretty challenging.

[David_Elvins]

Haven't been to Rennaissance Club but I do think that Doak's course that I have played are far less friendly to the ground game approach shots than both a) his reputation, and b) the works of contemporaries such as Coore and Hanse.


Barnbougle Dunes is one of my favorite courses but the way the ground short of the green actively discourages run up approaches on holes 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 17 is a defining feature of the course and a reasonable criticism.  That is not to say that other holes encourage run up approaches, not all of them do, but on these holes specifically the contouring short of the green actively discourages running the ball onto the green.

[Thomas Dai]

When watching on TV we are, with an occasional big name exception, watching the players at the top of the field, those players who are playing particularly well.
It would be interesting to get to see or been given an appreciation of how the players at the other end of the field, those who are likely to be missing more greens than those at the top of the leaderboard, are undertaking their shots around the greens (and the success or lack of success they are having).
As I mentioned on the other currently ongoing thread, irrespective of RM's (alleged) comments it has been very pleasant to see just how good these guys are when they have to play unusual short game shots from positions they are not used to being in. 

Worth referencing the other ongoing Renaissance course thread that's currently ongoing -

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67367.0.html

atb

[Tom_Doak]

Haven't been to Rennaissance Club but I do think that Doak's course that I have played are far less friendly to the ground game approach shots than both a) his reputation, and b) the works of contemporaries such as Coore and Hanse.

Barnbougle Dunes is one of my favorite courses but the way the ground short of the green actively discourages run up approaches on holes 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 17 is a defining feature of the course and a reasonable criticism.  That is not to say that other holes encourage run up approaches, not all of them do, but on these holes specifically the contouring short of the green actively discourages running the ball onto the green.

I agree with this in part.  I do tend to look for green sites that are naturally elevated, because I hate to haul fill to a green site; Bill finds green sites in lows and then adds a couple of feet of fill to solve the drainage. Both greens wind up elevated a bit, mine more so when the site is undulating.


Whether that destroys "the ground game" depends on how you define it.  You could observe that the greens of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 17th at The Old Course do not encourage a running approach, either, and you'd be equally right.  Nobody splits hairs that way at older courses.


I did play Kilspindie and Muirfield this week, and marveled at how many of those greens are just laying on the ground, often with a subtle ridge just in front.  If that's what Stenson and Rory are trying to say, I'm not sure I have seen any modern courses that really give that to you.  They might be surprised how few greens at Portrush are really like that, either.

[jeffwarne]

It's rained for 3 straight days, then super still and warm...
seems a bit silly to comment on the "ground game" of any course after that.
Let's hope they get a bit of wind and dries out more.so the course can show its stuff. Softer greens make all the difference around the greens with players this skilled, with up and down expectations that high.




One of the great things about seeing a familiar course on TV is well, the familiarity..
changing the routing...again..kind've kills that so I have a hard time figuring out what hole they are on.


Not sure why, but I tire of the constant commentator and player references to this week and last week(and upcoming weeks) to
"links golf" like it's golf on the moon or some kind of weird aberation.


a shame we've virtually made the game/conditionng an indoor game in the US and Renaissance Club
s uniform perfectly controlled irrigation condition(I hate the aerials)  and the Lahinch lush greens and solid green surrounds aren't far off that. It's been a trend lately in nearly all Opens the last few years-nothing like the old clips of Watson, Jack, Seve, even Tiger battling the land and the elements.
Carnoustie was a different kind've uniform with irrigation off on fairways for 3 weeks before but greens and surrounds green and watered
I was happy to see the greens at Renaissance running a reported "10" which opens up a chance to use great pins, but they have to have the cajones to use them.
I also get that the Renaissance isn't selling memberships to a clientele that's looking for rough n ready, and it's an incredible course and place.

[Mark_F]

Barnbougle Dunes is one of my favorite courses but the way the ground short of the green actively discourages run up approaches on holes 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 17

Maybe you just hit it in the wrong place off the tee, David.

[David_Elvins]

I agree with this in part.  I do tend to look for green sites that are naturally elevated, because I hate to haul fill to a green site; Bill finds green sites in lows and then adds a couple of feet of fill to solve the drainage. Both greens wind up elevated a bit, mine more so when the site is undulating.


Whether that destroys "the ground game" depends on how you define it. 

Tom,


Thanks for the reply.  I wasn't just thinking about the elevation of the greens but also how the areas in front of the green often have large sections that deflect balls away from the green sometimes with vegetation encroaching close by on the high side.  Both can make the target short of the green much smaller than the green. 


By contrast the 14th at Lost Farm has an elevated green with a large drop off to the left and vegetation to the right.  But the contours short of the green deflect drives heading  slightly left of the green to the right and often onto the green. 


I don't find your courses as generous.  I also find courses like cape Wickham or Rustic Canyon, to pull out two random examples have much broader contours short of the green with less micro undulations.  Doesn't look as natural or nuanced to me but gives move confidence in playing a running approach.

[Thomas Dai]

Have a look at the Renaissance Design website.
Fabulous photos to scroll through on the home page - [size=78%]https://www.renaissancegolf.com/[/size]
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

I agree with the general sentiment that the course looks absolutely fantastic on TV.  Would be nice to see them play with the original hole routing, but I understand why they changed it for crowd movement.

David, I think variety is key to golf, and if a few holes even on a links courses aren't suited for a run up shot, I don't see a problem with that.  I suspect we'll see a bit more of that this weekend if the place can dry out some. While I agree that many of Doaks greens are certainly well protected, there is no doubt they are plenty generous off the tee.

[George Pazin]

I did play Kilspindie and Muirfield this week, and marveled at how many of those greens are just laying on the ground, often with a subtle ridge just in front.

That's my favorite type of green.


I probably don't have a lot of company with that opinion.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Doesn't a player's preference make a difference in how he plays certain shots around the greens? You need imagination to play the ground game on humpy bumpy terrain. You need steel nerves to hit a sand wedge off a tight lie. For me the day decides for me. Sometimes I feel very confident in my sand wedge--other days not so much. I would think it is difficult to play one way 51 weeks a year then change for lins courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Haven't been to Rennaissance Club but I do think that Doak's course that I have played are far less friendly to the ground game approach shots than both a) his reputation, and b) the works of contemporaries such as Coore and Hanse.


Barnbougle Dunes is one of my favorite courses but the way the ground short of the green actively discourages run up approaches on holes 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 17 is a defining feature of the course and a reasonable criticism.  That is not to say that other holes encourage run up approaches, not all of them do, but on these holes specifically the contouring short of the green actively discourages running the ball onto the green.

Haven't been to either, nor did I hear Rory's interview, so probably shouldn't comment. 


I have heard good players say about TD (and Dye before him) that if you want to encourage the ground game, you need more simplified approach contours.  CC does a nice job of merely creating kick in banks on the high side where its possible that you can more or less reliably use for a different (and fun) type of shot.  When greens are elevated a bit, and the contours are choppy not many good players will take a chance on an unfavorable bounce when they can fly it to a relatively smooth, predictable green. 


Yeah, I love the wobbly nobly look of those Scottish approaches, too, but good players in competitions think only of minimizing disasters and increasing odds of a good score on every hole/shot.  Average guys playing for fun would probably be more likely to try the bump and run just for kicks, and those designs work well for them.  Just another example of it being hard to design for major events and everyday play.

[David_Tepper]

"not many good players will take a chance on an unfavorable bounce when they can fly it to a relatively smooth, predictable green."

Legend has it Nicklaus said, when asked about the ground game, "there are no bad bounces in the air."    

[Thomas Dai]

The modern high spec-ball, groove designs and how often wedges are changed-out for new ones has quite a bit to do with less ground game play by better players as well.
And putters with less loft, like the ones that are the norm these days, aren’t so good for putting from off the green.

Atb

[Colin Macqueen]

I agree entirely with Geoff's musing here
"Just another example of it being hard to design for major events and everyday play."


The quality of the player in these major events is so very high that it must be a wee bit depressing for the architect when they (the players) seem to overcome the design elements with such consummate ease and panache! Nonetheless in watching the broadcast from The Renaissance Club it seems to me that one can see the players being that wee bit more aware of the calamity that can occur if their pitching and chipping goes slightly awry. And the variety of chips from soft landing to bumping into the banks, from putting off the green to the odd flat running shot seems to me to be more prevalent than at other venues. It is a pity that the course has not been drier and the weather at times a bit wilder. Lets see what the next 48 hours holds!
Cheers Colin

[Niall C]

Somewhere in my video collection (!!!) I have a video by Seve giving short game lessons. Basically he used every club but always worked on the premis that the ball should land on the flat part of the green where the bounce and run was predictable.


If you ramp that up to longer approach shots, the premis remains however where pro's generally have the option to fly the ball all the way due to their far superior ball control us mere mortals don't. We generally have to land short and run on so we can't avoid it irrespective of the contour.


That brings me to the question; did Tom design the course for the average hack or for the day the pro's came to town ?


As an aside, those with US coverage probably didn't get the comment from Richie Ramsay after the first round. European Tour player Ramsay lives in Edinburgh and is a member of the club so knows the course well. He commented after round one that the soft conditions meant that not a lot of the kick points were coming into play but if it firmed up then you would see it being much harder to get close. Which just shows to me that links are very weather dependent and the futility of trying to design/set up for a particular score.


Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,


Didn't see that, but do agree most players are looking at the contours inside the greens in crafting their shot.  Always amazed when I have played with guys like Nelson, Wadkins, Elkington, Colbert, Begay, etc. how they plan on using the contours on the green to get close. 


And, in the few Doak courses I have played, he seems to create more of those options than most within the green contours and you really do have to know them to score well.  (Have told the story before, but couldn't get my son out to Rawls course for practice....he had a girlfriend (long gone, of course).  He was a 3 time district champ, but never got past the Rawls course to State because of that, and in following him, I could tell he was just playing the standard shots when a different approach shot (or chip) was needed.


What kills me, for all the mystical talk of green contours here and among golf architecture geeks is how simply the pros explain their strategy.  I asked Lanny about the green front opening.  Yeah, it allows him to hit the lower of two clubs if between.  If he had to come over a bunker, he looked for the long club and hit it with more spin.  If there was a contour he could take advantage of at the top of the green, he aimed for it. 


Elkington, when asked about judging or using green contours simply said, "balls roll downhill!" 


Colbert almost preferred to come in over a bunker, aiming at the far side of the green and curving it back to the middle (with either fade or draw, one of few who would mix shot types)


Larry Nelson advocated many "spikes" (rolling edges) where hitting the middle of the green was easy, going for a pin was well protected by a ridge that could help you, but possibly kick the ball very much further away, i.e, easy par with conservative play but hard birdie.  He never looked outside the green at hazards, etc. figuring he wasn't going to hit them anyway.  They all just look at the green contours and that, to me, is as much strategy as planning some kind of bouncing run up shot.