An architect's view of the ground game

[TEPaul]

I was speaking to an architect recently as he was musing on the what became of the ground game--basically its virtual demise in both actual function as well as in architectural expression and the reasons why beginning around the 1950s and he happened to mention asking Joe Lee (originally a partner of Dick Wilson) about it.

Joe Lee mentioned to him a remark Dick Wilson made on the ground game and its function in architecture;

"If you want to play golf hit the ball in the air--if you want to hit the ball on the ground, go bowling!"

[A_Clay_Man]

TP- Do you think Wilson was being original? or was he echoing the sentiments of his peers?

If this was his "baby", he accurately predicted the trend for the next 40 years.

Thank god we are going back to that wrong turn.

[TEPaul]

"TP- Do you think Wilson was being original? or was he echoing the sentiments of his peers?"

Adam:

Oh, I hardly think that was original Wilson. Obviously the reasons why were part of our conversation. It just seems there were a number of simultaneous contributing factors the impact of which may not have been wholly recognized as to its significance to the demise of the ground game.

1. Equipment--balls and impliments were improving making it easier obviously to get the ball in the air.
2. Wide spread irrigation and its prevalence was being introduced at that time.
3. Architects were beginning to remove and not build the option of ground game golf.
4. Obviously American golfers weren't resisting all these factors and must have been enamored with aerial golf.
5. It may not have taken long to reach that point when American golfers forgot how to hit the shots of the ground game and it was basically forgotten about--and virtually the other half of the game was gone from American golf!

[Michael Dugger]

Lest we forget about the wind, a very significant factor on the linksland.  Wind, an integral part of golf in the beginning.  

I say whatever to Dick Wilson.  Bowling......are you kidding me!  Sounds like a horses ass.  Tell anybody who has played in a gale force wind that the ground game is not golf and I'll show you the guy who probably posted the best score in the clubhouse.    

Sure, in ideal conditions we all want to hit those nice high, softly landing shots.  However it sure doesn't work as well in windy conditions does it?  Thus we try to keep the ball low, it's not bowling, it's golf as it was in the beginning.

[TEPaul]

"it's golf as it was in the beginning."

That's true and one of the signficant things about golf in the so-called beginning is with that wind it was almost mandatory to hit the ball almost along the ground because the ball in those days was so much lighter than what we all have come to know as the "ball"---if you didn't do that it was a complete disaster! An analogy for us about what it may've been like back then would probably be something akin to playing golf with a ball slightly heavier than a wiffle ball!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom P-If I get you correctly, The proliferation of the irrigation system along with the designs that altered the nature and placement of features, was a fundamental change resulting in losing half the game.

Do you see the return of this half of the game being 'designed in' by some of the name archies who previously only designed for the aerial game? That, along with some discretion in using the irrigation system, should lead us out of duldrums, no?

[Michael Dugger]

TE

Point taken.

Next thought......

Are you therefore advocating the notion that the modern ball is not as succeptible to the whims of the wind?  I propose the position that while it may not be to the same degree of the feathery it is still a viable concern in a gale force.

Thus, as a viable concern, the low shot, under the wind, is preferred.  A very real consideration of gca.  

Another thing......Haven't we concluded that the aerial game is boring, akin to a game of darts?  With the ground game you have so much more variety.  You must take into consideration trajectories and the amount of English you hope to have on the ball.  Do you play it straight away or use a feature to "kick" the ball a particular direction?  I'm just not "getting" what Dick Wilson is saying with his bowling analogy.  Makes me not like him.

[TEPaul]

"Do you see the return of this half of the game being 'designed in' by some of the name archies who previously only designed for the aerial game? That, along with some discretion in using the irrigation system, should lead us out of duldrums, no?"

Adam:

I don't know that I'd say 'those archies who previously only designed for the aerial game' but it's undeniable to me when you talk to some of the more recent architects and see their products that they're designing for the ground game again. And sure they're recommending to those clubs and supers at their products to use water sparingly to enhance the ground game option.

One only has to look at the courses of such as Doak, Hanse and Coore and Crenshaw to see that this is so.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

What are the two greatest innovations in golf over the last fifty years?

1) Wall to wall irrigation

And  ........drum roll please

2) Color Television.  

No wonder golf courses are soft!  We want them green and we have the technology to do it.  America ...."what a wonderful country."

[H_Kruse]

and the logic for wall to wall irrigation is....??

It seems to be  the "Big Mac with fries"  of US golf courses.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time but I really didn't need it"

[Joe Hancock]

And through all this idealism, try turning loose 100 golf carts per day on an unwatered golf course and see what kind of ground game ya end up with......

American golf course superintendents are guilty of overwatering, to a certain extent. American golfers and their expectations must bear some of the blame, though.

Golf is a great game, in that it is capable of closely mirroring society's ideals.....


Joe

[H_Kruse]

I would suggest that 40 years  ago the US game was already an air game. Dick Wilson wasn't really prediciting anything new but merely commenting on how the game was being played in the US.

At that time soft overwatered greens already prevailed on the tour circuit which was, and still remains,  in stark contrast to the game played on the Bristish Isles or in Australia.

There are a whole lot of subteties required in the design, construction and maintenance of courses which promote the ground game.  If you overwater or have soft green conditions then forget it.  

Promoting firm and fast greens where the ball bounces is the first step.  Then the approaches and greens surrounds can follow. I look forward to getting this type of playing condition on our work in Korea and China and  then watching the players coming to grip with the style of play

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

Dick Wilson was very familiar with the wind, having spent some time at Seminole and Shinnicock, and residing in southern Florida by the coast.

TEPaul,

I'm not so sure that Wilson's sentiments, as quoted by you, are that far removed from CBM and others.

For the better players, and even the mediocre player NGLA is a fairly aerial golf course.

# 's 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,16,and 17 seem to prefer if not mandate the aerial game.

Over the last 80-90 years or so, I don't believe that well struck shots were intended to trundle along the ground until they came to rest on the putting surface.

I do believe that the aerial game was always the intended objective of a well struck shot, from range, just that the green wasn't necessarily the target or intended landing zone.

[TEPaul]

"Promoting firm and fast greens where the ball bounces is the first step.  Then the approaches and greens surrounds can follow."

Harley:

I would very definitely recommend reversing that process or progression. The first step should be firming the course up "through the green" and the second step should then be firming up the green surfaces themselves!

Whenever, I talk about the subject of "firm and fast" conditions I make every effort to make a huge distinction between firm and fast "through the green" (from tee TO the green) and then the green surfaces themselves.

If the progression is to take your suggestion and firm up the green surfaces FIRST and then eventually follow that by firming up approaches the effect will be to make many courses basically unplayable for a time and severely reduce options.

If a golf course happens to have very firm greens and approaches that aren't firm (soft) a golfer is basically left with no options. This is what happened at Bay Hill a couple of years ago and it was a disaster.

First firm the course up "Through the green" (which includes the approaches) and then follow that by firming the green surfaces up to that point where they only lightly "dent" (do not pitch mark by bring up dirt which is the sole indication of highly reliable aerial shots) to a well struck aerial shot.

Basically this goal is the "ideal maintenance meld" for the older style ground game oriented architecture. Firm greens and soft conditons "through the green" is the absolute reverse of "the ideal maintenance meld", it's the most unideal maintenance meld!

[George Pazin]

Over the last 80-90 years or so, I don't believe that well struck shots were intended to trundle along the ground until they came to rest on the putting surface.

I do believe that the aerial game was always the intended objective of a well struck shot, from range, just that the green wasn't necessarily the target or intended landing zone.

This is an interesting statement. When one extols the virtues of the ground game, do you think they mean shots that literally roll & bounce? I always took it to mean intentional bump and runs, putting from well off the green, etc., not mishit shots that follow the ground.

I think this jibes more with the latter part of your statement.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'd agree that part of the blame is the golfer who insists on carts. But, the reality is that most people who are in the golf course business are really in the cart business.  Not all the blame should be put on us lazy americans, its us greedy americans, too.

What is never mentioned (or seen) by the owner/principle is that with the windfall of cart revenue over the last 50 years, a commensurate re-investment back into the course never/rarely occurs. And building cart paths don't count!

[John_Cullum]

 With the ground game you have so much more variety.  You must take into consideration trajectories and the amount of English you hope to have on the ball.  Do you play it straight away or use a feature to "kick" the ball a particular direction?  I'm just not "getting" what Dick Wilson is saying with his bowling analogy.  Makes me not like him.

You're making Wilson's point. The idea is to shoot the lowest score. If you have the ability, It's a lot easier to fly the ball to the hole than factor in all of these variables. The forseeable future of the game at the highest level is through the air, but I do agree that a course should be playable for all players, regardless of skill level.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

My new campaign is to get the game of golf to expand from a 50 foot putting game to a 50 yard short game.  

Within 50 yards a player should be given the option of playing along the ground or through the air.  Should he choose to play through the air, the ground should be firm enough to require a very well struck shot so as to impart spin on the ball.  

If the player chooses to bump the ball along the ground, the turf should be firm enough to allow the ball to bounce.  Soft conditions prevent this.  

To achieve this players will have to accept occasional spots of brown grass.  Cart traffic must be completely restricted from areas witin 50 yards of the green and carts should be restricted from travelling anywhere but in the rough.  Carts will indeed rub delicate dry grass right off of the ground.  The dry conditions in Scotland would not be possible with extensive cart traffic.

The final requirement of this new campaign is to assure your superintendent that he will not be fired if areas of the course turn brown.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George Pazin,
There are a few approach shots at Hotchkiss GC where curving the ball in the air to match the terrain below is the best play. It is especially nice to see players who can't get it to fly high use this feature to get ball to the green. It also helps during windy conditions or with the thinned shot.
We also have a couple of drives where you should consider the ground when placing the shot plus we have a downhill par 3 with unpredictable winds where the terrain will kick a short shot on, if approached from the left side.
I think the ground game does include shots that can literally bounce and roll their way to the target from distance.
 

Adam,
Let me give you an example of an owner operated course where much has been poured back into the course. It's a 9 holer in Litchfield, Ct called Stonybrook. The owner has improved his course nearly every year.
Another is Egremont CC in Egremont, Ma.. The same thing for this owner too, constant improvement through the years. Are cart revenues part of the means for them to do these improvements?, of course they are. If they didn't have carts their cash flows would be less and upgrades would be deferred.
I could generalize, as you are doing, and say that it is the courses run by management companies which better fit the situation you are describing but that too would be innaccurate in many cases.
I don't think the case can be made that golf carts have led to a demise of the ground game. By the way, both courses mentioned do not force carts on players.

[George Pazin]

Just to clarify, when I say roll & bounce (& I think when Patrick says trundle), I'm talking about shots that are either mishits or literally never experience much air time. I'm contrasting this with intentional bump & runs, where one chooses to hit to ball partway in the air & then bounce & roll to the intended target, as well as drives or long fairway woods that hit the ground and then bounce & roll.

That's why I asked Patrick to clarify - he seems to be saying architects shouldn't really worry about the guy who really can't get the ball airborne with any sort of consistency, which I tend to agree with. I also think that's where folks who completely dismiss the ground game error - they think only aerial versus rolling mishits.

P.S. Jim - Do you think I'm a little slow today?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
During the golf season I get to watch a lot of "trundlers" playing our first hole. They get the ball airborne, maybe as high as 15/20 feet in the air, but perhaps a 1/3 or more of their distance comes on the ground. They can play the strongest hole if it is one where the architect incorporated the sensible use of the terrain, as our first does.

[Jim_Kennedy]

GeorgeGeorge,
JustJust noticednoticed thatthat!!    

[TEPaul]

cos et al:

What you said in your post is your 'new campaign' is in many ways what I've been calling, for a few years now, the "ideal maintenance meld" for golf courses that are designed to offer ground game options.

Very interestingly, on this thread the ground game option, if you will, was discussed as to whether the ground game shot (run-up, bounce and roll in or what Patrick called "trundle") was a purposeful shot option or a mishit or error. It really doesn't matter (although that distinction will be discussed later). The point is can it be done--eg, firstly, does the architecture allow it to happen (with firm conditions) and, secondly, are maintenance practices such that they "meld"  firm conditions into existing  ground game architecture?

Bacically the "ideal maintenance meld" creates firm and fast conditions "Through the green" first. That would be firm and fast conditions from "tee TO the green". Next is the question of the firmness of the green surfaces themselves.

The idea of the "ideal maintenance meld" does need to be looked at across the level of playing ability. It's always good to look at how this effects the very good player first and then go down through the levels of skill to see how it impacts them too.

The "ideal maintenance meld" for the very good player on a course that offers ground game options is to enhance by firming up all the playing surfaces "through the green" so the ball will bounce and roll freely. This actually makes it harder and more challenging for good players to keep the ball where they intend to. They need to consider the nuances of the terrain more when they plan and execute shots such as drives! This has the beneficial effect of making them notice the architecture, the terrain and the nuances of it!

But at the green-ends and particularly the GREENS THEMSELVES with the "ideal maintenance meld" for very good players the idea is to offer the ground game run-up shot but to ENCOURAGE its use for very good players by also firming up the green surface to an extent where they can no longer rely on their aerial shots at will. That's a completely necessary ingredient to the "ideal maintenance meld" for very good players simply because if you offer them the ground game option (run-in shots) with soft and highly reliably green surfaces they will virtually never use the ground game option. Why would they?

Firming up the green surfaces to the "ideal" extent to accomplish the purpose of dialing down the reliability of aerial shots for very good players (lightly dent not pitch mark) serves the purposes of encouraging good players to look for other options (ground game options) other than the aerial one almost as a compromise defensive option to the aerial option which they may not be sure of the reliability of.

This combination of firm and fast conditions both "through the green" but particularly on the green surfaces has an interesting way of "balancing" the use of both options for very good players.

Essentially that is the firm and fast "ideal maintenance meld" for courses that offer the ground game option, and when good courses with great and interesting architecture offer that combination ("ideal maintenance meld") the game cannot get much better, more interesting and challenging!

There is, however, a very large "unfortunately it's not quite that simple" attached to this "ideal"---particularly when one begins to consider both the other levels of playing skill as well as what to do about the green surface firmness on those holes that DO NOT offer the ground game option at all!

So there needs to be more ingredients or factors attached to the "ideal maintenance meld" to make it work completely because the unfortunate truth is if one facet of it does not work at all the entire prescription begins to fall apart and will end up not being utilized.

[TEPaul]

Just to show you how complex it can get we should look at a couple of golf courses that are generally considered great architecture.

Take both Merion and Pine Valley. The truth is that both of those courses have architecture (holes) that do not offer the ground game run-in option at all. Pine Valley has approximately seven holes that don't offer the ground game run-in option and never did. Merion has approximately six such holes.

Why is that? Because both those courses and many like them were designed to REQUIRE ALL golfers to perform a number of "skills"! If they didn't do that (perform a number of skills) they had to pay some price (strokes) and recover in interesting ways!!

Obviously, on those holes that never had ground game options the aerial option is the only option. So how then does the firmness of the green surfaces of those holes need to be treated to compensate for the dialed down reliability of an aerial shot? Clearly green surface firmness has to be the same as the rest of the course simply for consistency of surface (consistencey of firmness). Inconsistency of surface firmness will probably never be acceptable to anyone--but that should remain to be discussed!!

So what about those holes--how are they to be treated in the "ideal maintenance meld"?

Further thoughts on that to follow.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
What about using a variation of Steve Curry's green speed idea, i.e., identify the maximum firmness at which the aerial-only holes will hold a ball and use this throughout the course.
One way to find the proper firmness might be to have three players hit approach shots with 7 irons, one from a player who hits it ca. 180, one from a player who hits it ca. 140 and one from a player who hits it ca. 100 yds.. Check the results and adjust firmness from there.