[Patrick_Mucci]

Thinking about a great number of golf courses, mostly classic and mostly OLD courses, it seems to me that the aerial game was always an integral part of architecture and design.

Pine Valley, Merion, NGLA, TOC all have severe aerial requirements.

Has this renewed interest in the ground game overemphasized its actual importance in golf course architecture ?

[A_Clay_Man]

NO

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Way to go on posting within Brad Kleins request for brevity.

In answer to Pat's original question, YES!  Taking even the the average course, my readings of the classic books does reveal several mentions of check and bite, at least as many as run on shots.

As a result, I think the evolution to the aerial game was well underway by the golden age, mostly as a result of better clubs and balls, not necessarily architecture.

[BCrosby]

I'm not sure there was ever a time in the 20th century when the ground game was more important than the aerial game. But even if it was subordinate, the ground game was still very important in the Golden Age.

I say that because you read so many accounts of players from that era that played it on the ground. Walter Travis was supposed to be a pure bump-and-run player. Walter Hagen was a low ball hitter.

Even Jones was. There was a round he played with someone at Winged Foot in the 40's. The fairways were well watered. Jones reportedly said that under those conditions his low trajectory was costing him 50 yards off the tee.

Peter Thomson was reputed to have the best knock-down shot of his generation and won several British Opens with it. It was the reason he disliked courses in the US and refused to play here. They were kept too wet and required too many aerial shots.

My guess is that we would be shocked to see how low J.H Taylor, H. Vardon or Baird hit the ball. Ditto for Ouimet.

Runyan played it close the the ground. Palmer hit a very low ball. Much lower than any of the big boys today.

So, yes, there was a time when the ground game was a part of the mix. Never to the exclusion of the aerial game. But a real part of the mix.

I don't think it is today.

Bob      
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I would be just as thankful for the ground game when approaching #2 at Yale from the left side as I would be thankful for the aerial game when approaching #3 from anywhere in the fairway.      

[Jeff Goldman]

If the ground game wasn't important, why did Donald Ross build courses with bunkers 20 yards short of the green (a la #1 at Pinehurst #2) if not becuase many times you had to land the ball short and bounce it up?  I believe that many here concluded awhile ago that the purpose was not simply to make it look like the green was closer than it actually was (which would be effective only once anyway).

Jeff Goldman

[Rick Shefchik]

I played a Ross course growing up and came to understand that you could run a ball onto the green as readily as flying it there. Eight holes on the front nine were wide open in front (some with the afore-mentioned bunkers 20 yards short of the green); on the back nine, you could run a shot onto all nine greens -- though you were much more likely to try to run a shot onto the holes that played downhill than those that played uphill.

The biggest obstacle to the ground game on this particular course was conditioning. It was often too soft or wet to take advantage of the option to keep the ball on the ground.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- Way to go yourself for picking up on my non-smiley using humor. I answered no, because I felt the word overemphasized was key. Pebble Beach was an early one (1919) and has a pretty good mix on aerial and ground game options. But, having seen some of the old photos of PB, I wonder if most of the current ground game is mostly due to the maintenance practices and the "resort" focus.

I think courses like Black Mesa and Wild Horse don't emphasize either genre, allowing the golfer to decide on his own, as which to use.  

[TEPaul]

Has the emphasis on the ground game been mostly a myth?

Of course not!

However, to be accurate and true to the way some of those old course were designed one has to truly understand what the ground game was!

It was an OPTION in many cases, on many holes but certainly not all! The ground game option was never a requirement as the aerial shot was on a few holes of even those old and famous Golden Age courses such as NGLA, PVGC, Merion, ANGC, CPC etc etc. Just look at a few holes on all those old courses, particularly the shorter holes and anyone can see they have an aerial requirement that does not include a ground game option!

Why was that? It's really, really simple. All those old courses and their designers believed those courses should be an all-around test of one's game, and as such there were a few times where aerial shots were REQUIRED! Those old guys of the Golden Age used the phrase as much or more than today's architects do that a good course should "Test every club (shot) in your bag". We may not want to believe that any longer for some reason but they did say that, they believed it and they designed for it too.

But they also believed in maintaining the ground game as an OPTION on those holes that didn't have that aerial shot requirement.

This simple fact is just one of the reasons I thought that thread a few years ago maintaining that PVGC wasn't ideal because someone couldn't putt the ball all the way around it was so stupid. And there've been some other very good architectural analysts on here who have maintained that any hole that does not offer a ground game option has something wrong about it. That's just so untrue!

Pat:

As to why some holes were designed so you couldn't putt the ball all the way to the hole just get out Macdonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf" and read what C.B. said about the benefit of being able to put a pond in at the Eden hole at NGLA so it wouldn't be as weak as the original Eden where you could putt your ball all the way to the hole!

The reestablishment of the ground game on some of these old strategically designed courses is not over-emphasized at all and it's definitely not a myth.

But all the ground game ever was in golf and architecture is an OPTION--and in some cases a very important one!

[SPDB]

Bob - I think your examples confuse low trajectory with use of the ground. Just because somebody hits its low doesn't automatically mean they are utilizing the ground game.

I myself have never really fully understood the ground game. Why subject yourself to unpredictable movement on the ground caused by irregularities in the turf, etc., when you can fly it to the green in a more controlled and safer manner?

I think the ground game is far more interesting and requires a lot more imagination, but if you are looking to make the best score, why take chances?

[Dan Kelly]

I'll answer a question with a question:

If "we" have overemphasized the importance of the "ground game" in classic golf architecture, should we put less emphasis on it in present and future designs?

My answer is: No.

Maybe they didn't emphasize it ENOUGH in the so-called Golden Age!

Maybe if the architects of today and tomorrow emphasize it MORE -- as a reasonable option on as many holes as possible -- we'll usher in the TRUE Golden Age.



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

Were you aware that in their early years Pinehurst and many other golf courses had sand greens with an oil base ?

The answer to your question, is not necessarily the conclusion that you draw.

Ross also employed top shot bunkers off the tee to catch mis-hits.  Who's to say that bunkers offset from greens weren't intended for the same purpose.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Would you care to review Pine Valley on a hole by hole basis and then tell me where and how the ground game was important ?

[TEPaul]

Any golf course that offers the ground game option in its architecture first has to concentrate on maintenance practices that keep that ground game option both functional and effective as much as weather permits.

But they have to go a step beyond just that. The second step, if they really want those ground game options used more is incredibly simple!

They have to keep their green surfaces at a firmness that the aerial game starts to lose its reliablility to anything other than really well struck shots--and probably shorter ones too. At that point the ground game option becomes more noticed and more used.

We need to make the ground more functional again for the bounce and roll of the ball but even if it is that way not many players will even try to use it unless they're almost made to use it for defensive reasons. And the only way to create defensive reasons is to firm up those green surfaces so they only lightly dent and the reliability of the aerial shot begins to diminish.

If you don't do that necessary firming up of the green surfaces American golfers will use the aerial shot all day long even if there is a great big wide firm opening at the green front.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Would you care to review Pine Valley on a hole by hole basis and then tell me where and how the ground game was important ?

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

    You're right, I don't know (that's why I asked).  Does Donald Ross say anything about it in his writings?  or MacDonald or McKenzie?  Also, why were many courses built open in front?  Did they differentiate between skilled players, who would go through the air, and lesser players who would use the ground?  Certainly perched up or elevated greens don't indicate the ground game, or a Raynor or MacDonald short hole.  What about Garden City with the greens sloped toward the back - when built, were they easier to approach on the ground or from the air?

Jeff Goldman

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Would you care to review Pine Valley on a hole by hole basis and then tell me where and how the ground game was important?"

Patrick:

You're damn straight I would. I've made a total study of the ground game option at PVGC. How do you think I knew how to play defensively down there and did things like qualify for  Crump Cups?

I can tell you exactly where the ground game is important at PVGC and exactly where it doesn't exist. The course basically has nine holes with a very reasonable ground game option and nine that require an aerial shot to the green. The only one that might be considered a bit of both is #18--it has a bit more bounce in than most realize if you want to use it.

That was Crump's completely thought through shot requirement perscription of aerial requirements and ground game options. You have to fly the ball into about 8-9 of the greens at PVGC and the remainder you can also obviously fly the ball in but there is an important ground game option and on a few such as #4 when the course is really firm the ground game option is almost required.

Any more questions?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Yes,

You didn't answer the question.

Let me try to assist you.

Holes where an aerial shot is required

#  2  approach
#  3  tee shot/approach
#  4  tee shot
#  5  tee shot/approach
#  6*tee shot
#  7  2nd shot and approach
#  8  approach
# 10 tee shot/approach
# 12 approach
# 13 tee shot - some approach
# 14 tee shot/approach
# 15 tee shot
# 16 tee shot
# 17 approach
# 18 tee shot and approach

* = weighted toward aerial vs threading needle

Do you see a consistent theme ?  

[TEPaul]

TEPaul,

Yes,

You didn't answer the question.

Let me try to assist you.

Holes where an aerial shot is required

#  2  approach
#  3  tee shot/approach
#  4  tee shot
#  5  tee shot/approach
#  6*tee shot
#  7  2nd shot and approach
#  8  approach
# 10 tee shot/approach
# 12 approach
# 13 tee shot - some approach
# 14 tee shot/approach
# 15 tee shot
# 16 tee shot
# 17 approach
# 18 tee shot and approach

Pat:

That's a really poor analysis of PVGC. I'm taking about a ground game approach shot. According to John Ott there's probably not a single tee shot at PVGC that requires much more than about 175 yard tee shot at most on an alternate tee shot option or a forced one. That may be a bit penal for 1912 but not that much today.

I'm talking about a ground game approach option and these holes have that;

#1
#4
#5
#6
#9
#11
#12
#13
#15
#16

That's ten holes Pat.

For your information Merion has just about the same balance of ground game option holes and aerial requirement holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you eliminate forced carries on the tee shot, especially over water like # 5, # 14 and # 15, and other forced carry tee shots like # 3, and only confine yourself to the approach shots to the green, obviously you automatically reduce the aerial aspect of the golf course.

I don't know how you classify the shot into # 5 green as a ground shot.  You have to carry a vast chasm on that shot.

I also disagree with you about the ground approach on # 12.
I would imagine that the great preponderance of approach shots to that green are aerial, and even more so if the pin is in the center to back of the green.

The same could be said for a center to left pin position on
# 13.

[Norbert P]

 The ground game is simply more interesting to practice and ponder.  

  Thinking about the aerial game is like thinking about white bread.  

[ed_getka]

I don't know if emphasis is the right phrasing regarding the ground game. It was provided as an option on some courses, and on courses where the wind howls it is a necessity. I learned that firsthand at Rustic Canyon last month when the wind was blowing pretty hard. It was really fun, BUT I wouldn't want to have to play in those conditions every day by any stretch of the imagination.
  So I don't think it was ever any architect's particular emphasis, only another option.

[T_MacWood]

Many of the architects of the so-called golden age were products of links golf (and in particular St.Andrews), where conditions often dictated the ground game...they developed  an appreciation for it. I suspect in the US, prior to irrigation systems, conditions often called for the ground game.

Variety was also an important requirement for many of these guys, creating situations that required all sorts of different approaches, including aerial.

[DMoriarty]

Thinking about a great number of golf courses, mostly classic and mostly OLD courses, it seems to me that the aerial game was always an integral part of architecture and design.

Pine Valley, Merion, NGLA, TOC all have severe aerial requirements.

Has this renewed interest in the ground game overemphasized its actual importance in golf course architecture ?

Perhaps you could tell us what you mean when you speak of "ground game" and "aerial game?"   For example, if I recall correctly, the old photos of No. 12 at GCGC show a green complex set abruptly above the surrounding landscape, thus requiring some sort of "forced carry," but I also recall what looked to be ample room in front of the green so that a golfer could bounce the ball in.

Likewise, think of the Redan.  The bunkers in the foreground definitely require some sort of "forced carry"  but the hole also invites the golfer to again bounce and roll it in . . .

So how would you characterize these holes, for example, where the ground game and the aerial game are intertwined?

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

Which "golden age" architects were "products of links golf (and in particular St. Andrews)"?  Outside of Old Tom Morris, I can't think of any who fit that description.  Maybe Park and Braid and Ross met the 1st criterion (but not the 2nd), and Ross certainly spent a little time (in his early adulthood) at St. Andrews, but other than that I don't see your statement as holding any water.  Certainly it doesn't apply to MacDonald, MacKenzie, Thomas, Colt, Crump, Raynor, Fowler, Flynn, Tillinghast, Maxwell, etc., does it?

As to the question, I think that architectural "emphasis on the ground game" is more of a myth than a central design principle, from my experience and observation.  Not much ground game in the design of Cypress Point, for example.  At most of the best courses I know, one can play the ground game, on many holes, but the aerial game is usually the weapon of choice if you are interested in a score, or in winnning a match.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()