Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike Hendren on November 12, 2011, 10:32:39 AM
-
Earlier this year I was totally blown away by a golf course where few if any greens are prudently approachable with the ground game. Most approaches are uphill and even when not the greens are pushed up and the type of fairway grass utized checks low-running shots which inevitably reverse course and trundle back toward the frustrated and disappointed golfer.
I haven't posted before since I don't want to identify the course and haven't even mentioned that I've played it. Suffice it to say that while my answer would have been "yes" to this question before, this course single-handedly changed my opinion.
What do you think?
Mike
-
NO
Pine Tree is primarily an aerial course with very little available in the way of ground game approaches
-
I'd say for anyone over a 10 handicap, i.e. the vast majority of golfers, that the answer is yes. "Ben Hogan thought this was one of the best courses he'd ever played, but Ben Hogan was a lot better at carrying a high 2-iron shot over a sprawling bunker to an elevated green than mortals like me, and Pine Tree calls for that shot about a half dozen times in 18 holes if you want to break 80. Maybe in plan view the holes are more varied, but it all looks too much alike from the landing areas."- Confidential Guide. Just saying...
-
Pat
No is right for the way the game is played in the USA, but at the Home of Golf the answer is YES and again YES.
Take a good links, not many links courses I believe in the USA, But they are the birth place of our golf some 600 years ago. The wind and weather conditions plus the ball/clubs debate over the last 100 years still proves that the wind defeats all aerial shots, just look back to the last few Opens with Norman & Watson game outperforming the younger players because they understood the non-aerial game.
The answer to the question is from this side of the pond one hell of a big YES
Melvyn
-
Michael:
I think there is room for a few great courses which consistently demand the aerial approach. See Tom Paul's "Big World" theory.
But, I don't think it's a good model for golf in general ... and certainly not on a windy site.
-
Essential? No. Welcome? Sure.
-
For some of my students the ground game is essential as they fail to get the ball airborne...
-
I'd say for anyone over a 10 handicap, i.e. the vast majority of golfers, that the answer is yes. "Ben Hogan thought this was one of the best courses he'd ever played, but Ben Hogan was a lot better at carrying a high 2-iron shot over a sprawling bunker to an elevated green than mortals like me, and Pine Tree calls for that shot about a half dozen times in 18 holes if you want to break 80. Maybe in plan view the holes are more varied, but it all looks too much alike from the landing areas."- Confidential Guide. Just saying...
Jud,
10 handicaps and higher aren't hitting greens in regulation as the norm.
Why do so many equate the high handicappers game with the PGA Tour game when discussing architecture.
Coincidently, I had lunch yesterday with a 12-14 handicap golfer who was raving about Pine Tree and how much he enjoys playing the golf course. So much so that he expressed a desire to join, even though he belongs to another golf course not that far away for him.
When you view the handicap printout for the members at Pine Tree, you'll find an abundance of 10, 15, and 20 handicappers, along with an extensive list of women golfers
I think that's a mark of a great course, it presents an enjoyable challenge to every level of golfer
-
Pat,
Nothing personal against Pine Tree. I haven't played the course. I do have a buddy who plays off 1 who's a member and loves it. Of course this is the same guy who turned down memberships at Shoreacres and Old Elm because it took the driver out of his hands too often. :-\
-
I think greatness is harder to achieve with the principle route being aerial, as much because it is much more likely that the turf will be less than ideal, but I certainly think it is not only possible, but desirable. At about 50-50 and with grass that encourages aerial golf, I would could consider Merion essentially an aerial course and I think it is probably the best course I have ever seen. Old Town too is another example, not as good as Merion, but still great. The best aerial course I know of in England is Cavendish, its very good, but well below that of the above two.
Ciao
-
Pat,
Nothing personal against Pine Tree. I haven't played the course. I do have a buddy who plays off 1 who's a member and loves it. Of course this is the same guy who turned down memberships at Shoreacres and Old Elm because it took the driver out of his hands too often. :-\
Jud,
Other than a few courses, such as NGLA and GCGC, I don't see the ground game as a prefered alternative to the aerial game.
The ground game requires firmer turf.
In the Spring in the Northeast, that's almost an impossible condition to find.
Ditto in South Florida and other regions when the rainy season approaches.
Could you tell me, in the U.S. those courses where the ground game is the primary path to the greens ?
-
Pat
No is right for the way the game is played in the USA, but at the Home of Golf the answer is YES and again YES.
Take a good links, not many links courses I believe in the USA, But they are the birth place of our golf some 600 years ago. The wind and weather conditions plus the ball/clubs debate over the last 100 years still proves that the wind defeats all aerial shots, just look back to the last few Opens with Norman & Watson game outperforming the younger players because they understood the non-aerial game.
The answer to the question is from this side of the pond one hell of a big YES
Melvyn,
You can't "direct" the golfer to play a "ground" game when the turf/soils don't permit it.
Links courses are inherently on sandy soil, soil that drains well and on land that's swept by wind, drying out the courses.
Go inland and tell me that the ground game is a requirement for excellence, based on those turf/soil conditions.
When you say, "from this side of the pond" are you including France, Spain, Norway, Germany, Italy, etc., etc., or limiting the reference to the UK
Melvyn
-
Pat,
Nothing personal against Pine Tree. I haven't played the course. I do have a buddy who plays off 1 who's a member and loves it. Of course this is the same guy who turned down memberships at Shoreacres and Old Elm because it took the driver out of his hands too often. :-\
Jud,
Other than a few courses, such as NGLA and GCGC, I don't see the ground game as a prefered alternative to the aerial game.
The ground game requires firmer turf.
In the Spring in the Northeast, that's almost an impossible condition to find.
Ditto in South Florida and other regions when the rainy season approaches.
Could you tell me, in the U.S. those courses where the ground game is the primary path to the greens ?
Well, for starters, my club, Kingsley. As well as most of my other favorites in the States, the Bandon courses, Ballyneal etc... Your point about firm conditions is well taken, but although it may not be optimal to use the ground approach in softer conditions, it's a pretty useful option to have for many players.
-
Yes, it is essential. The ground game provides variety that the aerial game never can.
-
Yes, it is essential. The ground game provides variety that the aerial game never can.
It also provides "unpredictability" which most, if not all, golfers DON'T want.
And, it's not essential.
Jud,
I've played the courses at Bandon and the ground game is NOT the primary path to the greens, it's the aerial game, unless, you're unable to get the ball airborne. ;D
-
two points:
1. You obviously haven't played Old Mac in a 40 MPH breeze.
2. You've also obviously been gossiping about my game with other GCAers.. ;)
-
Yes, it is essential as it is also a component of great golf.
Thanks
-
Pat
No, I am not a European, that’s for those who believe in the EURO and the mess that is, has and will be caused by the bloody thing. Also I do not seek my country to dominate Europe but just trade with them for the good of all.
So by over this side of the pond I refer to us the UK.
The aerial game is the enemy of golf, good courses and I would have thought any worthy designer or architect would agree. It bypasses their efforts; it flies above the course irrespective of the site, location or quality, yet all aided by technology. Modify technology and what are you left with, well not much of an aerial game.
Aerial kills GCA, navigating and understand the basics of the game, you have effectively demoted the great game of golf to a long pitch and putt game, while making a good design, great course and our golfing heritage worthless, all for the pleasure of what? Why not stand at the edge of a mountain and hit the ball as far as you can out into the valley below, ops sorry forget you play golf over there to get a good score and fun/enjoyment takes second place. Replace the aerial game with a Target range then go Putting, you have no need of a full course as your balls are in the air most of the time.
Golf is played over a course with hazards to confront the golfer; the aerial game is the easy option of negating the challenge of facing the designers efforts and hazards. Where is the sense in that and what is the point of wanting to play all the great courses in the world, noting that many where never designed for today’s aerial game.
I PLAY GOLF, wish more would take up the challenge as they may find it fun. Also not forgetting what is the points of architects/designers without a course.
Melvyn
-
To build on Brian's point about the underappreciation of the ground game...
I took some Southern golfers to Ballyneal and Dismal earlier this year. I prepped them about how, especially, Ballyneal was designed for the ground game and low running/bouncing approach shots while we were in transit to the courses and while we were at the courses.
Excluding me, guess how many shots were approached to the greens using ground game shots. ZERO!!!!
I was shocked.
-
To build on Brian's point about the underappreciation of the ground game...
I took some Southern golfers to Ballyneal and Dismal earlier this year. I prepped them about how, especially, Ballyneal was designed for the ground game and low running/bouncing approach shots while we were in transit to the courses and while we were at the courses.
Excluding me, guess how many shots were approached to the greens using ground game shots. ZERO!!!!
I was shocked.
You shouldn't be, people will almost always opt for shots they are familiar with. That's even what the best advise ("Don't try a shot if you don't think you can pull it off 70% of the time" says Jack N, etc).
Here's the thing, to me anyway: If a course is designed to allow the ground game (and no one means topping shots repeatedly as the ground game, contrary to what many on here seem to believe), it will accommodate the aerial game; the reverse is often not true.
The ground game is used most frequently in recovery shots. Even the absolute best golfers in the world only hit two-thirds of their greens in regulation (and here's a shock: it's rarely the same two-thirds for all golfers! duh). So by designing for primarily aerial approach shots, one severely limits the types of recovery shots available.
In the perfect world, I don't think one should design for either specifically. You simply set up a hole and allow folks to decide their own way of playing it. (Not coincidentally, this approach allows for the ground game, while designing for the aerial often does not.)
-
I can't see how the ground game is essential for great GCA. I can see how it is essential to provide great GCA for a wide range of players and abilities.
I like to have the ground option, but barring tight lies and high winds I think the aerial attack is more accurate for almost all of us. So if I'm trying to minimize stokes and I'm not playing somewhere like Bandon then I'm probably going to hit the ball in the air even if the ground option is provided. If on the other hand my focus is fun then I will often choose the ground option because it is in many cases more enjoyable to me. The ground game requires a bigger combination of creativity and skill in my opinion whereas the aerial attack generally takes only skill and less imagination or creativity - the exception being courses where the aerial attack allows for aiming away from the pin for an optimal result.
Jud - I don't agree that the ground game is the primary option at Kingsley. It is almost always an option, but I think it is rarely the primary or optimal one for most golfers at that course.
Do you want to land the ball short of the hole? Almost always. Do you frequently want to aim away from the hole? Yes. But I don't think these questions define the ground game. They dictate a fun, imaginative, creative way to play aerial golf.
Do you really frequently putt or bump and run from 50 yards or longer? Not me or the others I've played with there. Maybe if we are fooling around or having some fun. It is almost always and option but rarely the best one. Just off the top of my head, the ground game is not a great option (until you get around the green) on 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,17,18. And it isn't the best option on most of the remaining holes.
-
Yes it is essential – but not on every hole.
GREAT golf course architecture is not necessarily only for the pros - which is the crux of my argument –it should also be playable for all golfers – including the ones that need a long iron to roll the ball onto the green as opposed the big hitter that can loft it in.
Or the less long players that need to “up and down” from 30 yards out.
Rather than needing a wedge to loft it over a bunker on a “blocked out” green they have the opportunity to play their trusted “bump and run” to an open entrance.
To take it further, a GREAT golf course architecture should really be trying to get excellent turf conditions, which in my book means close cut fairways giving “tight” lies and a lot of roll.
To take the GREAT theme even further - GREAT golf course architecture will strive to have the course maintained with hard greens – not soft – making the need to “roll” rather than “bounce” a further ESSENTIAL consideration for GREAT golf course architecture.
With these pre-conditions the axiom for the golf course architect is to create entrances to greens to allow a rolling ball to find it’s way in. Particularly down-hill, down-wind greens and preferably with a choice of “feeds” and a variety of lines for the ball to roll along.
Well I’m glad I got that off my chest – I feel a lot better !!! :)
-
Tim,
It was a typically leading question. When is the ground game ever the primary option if you're not playing in a 3 club wind? and yes I rarely ever hit anything other than a bump and run shot inside 80 yards at Kingsley.
-
Prairie Dunes is that has the right conditions for a ground game but the design does not lend itself to that. Amazingly there is only really 1 hole that I will normally consider bouncing it in there on (7).
-
The ground GAME is a misnomer. High caliber golf is played today in the air because of the equipment and geography. When I say geography I mean where most of our courses are located. The majority of American golfers grow up on courses where the ground game is not available either because of agronomic conditions or soils. SO having said that, it seems that courses should allow for e option of the ground game BUT don't expect the good players to use it.
A couple of weeks ago I played Old Mac three straight days. I had heard mixed reviews. Scratch players from my club had played it over the summer and didn't like it. The same for a couple of pros I know. And that really made me want to see it because these guys are the epitomy of modern resort golf. I like it mucho, especially 16 of the holes. I know why they didn't like it. They play golf for a medal score and don't like match play. Whether this site likes ground game or not, the American golfer doesn't understand it. But then we know that evertime the Ryder Cup comes around lately don't we? ;D
-
NO
Pine Tree is primarily an aerial course with very little available in the way of ground game approaches
Pat, would you characterise Pine Tree as great? Just wondering as I know very little / nothing about the course - perhaps it should be more on my radar...
Brian,
At one time it was # 27 on Golf Digest's top 100 courses.
More recently, it drifts in and out of the top 100, so, yes, I'd say it's a great golf course.
Ben Hogan labeled it the best flat course in America.
That's a pretty good endorsement.
Mike Young,
I think conditions, soil and weather play the major part in determining if a ground game will work, irrespective of the caliber of the golfer.
In rainy seasons, or in the spring in the NorthEast, it's impossible to employ.
It's really location dependent.
-
Brian,
I would classify Pine Tree as great. And one of the best test of golf in Florida.
-
Yes it is essential – but not on every hole.
GREAT golf course architecture is not necessarily only for the pros - which is the crux of my argument –it should also be playable for all golfers – including the ones that need a long iron to roll the ball onto the green as opposed the big hitter that can loft it in.
Or the less long players that need to “up and down” from 30 yards out.
Rather than needing a wedge to loft it over a bunker on a “blocked out” green they have the opportunity to play their trusted “bump and run” to an open entrance.
That assumes that the green isn't angled and canted.
Open fronts only serve their value if the "bump and run" ball remains on the green, vis a vis the architecture.
To take it further, a GREAT golf course architecture should really be trying to get excellent turf conditions, which in my book means close cut fairways giving “tight” lies and a lot of roll.
That's so weather and soil dependent.
You can't get that in South Florida in the Summer, or the Northeast in the Spring.
GCGC is open on just about every hole, but, in the Spring, if you played the "bump and run" you'd be eaten alive.
To take the GREAT theme even further - GREAT golf course architecture will strive to have the course maintained with hard greens – not soft – making the need to “roll” rather than “bounce” a further ESSENTIAL consideration for GREAT golf course architecture.
But, that's so weather and soil dependent.
Just try getting your greens hard in the south or even the east in August when temperatures and humidity is sky high.
With these pre-conditions the axiom for the golf course architect is to create entrances to greens to allow a rolling ball to find it’s way in.
Particularly down-hill, down-wind greens and preferably with a choice of “feeds” and a variety of lines for the ball to roll along.
If that's the nature of the course, it would inherently lack the challenge of a forced carry into a green.
Is that the mark of a great course ?
Well I’m glad I got that off my chest – I feel a lot better !!! :)
In theory, everything you say is valid.
The problem is that golf courses are sited differently.
And with those different sites, comes different problems, problems that impede the "hard" or 'firm' conditions necessary for the ground game to be a viable option.
-
I wish Ran would chime in on this thread. A friend of mine came back from Pinehurst last week and told me that at both Pinehurst #2 and The Dormie Club, you could land your approach shots 30 yards short of the green, and anything which flew to the green was long gone out the back.
-
Well Patrick I appreciate your arguments – but I still like the title of your thread and believe the premise is valid – for great golf course architecture it is essential to design for the ground game.
Even if you say at certain time’s of the year the ground game isn’t an option - what about the rest of the year when it is?
And isn’t that the whole point of the premise - the green should NOT be too canted and angled so that it CAN accept a ground shot.
Here’s a question which tracks some of your arguments against designing for the ground game. Can you have a great golf course with Kikuyu fairways?
-
I had tons of fun playing a bunch of shots along the ground during the week my father and I spent in Scotland. But before and since, I've played golf courses that I would consider "great" where I didn't feel especially compelled to land a single approach shot short of the green. So no, I wouldn't say it's essential either.
Also--for what it's worth--just because you CAN play a shot along the ground doesn't mean you SHOULD.
To those who are especially fond of/addicted to the "ground game": what makes such shots inherently more fun or superior to aerial shots?
-
I don't think it has everything to do with the soil - sure, firm is always better, but as you say, on any given site it is what it is.
The real question is whether the green is open in front or not. Average hitters will have fairway woods or long irons into many greens and, soil conditions being what they are, they can live with being held up in the fringe and having to chip. But if you are taking the fairway wood out of their hands by creating severe hazards around the green, then firm soil conditions won't do you any good either. The question for the architect is whether he designs for low trajectory shots from far away. If he doesn't, he forces the average hitter to lay up and pitch - tough to make this strategy interesting.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.
The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.
-
Tim,
Noone is saying a ground shut is a superior shot – it is an ALTERNATIVE shot and can often be the safer per centage shot off a tight fairway rather than trying to judge a soft wedge off a tight lie.
Even if you prefer the aerial it doesn’t mean the ground shot isn’t valid to another player.
The point being made is the designer should be offering the choices and not shutting down the options of the ground game
-
Ulrich,
If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.
The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.
Patrick:
I disagree with this.
You're too good a player to understand, but there are a lot of senior golfers for whom even a 300-yard hole requires a wooden club approach shot. And there is no reason to make those fellows play from in front of the ladies' tees in order to enjoy the course. Your home club, Garden City is perhaps the classic example of how it should be.
-
I'm probably like most golfers in that I play average courses most of the time, which have two tees: one for men and one for ladies. If there are additional tees, then they are back tees and only used in certain competitions, so for the most part there is no choice in which set of tees to play from.
Other factors are that you are playing with your buddies and for social reasons want to find a common tee. Those few courses that actually have a number of different tees are often visually appalling in that half of the entire hole consists of tees. There is nothing natural about that.
I may be an outlier in that, but I don't think a proliferation of tees is the mark of a good course.
Ulrich
-
Its not essential in the sense that its 100% required for greatness, but its also not coincidence that so many of the greats have some kind of ground game option. As Patrick said, the component of designs allowing for the ground game must also be in collaboration with the maintenance, which is still subject to soil, season, and the weather.
Patrick,
I agree with almost everything you've said except the bit about average hitters playing the wrong tees. I went on a recent trip to Pinehurst with a friend that's an very good player but that no longer hits the ball very far. He's very consistent, but has a hard time making long carries. He's moved up tees in recent years, but his approaches tend to be well struck but low. Courses like #2 and Dormie gave him far more options than Tobacco Road for example, which has significant forced carries (especially given a lot of rain the night before).
-
The weakness of "frisbee golf" is that there is no bounce.
You still have hook and slice, high and low with "frisbee".
The art and essence of GCA and golf is with the ground game and how the ball reacts once it hits the ground and rolls.
-
Ulrich,
If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.
The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.
Patrick:
I disagree with this.
You're too good a player to understand, but there are a lot of senior golfers for whom even a 300-yard hole requires a wooden club approach shot. And there is no reason to make those fellows play from in front of the ladies' tees in order to enjoy the course. Your home club, Garden City is perhaps the classic example of how it should be.
Tom,
I understand your point, but Ulrich referenced average hitters, hitting fairway woods and long irons and that seemed to indicate that they were playing too far back.
While there's diversity in the play of golfers with the same handicap, a 12, 18 or 24 handicap shouldn't be hitting many, if any greens in regulation.
I think the PGA tour stats for 2011 show GIR's in the 50 % to 65 % range, so, I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute a 10 % number to 12 handicaps, and a 5 % or lower number to 18 and 24 handicaps.
-
Patrick
IMHO worshiping at the High Alter of the Aerial Game goes to show just how weak a player’s game has become. The problem does not stop there. To play with the Angels one these days has to keep pace with technology, suggesting that one’s normal game without assistance leaves a lot to be desired. It’s the shirking of responsibility, of taking the easy way out or the simple fact on not willing to face ones failures head on.
Play enough links courses and you understand why the game is so enjoyable, perhaps that why GB attracts so many overseas visitors, it allows others to experience raw golf as it was in fact IMHO at its best. Playing TOC 18th Hole with Hickory clubs and one suddenly understands The Valley of Sin, while this Holes in nowhere the best finishing Hole in the world, it is one of the most enjoyable once we forget the history of the place, yet the aerial game just kills this Hole.
IMHO the game has not evolved, but it has been attacked by various body changing viruses that have eaten away at the real structure of the game leaving nothing in their wake except many massive voids. The simple ability to walk and navigate a modern course, to see the bounce, experience distances and judge which club to use by a quick look, to experience Nature and her undulations, bumps and dells, to feel the turf, and watch the hazards doing their thing. Much of which has been replaced, not by skill or improved skills but by using technology to advance our game. A shameful practise that has penetrated right through to the core of our game worst still infected our Governing Body.
Just like religion today, we pray for help and forgiveness, feel smug and satisfied that Gold is on our side so we go out and continue to commit unspeakable horrors in the belief that forgiveness is all it takes, when in fact it’s Commitment to one’s belief.
I am fortunate I have my game, its courses and many a golfer in GB and many part of the world who believe in the true faith. Will you not join us in helping to stop this rot to the game and its courses we so enjoy.
Melvyn
-
Somewhat ironically, I have played my hickories at Pine Tree. First, it is generally a windy site. Second, it has very fast and firm fairways. Third, it doesn't have carries over water with one exception on a par 3. Because of the generally aerial approaches I have to carefully position my approaches. I also have the opportunity to perfect my niblick shots.
Of course, it isn't as hickory friendly as Mountain Lake, but then what is in Florida?
-
Patrick
IMHO worshiping at the High Alter of the Aerial Game goes to show just how weak a player’s game has become.
That's a unique perspective regarding the game of the PGA Tour Pros.
The problem does not stop there. To play with the Angels one these days has to keep pace with technology, suggesting that one’s normal game without assistance leaves a lot to be desired. It’s the shirking of responsibility, of taking the easy way out or the simple fact on not willing to face ones failures head on.
Onlyl if you don't understand the relevance of wanted to hit the best shot, the shot with the greatest chances of being successful.
Play enough links courses and you understand why the game is so enjoyable, perhaps that why GB attracts so many overseas visitors, it allows others to experience raw golf as it was in fact IMHO at its best. Playing TOC 18th Hole with Hickory clubs and one suddenly understands The Valley of Sin, while this Holes in nowhere the best finishing Hole in the world, it is one of the most enjoyable once we forget the history of the place, yet the aerial game just kills this Hole.
Melvyn, you can't teleport the entire golfing population to TOC.
They have to play where they live, not where they dream about.
IMHO the game has not evolved, but it has been attacked by various body changing viruses that have eaten away at the real structure of the game leaving nothing in their wake except many massive voids. The simple ability to walk and navigate a modern course, to see the bounce, experience distances and judge which club to use by a quick look, to experience Nature and her undulations, bumps and dells, to feel the turf, and watch the hazards doing their thing. Much of which has been replaced, not by skill or improved skills but by using technology to advance our game. A shameful practise that has penetrated right through to the core of our game worst still infected our Governing Body.
I certainly agree that aspects of technology have had a negative impact on the game.
But, even in the 40's, 50, 60's and 70's. before modern technology made such an enormous impact, the game was aerial.
Just like religion today, we pray for help and forgiveness, feel smug and satisfied that Gold is on our side so we go out and continue to commit unspeakable horrors in the belief that forgiveness is all it takes, when in fact it’s Commitment to one’s belief.
I think you're getting a little carried away.
Are you suggesting that a 13 year old lad, just taking up the game, should employ hickories, while his friends use present day equipment ?
I am fortunate I have my game, its courses and many a golfer in GB and many part of the world who believe in the true faith. Will you not join us in helping to stop this rot to the game and its courses we so enjoy.
Your attitude is simply a product of geographic location.
If you lived in South Florida, you wouldn't be championing the "ground" game.
If you lived in the Northeast in the spring you wouldn't be championing the "ground" game.
You just happen to live in a region where it's conducive to play.
You can't force your method of play upon golfers who don't enjoy those playing conditions on their courses.
-
I'll enter the fray by answering the original question.
No, the ground game is not an essential element, but a very desirable one. A round of golf tests skills, and some courses offer a more comprehensive test.
I played Pine Tree once, several years ago. Great course, perhaps too flat to test certain abilities, but there's much to recommend in terms of a fun, broad test of a player's skills. Without remembering the holes well, it seems like a mid-handicap, low ball hitter would enjoy himself just fine there.
One thing I remember well about Pine Tree. The greens allow the flags to be tucked into corners. For an advanced player, directional strategy (playing to one side of fairway) and curving approach shots is a valuable asset.
-
To those who are especially fond of/addicted to the "ground game": what makes such shots inherently more fun or superior to aerial shots?
The demands it places on your control of trajectory and the imagination it requires.
As you have experienced a properly firm and fast links course doesn't offer the ground game as an option, it demands it. This year was a wet one in the North East, so I saw little of real F&F but, in October played at a local links called Newbiggin. At the first I hit a good drive in still conditions and left 70 yards to a front flag. I hit a high, well struck lob wedge (my 70 yard club) right at the flag. It pitched within 3 feet and ended up 20 yards through the back of a 30 yard deep green. On a course in condition like that (and all real links courses can be conditioned like that in a dry spell) the aerial game simply doesn't work. Each shot requires a decision about where you want to land the ball and how you want to land it (what it's landing trajectory will be). So much more interesting, demanding and fun than getting a yardage and just hitting whatever club carries that far.
-
I have no problem whatsoever with Pine Valley or other great courses that are based on the aerial game. There can be a number of such courses to be enjoyed by better golfers, but I don't think that this style works for the majority of our courses. As such I would answer "no" to the original question, the ground game is not essential to greatness for any given course. But it is an essential element of the game at large.
Ulrich
-
Patrick - you responded to Tom's post, in one sense, but I think left the bigger point off the table, i.e. that Garden City does it right...and has for close to a hundred years.
Peter
-
Patrick - you responded to Tom's post, in one sense, but I think left the bigger point off the table, i.e. that Garden City does it right...and has for close to a hundred years.
Peter,
Surprisingly, that's not true.
Clubs, even great clubs with great courses go through their ups and downs.
There was a time when the ground game was non-existant at GCGC because the course was soaking wet.
I distinctly remember hitting what I thought were great shots into # 10 and # 13 when the hole was cut up front and I landed my ball 5-10 yards short of the green, only to have it jump back, full of mud because the approaches were so wet.
Fortunately, those conditions are a thing of the past and the Superintendent understands the value of the ground game at GCGC and GCGC and all who play it are all the better for his efforts.
-
I am in the camp that would argue that no single formula makes for great golf architecture. The ground game is great and I am thrilled when I have that option but certainly it is not an "essential" element. Brancaster is old, old, old. It is great. It has lots of forced carries.
Bart
-
Bogie, I think it is in how the question was asked. I do not think it is an essential element. However it is one I find desirable.
-
I would be interested in hearing what the definition of the ground game is that everyone is commenting on.
Is it, as TD remarks, just a matter of landing the ball short of a green and calculating the amount of bounce or run up after flying a shot a distance short of the green rather than on a green's surface?
or is it truly not hitting the ball in the air on a green approach?
I asked Jack once how he played the British Open courses differently than American courses. His simple reply was the greens were so often dried out and firm that there was not choice but to land the ball short of the green and bounc it up. He said he just hit his normal shot downwind, and sometimes a lower trajectory shot into the wind, but always a calculated distance short of the green allowing the desired amount of release.
I agree with whoever said that on windy sites where spin is uncontrollable because the wind takes imparted spin off of the shot or exacggerates it, than open greens are much more of a necessity in design. I remember the 7th at Shinnecock at the Open...a Redan par 3 that the only shot was on the green dowwind and the players just waved at their 8 irons landing on and all releasing to the same spot over the green and almost all just chipped back up the hill for par. They hated it. Only one birdie, as I recall, a holeout out of the front bunker... and, I think of Watson's shot into the 18th green at Turnberry, and he hit a perfect 8 or 9 iron downwind, and even though he landed it on the front of the green with as much spin as that shot could have been hit with, it still released over the back of the green. The proper shot to get in the middle of the green was to land it short and hope he didn't bounce off the side of the littel mounds in the fairway and go sideways. This is the thing that competitive players hate about that style of golf. When the bounces are good, they love it, when they go the other way...not so much.
Sorry for the verbosity...just some thoughts on the subject.
-
Whew, a litany of responses jumbling in my head. Where do I start?
1) In order for a golf course to be truly great (how ambiguous is that!?!), it HAS to have multiple options across the spectrum of the game. I think this is a strength of the truly great courses.
2) It is very hard to have the proper conditions for both aerial and ground attacks to be viable on anything but sand.
...which begs the question.
Are there any truly great golf courses that aren't built on sand? Oakmont comes to mind. Where else?
I think there is one aspect we are missing for these mid-high handicap players. Sure, they may be only hitting 10% of the GIR. But that doesn't mean they are off in oblivion somewhere when they miss! How do the green surrounds and approach areas compare to the green surface? This is where a course like Sand Hills or Ballyneal (or any of the "modern links") may compare favorably to a course like Pine Valley or Oakmont. There is an option to playability by the below average golfer when he does miss the green that the more penal aerial courses do not have.
It's not a secret that making a golf course tough while making it playable by all is the golden rule. But in what ways do we accomplish that? I think ground game around the green is what separates the best from the merely great.
-
Ulrich,
If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.
The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.
Patrick:
I disagree with this.
You're too good a player to understand, but there are a lot of senior golfers for whom even a 300-yard hole requires a wooden club approach shot. And there is no reason to make those fellows play from in front of the ladies' tees in order to enjoy the course. Your home club, Garden City is perhaps the classic example of how it should be.
Tom,
I understand your point, but Ulrich referenced average hitters, hitting fairway woods and long irons and that seemed to indicate that they were playing too far back.
While there's diversity in the play of golfers with the same handicap, a 12, 18 or 24 handicap shouldn't be hitting many, if any greens in regulation.
I think the PGA tour stats for 2011 show GIR's in the 50 % to 65 % range, so, I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute a 10 % number to 12 handicaps, and a 5 % or lower number to 18 and 24 handicaps.
Mr. Mucci,
I like having to hit long irons/woods into a half dozen greens every round (as trying to properly strike and shpe those clubs is great fun and very challenging for me). I think the problem is that courses are not designed to accomodate this type of ideology. Are you saying that a player that ends up in this situation is playing the wrong tees because the green sites/complexes were not built to accept long shots?
-
2) It is very hard to have the proper conditions for both aerial and ground attacks to be viable on anything but sand.
Bingo!
-
The ground game concept is not exclusive to green approaches, it is also a factor on the fairways. Contours make a course more interesting, because you have choices where to bounce the ball off of. You can do things on the ground that you cannot do in the air (and vice versa, obviously, so you want both options).
If you play target golf, then the objective is to hit a 150 yard shot - no matter what the golf course looks like. In target golf you are playing yardages, not courses. The only fun part of that is figuring out the right yardage to play from a given position on a given hole, but on your home course that is pretty much done with after a couple of rounds. Every golf course in the world - be it a Top 10 hallowed track by a famous architect or the 9 hole Mom & Pop outfit round the corner plays the same through the air. Well, there may be different wind conditions and elevation - but the air is really mostly the same everywhere :)
Ulrich
-
The ground game has many elements.
Are we talking only approaches to putting greens? How about off the tee? What about on the putting surface itself?
Ulrich seems to beat me to the punch. I tend to agree with Mucci here, though.
-
The ground game concept is not exclusive to green approaches, it is also a factor on the fairways. Contours make a course more interesting, because you have choices where to bounce the ball off of. You can do things on the ground that you cannot do in the air (and vice versa, obviously, so you want both options).
:)
Ulrich
The absence of ground game, wherever it is, is akin to throwing darts or throwing frisbees.
Thanks