Does comfort limit creativity and render moot much of architecture?

[Jay Mickle]

 In Kyle Franz’s Feature Interview he refers, on no fewer than 7 holes, to the design of the Olympic course promoting running shots and the ground game. Yesterday the women faced close to 30 mph winds and nary a running shot was to be seen.
I played with a fellow some weeks back who watched me play running shots from 100 yards and in and high flop shots over bunkers to tight pins and other fun shots. I was not always successful but was often enough to impress him with my shot making, not my scoring.  At the end of the round he thanked me for the display and said that he would never have the courage to attempt such shots. He was a very good golfer and probably shot in the 70s and score was his focus.
His statement about not having the courage to attempt such shots made me think that there is so much preoccupation with scoring that much of the fun is removed from the game and many of the wonderful features that are designed into golf courses go totally unnoticed.
 

[BCowan]

I remember when Tiger was in his hey day. He would try shots he just learned in competition.  One characteristic that made him great.

   The problem is people do what pros do.  The pros are one dimentional imo mainly due to course set up on a daily basis.  However it was nice to see Ricky fowler use 4 iron bumps around the greens at Chambers. 

Nothing wrong with focusing on score. There are options to get there. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice post, Jay.

I'm an amateur clarinettist, with not much technique. If I'm walking down the street, I can easily 'hear' and hum 5 or 6 terrific improvised choruses of, say, "Pennies from Heaven".  But sit me down with a clarinet in my hand and, to my unending frustration, I find that not only can't I *play* much of what I hear, I can't even *hear* half of what I can when walking down the street. In other words: because I don't have the technique to play it, it's as if my mind decides not even to *conceive* it.

Similarly I think many golfers, just like me, not only can't hit the shots, we can't even *see* them.  Because some part of us knows that we can't hit the shot, it's as if our mind blinds us to the possibilities that exist, i.e. to the ones the architect put there. That fellow you played with, it sounds like he is a "good golfer"; but that doesn't mean he can hit or even visualize half the shots you did.

As has been mentioned before around here, I think the smug low handicapper is probably the architect's harshest critic, and the worst enemy of subtle and charming design.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Comfort doesn't render architecture moot; just because many players won't use a shot, doesn't mean it's the wrong play for others.


I used to talk about running shots all the time when I worked for Mr. Dye.  [I'd just gotten back from a year in the UK, and that's my game, anyway.]  A year or two after I'd gone out on my own, he called me one day out of the blue, having just got back from watching Jack Nicklaus and the Ohio State golf team play at Old Marsh.


"You know Old Marsh, Tommy.  Every green is the same elevation at the front and back ... no tilt to hold an aerial approach ... and nine of them have plenty of fairway in front to run the ball in.  Well, I watched Jack play the front nine, and hit those high howitzer approach shots on every hole.  After he did it again on #10, I asked him, did he ever think of playing a low shot in there and bouncing the ball in?  And you know what he said?  He said, 'Why would I want to do that?'"


For Jack, who could hit a high shot like nobody else, trying to run the ball into a green [which he never practiced] would've been a stupid choice.  For your mom or dad, it might be their only option, so we always try to give them the chance.  For you, it's an option, and if you're too brainwashed by watching TV to try it, that's too bad. 


On our best days, we build a green where even a fine player would get closer to the hole playing a low shot, if they have the skill to pull it off.  But few have the confidence to try it, especially in the midst of an important competition.  There's just too much chance they'll look bad.


[Incidentally, I have played practice rounds with several professionals who hit amazing shots [hooks and cuts and runners] when I called on them to do it ... Michael Clayton for one.  But ask him how often he tried those shots on Tour ... or how often he's recommended them to Su Oh this week.]

[Mike_Young]

Jay,
Good question.  I think comfort is a nice word for "unknowing" when it comes to the consumer and therefore the developer of so many high end places isn't interested in creativity as much as brand recognition.  As for the various shots you were describing above....I'm not sure the good players today even think of the ground game since they lay percentages and will play to their strength.  As the player told you he would be afraid to attempt some of those. 

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting that Tom should highlight Jack Nicklaus's usual game above. I didn't know much about Scioto until watching the US Seniors Open on TV recently. Now TV isn't quite what your eye sees on site, but having seen Scioto on TV I thought to mysefl, "are yes, now I know why JN mostly played in the manner that he did". I wonder if as a youngster he'd played windy beach golf with a 3-iron like Seve did or in pre-irrigation system years he'd played rock-hard and bouncy like a Bobby Locke or a Peter Thomson he'd have played in a different manner? Your early days have a huge influence.


Atb

[David_Tepper]

I believe Jack Nicklaus has also said something along the line of "there are no bad bounces in the air."

The reality is the better players of today are so good with their wedge play (and the design and function of the wedges available today is so much better than it used to be), the "ground game," barring high winds and/or rock-hard course conditions, is pretty much a thing of the past at the highest levels of play. Now It is primarily the domain of aging, double-digit handicap golfers like me.      

[Don Mahaffey]

They'll only hit that shot when the wind is blowing, the greens are concrete and there is enough trouble over the greens to cause harm.  Take any of those away and the ball will always be in the air when the pros play.

[Jay Mickle]

 I suppose that I am in a very small minority that looks for the most interesting route to approach a hole. Being in what David Tepper refers to as “domain of aging, double-digit handicap golfers” I know my game and individual round scores are less important to me that playing really fun creative shots.  At times these skills even lead to better scores.
I surely understand that the modern game seldom rewards this type of shot making sufficiently to offset the anxiety of uncertainty.  It a shame that so many great courses offer such a broad palate of shots and so many only choose “white”. Of course a “White on White” painting did sell for 15 million dollars. The USGA ruling on posting handicaps might have encouraged players to play more creatively in non-posting rounds but likely as Peter Pallotta suggests ”some part of us knows that we can't hit the shot, it's as if our mind blinds us to the possibilities that exist”
 

[Thomas Dai]

Apart from pro's and low handicappers, who are almost always very good at the shot, my observations over the decades suggest that most players are far worse at playing lofted chips and half and three-quarter pitch shots etc than they are bumping it along the ground with a mid-iron, and yet these same players persist, even when there's no hazard or obstruction to flight the ball over, in attempting to play less than full shots through the air and usually screw-up as a consequence. Great stuff when they are your opponent though!
Atb

[David_Tepper]

"Take any of those away and the ball will always be in the air when the pros play."

It's not just the pros. More like any scratch golfer under the age of 40.

[Tim Martin]

What tortures the latest generation of golfers are half shots. Many are confounded if they don't have a stock club for a stock yardage. Back in the day they were no gap or lob wedges. Shots needed to be "created". You have 25 handicappers carrying 4 wedges because that's what they see "better" players carrying.

[Don Mahaffey]

"Take any of those away and the ball will always be in the air when the pros play."

It's not just the pros. More like any scratch golfer under the age of 40.

That has not been my experience.    When the ground is the higher percentage play they will use it.    But firm greens is the key

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of examples -


Todd Hamilton and his Sonartec hybrid winning The Open at Royal Troon - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=puWlUU4tZqA - in this clip you'll also see Phil Mickelson play a whisper it quietly, chip-n-run


Sir Nick in 1990 at TOC - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPwxcXQHZdc


and then there's Seve at Royal Birkdale in 1976 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7kOYdCAcpsA

These guys are good and they think good too, so just as Don says about percentages (and firm greens etc).

Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Don.  Besides, in the modern game its not all run it up from 100 yards or hit it high, but it can be more spin and less spin, at least for top players.

I believe that in the short game, the rule of thumb among good players is still to keep it as low to the ground as possible, if all fw and green between you and hole.  So, even with aerial golf, the bump and run is still with us, maybe in different - and reduced use - form.

A few years back at an ASGCA meeting, I heard Jack say that he likes to play holes with a two tier green on long, downwind par 4 holes, where he can "reduce spin" and chase the approach shot up the tier to the back pin.  I sort of gathered, he figured the front of the green would be a bit wider than the back, and hitting the green and rolling from there was his best option, rather than trying to fire an aerial shot to the narrower back part of the green.

Since then, when routing is complete, I find my longest typically down wind par 4 and give it a two tier green.  Some argue, but if Jack said it, it was good enough for me........

And the grinders I have worked with, Colbert, Begay, even Elkington used the contours and low shots when it was the best shot.  Again, not 100 yards out, usually land near the green and let the contours take the ball to the pin when they can.  Even more amazing to me is how they easily visualized the shot, even on a grand opening where they really had never played (and in some cases even seen) the hole.  Not much gets by them......

By the way, I will add that when I read the title, I had a different opinion of where this thread might go.  When I hear good players (really all players) speak of "comfortable shots" (sometimes called "fitting the eye") its more about seeing the target, knowing it will hold.  Hitting to a valley is always comfortable, hitting to plateaus is always scary.  Being able to aim at the middle of the green is comfortable, having to aim over water or OB to let the wind bring it back to safe ground is uncomfortable, etc.

[Jay Mickle]

 It seems that few low handicap golfers and those that emulate them use the wonderful slopes, mounds, valleys etc. that Kyle Franz mentioned as promoting ground game shots at Rio. All of the wonderful shaping in front of the greens was surely as relevant even in championship play in the Golden Age and as for us aging double digit handicappers now. 

I am therefore most appreciative that the current group of architects has brought back to golf strategies that don’t just cater to the elite players.
 

[jeffwarne]

 

I am therefore most appreciative that the current group of architects has brought back to golf strategies that don’t just cater to the elite players.

Not only that, they actually frustrate so called better players, who generally have one dimensional games, but not the skills of Nicklaus

[Peter Pallotta]

The trouble is, those who design aerial shots are like fascist dictators, while those who offer run-ups are more like socialist democrats. Maybe the latter need to learn a bit from the former: if they would only *force/demand* the running approach just like countless tinpot dictators have for decades forced the aerial approach, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Golfers of all types and skill levels would soon be practicing and using the run-up options at hand, and seeing them everywhere. Of course, the socialists might struggle in coming to terms with the dark, hidden, fascist sides of their own natures (poor Bill Coore especially -- it would come as a shock to him), but that I think would be a small price to pay...