An architect's view of the ground game

[TEPaul]

"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."

Jim:

It'd have to be something like that or some of that in combination with something else. Frankly, we're sort of running out of alternatives here.

The only problem I can see with using something like a "Steve Curry method" of finding that point of aerial shot reliability is that might just tip the balance over to where really good players will then be able to use the aerial shot on all holes all day long and that then upsets that "balance" of basically making them too look for ground game compromise shots. (Again, good players who really do feel they can use aerial shots with real reliabilty won't try other shots! Why would they?).

Some additional answers may be things such a pinning those holes that only offer aerial options in places that a less than reliably checking aerial shot can still work well enough!

There's another factor that perhaps should be considered here that gets into the whole restoration area. Many of these aerial only holes on many of these older courses have fronts guarded by bunkering and over the years those bunkering top profiles have grown sometime a number of feet.

This is the area and subject we've sometimes referred to as "evolutionary build-up" due to decades of sand casting (up onto the tops of these fronting bunker top profiles). What that in effect does on some holes (best examples being Merion's #8 & #13) is to create what may be termed a "turbo boost" area just over those bunkers. This has the effect of shrinking the effective area to play an aerial shot to reliably.

I've always thought of that evolutionary build-up that tends to create those evolutionary turbo-boost areas over fronting bunkers as somewhat poetic justice simply because today's players are so much more proficient with their aerial shots than they were when these courses were built. But generally these courses today have softer and more reliable greens to the better aerial shots of good players so that compensates for those turbo boost areas that architecturally would appear to be more demanding!

If the greens were to be firmed up more, the solution may be to consider taking down that evolutionary build up (and removing those evolutionary turbo boost areas) and restoring those areas to the way they were originally designed!!

Another interesting area of solution may very well involve the whole area of the ball itself. It's no secret that handicap golfers are amazed and impressed by how good players can check balls and even spin them backwards, for instance.  

They think to do that takes talent and to a large extent it does but what probably 90% of handicap golfers DO NOT realize is it also takes a particular TYPE OF BALL. Probably 90% of handicap golfers still today fail to understand that even Tiger Wood's could not spin the balls they use back!! There's a huge opportunity here for not only handicap golfers but also for the manufacturers too. Even with the type of spinning ball Wood's uses most handicap players certainly couldn't spin it like he does because they don't have his clubhead speed but the fact is they could spin and control his ball better onto and around the green than they could the rocks they're using!

This thought gets directly into the whole area of ball and club "optimization" that we've heard so much about in the last few years as a real reason for distance increase. If one thinks about it with this ability to "optimize" the manufacturers could offer the lesser skill levels a ball that has far better control onto and around the greens because today they needn't worry about loss of distance as they did in the past which made handicap golfers use that more distance oriented ball that basically had little green-end control! The pros and good players never worried about loss of distance anyway and virtually never used that type of ball.

So, I don't know but I see a number of potential solutions here that in combination could probably work to solve this "ideal maintenance meld" problem!

[hp@hc]

Many of the great courses in the UK demand the ground game to be successful, but if you look closely, they don't demand it on EVERY hole.  

A few examples of this would be

St. Andrews hole #1, and hole #11
Turnberry hole #16
Royal Portrush hole #9
RCD hole #2

Basically, even at links courses, a wee burn will ask the player to take it in high.  Thus, as TEPaul suggests, the eelement of ground game should be asked of the player in many cases, but not on EVERY occasion.

Us courses, IMHO, oversoak the courses because of PEER PRESSURE, and the need to appease the members/public.  Look at old footage of any tournament - even the Masters, and you will see brown/green conditions.  Why can't we get back to this?  The unpredictability of British golf is what is so appealing, when you hit a tee shot with side spin, and don't know how much trouble it will "roll" in to, until the ball actually stops.  In the US, a wayward shot stops so quickly that it actually makes it easier to score!

I'm not a fan of the "hign rough, slick greens" formula, and by reading TEPaul, I think he agrees.

[John_Cullum]

I do not pretend to know anything about course architecture, I just know what i like when I see it. I seldom see greens that slope away from the player. Why is that simple technique avoided by architects if the running approach is so desirable?

[hp@hc]

Sarge

Good comment - that approach IS actually used by C& C in some of their designs.  Hidden creek has 4 such holes - #2, #4, #5 and #10.  Each of these holes invite you to go low, and invite you to go high if you want, or even somewhere in the middle.  A key reason why they are fast-becoming the premier architects of the modern era.  They allow OPTIONS

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
A large number of balls made today offer green end control + distance, even Pinnacle. The "rock-flite" type of ball is in the minority with fewer players requesting them. I disagree a bit with your assessment of great players abilities as regards spin. A Mickelson or a Woods may be using the optimal ball for their games but either man could make a Top-flite tap dance.

A green-end maintenance-meld principle that could be widely used by the broadest range of existing courses should have two things going for it: it should be easy and cheap to implement. If a club wishes to spend money to bring their architecture in sync with a specific meld then so be it but that is not going to be the case for the vast majority of courses.  
You say that my idea might tip the balance to where the best players forgo the ground.  I think the reality is that the best players will always forgo the ground unless the weather conditions are unfavorable, they need to hit it low or they are playing at a bony, links style course. Aerial holes are aerial holes and without extensive remodels, something that no one wants to see at certain classic courses, those greens cannot be approached with minimal trajectory, unless their surface yields appropriately.

I'm just suggesting a cheap and easy way for courses to adjust their greens to the optimal firmness without causing fits for the majority of players. It may not encourage the best players to become frequent travelers on the low road but there will be more occasions where they will use it.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

HP@HC,

When I played Hidden Creek, # 4 had the pin back left.
I hit a good three wood right at the pin.

How could I possibly have gone low on that hole ?

The tee is elevated, you hit over gunk, to a redan type green that rises in the distance.

I like the golf course, and that hole, but you're getting carried away with Coorshaw disease.

[A_Clay_Man]

There are other newer courses with greens that utilize run away characteristics and are being done by designers other than those who are getting all the emulation. Wolf Run in Reno, Devil's thumb in Delta and of course, TRC but he's too emulated here.

[hp@hc]

Pat - you said it - a redan type hole.  If you know anything about redan, it is to come in from the front right and let the slope bring it left to the back hole location.  I don't think I am getting carried away with anything.  when I play that hole I have 2 options - to take it in the air all the way with a high, soft shot (possible 5 wood), or throw a hard draw in there (possible 3or 4 iron) to use the natural contours.

I think you should rethink your position

[TEPaul]

"A Mickelson or a Woods may be using the optimal ball for their games but either man could make a Top-flite tap dance."

JimK:

I'll guarantee you that even a Mickelson or Woods could not make a Top Flite (rock) dance--certainly not remotely like they can make the ball they use dance. The only possible way they could is if the green surfaces were almost soaked. And furthermore with those much harder two piece balls they couldn't remotely keep them down like they do the balls they use. With their clubhead speed balls like that off all their irons, including the wedges, would just get way up in the air.

Athough they may be able to hit balls like that even a bit farther than what they're using pros never used balls like that for the very reasons I mentioned.

Now, of course, balls like ProVs are the best of both balls or the best of both worlds so logically many more golfers should be using them but still balls like a ProV doesn't have some of the characteristics needed by some of the weaker golfers and lesser skill levels..

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Michelson and Woods are two great examples of players who possess ground game skills.  Modern PGA tour courses maintain greens nearly as firm as British Open conditions.  US courses maintain thick rough that negates bump and run--that does not mean our best players cannot play the shots.  By the way, normal links conditions are not as firm as British Open conditions and the greens are not even close to as firm as normal (no rain during the week) PGA tour greens. I've played in both conditions.  PGA tour fairways are cut so tight that they promote  great level of spin that the average golfer is not use to seeing.  Also, clubhead speed and solid contact make for such spin.  Its too bad more courses do not maintain truely firm greens--the good player is better challenged and the average player is forced to become more creative around the greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

hp@hc,

From the back tee, what is the carry required to allow a shot to land on the slope that will catapult or careen the ball onto the green, all the way back to the left rear of the green

Balls hitting the upslope will not kick to the green.

If you hit a hard hook and pull it, have you finished that round within six hours ?  

From the elevated tee, unless you're capable of hitting a Tiger Wood's "Stinger"  it's impossible to keep the ball low and reach that point.

Lastly, what is your handicap ??
One needs to know in order to evaluate your answers.

I stand by my position.