Is the ground game an essential element of great golf course architecture?

[Ben Sims]

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. 

[Wade Schueneman]

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?

[Jud_T]

2)  It is very hard to have the proper conditions for both aerial and ground attacks to be viable on anything but sand.  

Bingo! 

[Ulrich Mayring]

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

[Kyle Harris]

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.

[William_G]

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