Where'd they go, and should fronting bunkers be in vogue ?

« **on:** May 03, 2006, 10:33:33 PM »

A recent survey showed that 2 and 3-irons are becoming extinct when it comes to PGA Tour Pros.

There's already been a trend amongst amateurs to replace them with 5-woods and hybrid clubs.

David Toms, in an interview, indicated that his hybrid clubs which replaced his 2-3-iron were able to get the ball up quicker with a better trajectory.

If long irons are removed from the bag in favor of "launch" clubs, how will this affect design principles in the future ?

Are the days of landing the ball short and letting it run to the green with long irons over.

Should this result in more bunkering in front of greens on long holes ?

« **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2006, 10:39:54 PM »

Sounds more like symptoms of windless golf. Fronting bunkers in abundance would only perpetuate the launch mentality.

Joe

« **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2006, 11:09:21 PM »

Joe,

I thought about that, but the reality is ..... trajectory.

If you remove the 2-3-iron in favor of hybrid or utility clubs that get it airborne, you're not going to get anyone to return to low flight, vis a vis putting the 2 and 3-iron back in their bag.

I still play with a 2 and 3-iron, but, it probably has more to do with tradition then performance.

Guys use 3 or 4 wedges, Mickelson uses 2 drivers, it's all about specialty clubs, clubs that perform a specific task rather than multiple tasks.

So, given the trend, how do architects counter it.

Fronting bunkers seemed natural, or, a deflecting mound might be useful, but, designing a hole for a low running long iron approach appears to be a thing of the past.

So how do you offset the aerial assault ?

« **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2006, 11:21:03 PM »

I think that is an interesting question...how do you offset aerial assault?

I once played a course that had rock hard greens. They were so hard that it was almost impossible to hold a green if you landed the ball on it because it would bounce ten feet in the air and roll off. SO...to combat aerial assault I think the answer is to remove fronting bunkers, making greens very, very hard and putting bunkers behind greens. This way players are forced to run the ball up.

« **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2006, 11:38:44 PM »

EJMM,

That's a good thought, but it's highly dependent upon local climates.

Culturally, I don't know if club members would accept your suggestion.

And, it doesn't impede the aerial assault, it just moves the impact zone from the green to the approach, which could have contours or slopes.

It's an interesting idea.

« **Reply #5 on:** May 04, 2006, 03:11:30 AM »

Patrick,

by putting in front bunkers you are taking away the option of playing it low and therefor forcing the high shot. Is the architect resonsable for dictating the form of play or is he not better by giving the players the choice of what shot to play?

« **Reply #6 on:** May 04, 2006, 01:14:23 PM »

Patrick:

I think I've shared this story once before but it was 7,800 threads ago so I'll repeat it:

About 15 years ago, when Old Marsh in Florida was still pretty new, Pete Dye went out there to watch the Ohio State golf team play a round with former OSU alumnus, Jack Nicklaus. Pete said he watched Jack hit those super-high approaches of his for nine holes, even though most of the greens are open in front, and about #11 he asked Jack if he'd ever thought about hitting a low shot in there and bouncing it through the open front of the green.

And Jack replied, "Why would I want to do that?"

Pete told me that story to tease me for advocating open fronts to the greens; he said most good golfers had given them up for the more predictable aerial approach, long ago. And that's the truth, which is why I try even harder to build holes which will reward a ground-game approach.

How can you do it?

Build a shelf on a green that's too shallow to hold unless you hit a perfect shot but gives you more leeway on the ground -- i.e. 12th at The Old Course.

Build a green with severe contours at the front which no one wants to take a chance bounding off with an aerial approach -- i.e. 2nd at The Old Course. The same can hold true for a crowned green.

Build a green where the approach funnels into the hole, so you have more margin for error with a ground ball than with an aerial play.

The funny thing is it's not so hard for the 20-handicapper to hit a running approach shot; when he's got a three-wood in his hands you know the ball is going to run when it lands. So if you can design a green which favors a running approach, you might actually make it harder for the long hitter who gets to within short-iron distance.

« **Reply #7 on:** May 04, 2006, 01:19:20 PM »

"And that's the truth, which is why I try even harder to build holes which will reward a ground-game approach.

How can you do it?"

Don't the maintenance practices have a lot to do with bringing the ground game option more into the golfer's decision making? Firm approaches and greens should influence the use of the ground game to open greens.

« **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2006, 01:24:45 PM »

Wayne:

Obviously, maintaining firm and true approaches has a lot to do with the ground game being a legitimate option. But greens are seldom maintained so firm that an aerial approach won't stop, if the green pitches back toward the fairway. You have to have some wacky contours or a following wind (or both) before a good player will really consider the ground game option.

« **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2006, 01:38:20 PM »

Pat,

You asked, "So, given the trend, how do architects counter it?"

I think if more of today's architects studied the great courses of the "dead guys" and concentrated on shot angles, the challenges offered would have more players considering other options.

It is not just the economics of the tournament that causes most national championships to be contested on classic venues. These are the ones that continue to take the lead in strategic play.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 04, 2006, 02:47:02 PM »

"Obviously, maintaining firm and true approaches has a lot to do with the ground game being a legitimate option. But greens are seldom maintained so firm that an aerial approach won't stop, if the green pitches back toward the fairway. You have to have some wacky contours or a following wind (or both) before a good player will really consider the ground game option."

TomD:

If one wants any type of player to ever think to use a ground game approach option then the absolute first order of business is to make those approach areas firm enough so the ground game approach can be reliable for that option.

However, even if approaches are firm and as reliable as they can possible be there's no reason in the world good players capable of precise aerial approaches would ever think to use the ground approach if the greens are receptive enough to the aerial option to make that completely reliable as Nicklaus very accurately said to Dye.

I think Wayne is exactly right---eg the best way to basically force good players to start thinking about a ground game approach is to dial down the reliability of their aerial option to the extent he will start to consider other options, and that's far more easily accomplished through maintenance practices than just through architecture.

When the receptiveness of putting greens to an aerial shot gets to that point where the success of the aerial approach in the player's mind is just about in balance or at equilibrium with the success of the ground game option, then, in my opinion, you have good players in a situation where they'll consider both and you have a course playing just about as good as it can.

America hasn't seen that much of this type of maintenance practice yet (as in Europe) but I think many are considering it and the maintenance practices to acheive it.

You'll recall the Open at St George's a few years ago---in that tournament the best players in the world were all using the ground game approach option simply because the putting greens were too firm to hold any aerial approach to the putting surfaces.

That may've been taking green surface firmness too far since the only real options in that tournament were landing the ball well short of the greens or hitting the greens and going right over them on purpose.

In that tournament the aerial option didn't really work at all and that's not ideal either any more than it's not ideal if the ground game option doesn't work at all.

The best it can be is when the success of the aerial approach and the success of the ground game approach in the player's mind is just about in balance.

I believe aerial approach pitch markers can tell us pretty accurately just what that point is when the success of the ground game option is about on par with the success of the aerial option in the minds of good players.

« **Reply #11 on:** May 04, 2006, 02:56:09 PM »

On the subject of greens that are firm enough and/or fast enough to begin to make good players think about the ground game approach option, this kind of thing is possible but to do it consistently seems to be fairly impractical to most supers. (This excludes the likes of HVGC's Scott Anderson who says he can do it all the time if the weather permits).

Yesterday, I stopped in to see Piping Rock's Rich Spear, a really respected Long Island super and a very fine player too and he said the Met Section asked him to set up Piping some time ago for the Met Open with greens that were really firm and fast.

Rich's response was "Pick one."

He meant he would give them firm OR fast but not both---not in August anyway.

« **Reply #12 on:** May 04, 2006, 03:20:48 PM »

Jean Marc's and Tom D's posts above converge at the notion that the ground game is a sub-optimal choice even for golfers able to execute it.

If you can fly it to the hole, as JN asks, why would you bounce it there?

The ground game becomes the optimal choice only when greens are firm enough to make flying it to the pin problematical.

The commonly held view that players 50 years ago played more approaches on the ground may be true not because that was the way they preferred to play, but because - pre-irrigation - greens were so much firmer (and slower) then.

Ideal conditions for the ground game is where greens are kept very firm but very slow. Most greens these days are maintained as very soft but very fast - which is optimal for the aerial game.

I like Tom's idea of messin' with the fronting contours in a green to motivate people to play it down. I'm having trouble seeing how that works in practice in a way that doesn't also affect ground balls rolling across the same features, but an interesting idea. (Why wouldn't you just fly it past that stuff to the middle of the green?)

Bob

« **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2006, 01:35:41 AM »

Down slopes on the putting surface going away from the player cause a flighted ball to spring forward and thus create unpredictability in the shot result. This is not the case with a running shot.

« **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2006, 09:18:39 AM »

I can thnk of a few holes where even very good players would play a ground game bounce in shot if the approach was reliably firm and the green surface was the ideal firmness and fairly fast. The architecture of these holes just makes the choice for you.

The first is NGLA's redan. If the approach is firm and the green is firm enough and fast the bounce in approach is about the only one that can reliably stay on the green.

The second is the 4th at PVGC. If the approach is reliably firm and the green is firm enough and fast a good player coming into that green will instinctively play the ball to land on the approach and not the green as balls flown to the green on that hole can get over that green in a heartbeat if the green is firm enough and fast.

The third is the 17th at my course GMGC. It's a long downhill par 3 with a perpindicular roll across the entire green front with most of the huge green running away slightly. If the approach is firm and the green is firm enough and fairly fast you almost have to land short of the green and run it on. If you even hit the top of the roll in the front or anywhere past it on the green the ball can get off the back pretty fast which is kind of amazing considering the green is about 8,000 sf.

The fourth and maybe the best example is Gil Hanse's #15 at Inniscrone where you basically have to land the ball short and let it filter onto the green. A ball hit to the green, even if a wedge, generally goes right off the back.

« **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2006, 07:07:35 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 05, 2006, 09:18:39 AM

I can thnk of a few holes where even very good players would play a ground game bounce in shot if the approach was reliably firm and the green surface was the ideal firmness and fairly fast.

TEPaul,

I think the problem is that very few golf courses play under the conditions you mention above.

And, at the present time, I don't know many courses that strive to achieve those conditions.

Coming out of wet springs, transitioning into summer and then into July and August, which can be brutal, makes the window for ideal conditions very narrow[/color]

« **Reply #16 on:** May 06, 2006, 12:25:29 AM »

I think realistically that we should leave an opening for the player that is not aerially accomplished, but in addition design or reward a player who can play it high with a portion of the green that can only be reached by an aerial approach [ie guarded by a fronting bunker], but which is also penalized long or to the side for failure to do so.

« **Reply #17 on:** May 06, 2006, 08:29:19 AM »

"TEPaul,
I think the problem is that very few golf courses play under the conditions you mention above.
And, at the present time, I don't know many courses that strive to achieve those conditions.
Coming out of wet springs, transitioning into summer and then into July and August, which can be brutal, makes the window for ideal conditions very narrow."

Patrick:

Apparently you're not getting around to the right golf courses as I am.

And you seem to have a bit too much of a black and white mindset about too many things to do with golf architecture and maintenance and this is a good example. Your attitude seems to be sort of an all or nothing thing.

Obvously the reality of seasons, weather, rain, dryness etc are just that----realities, and they will make any golf course play soft or firm but in the case of firm only if the maintenance process and approach allows that.

When the weather is dry these golf courses have the opportunity to play firm and fast. In the past most all American golf courses simply weren't taking advantage of those weather opportunities but now a very good number are and are beginning to.

This kind of thing is a process---a new maintenance process and a new maintenance approach on some courses in America to a certain type of playability---eg firm and fast. It doesn't happen overnight for the simple reason long term over-irrigated turf needs the time to be reconditioned to be used to something else---eg dryness.

And then too many, perhaps including you, think, for some odd reason that golf courses should be consistently maintained to play precisely the same way almost all the time.

This mindset is simply unintelligent. It is a good thing that golf courses play very different seasonally. But the key to firm and fast playability is to take advantage of the dry conditions when they occur to promote firm and fast conditions and playability.

I'll give you a good example. My golf course year after year dumped an average of about 15 million gallons on the golf course. In the last few years we've been dialing it down little by little. Last year we only used 5 million. In the past the ball rarely if ever bounced and rolled out on my golf course but now when the weather permits it most certainly does. It is the intention and even the dedication of our new super to return the golf course to firm and fast conditions as quickly as the weather will allow. That was not the way it used to be.

Do you get the picture?

« **Reply #18 on:** May 06, 2006, 11:22:50 AM »

Patrick,
Although the equipment can indirectly influence the design of a golf course I fail to see why bunkering up the front of the greens will hinder the aerial game more than it does the ground game for the good players. More bunkers around greens only discourage the ground game.

The good players can usually judge their distance well and if they do play short into a bunker their recovery shot would probably be closer than a long chip from a bunkerless apron.

However I would agree that bunkering the fronts of the greens would make the golf course increasingly difficult for the average golfer .

Jon
Good to hear from you. Understandably I couldn’t agree more with you – keep the choices open.

Not only is the choice kept open for player strategy but also for Golf Clubs to adapt their maintenance strategy. As soon as the Greens are bunkered up in front, the culture of soft greens are there to stay along with the increased maintenance costs for water, fertiliser and bunker care. With open greens Golf Clubs have the oppurtunity to adapt the course to a « running » course if they need to because of summer watering restrictions or a championship period set up.

As an alternative to Bunkering up the front I would suggest keeping the entrances of greens open or providing « kick-ins » from side entrances with mounding.

To encourage the long iron low approach I believe well kept, low cut, hard Aprons at least 30-40 yards out in front of the green with helpful funneling moulding can entice golfers to play a low iron at least 30 yards in front of the green instead of say a launched fairway wood into the heart of the green. On the assumption the player considers that the less the ball travels in the air the more accurate it will be. If the green is hard and also has spines and humps a high trajectory will tend to be deflected unpredictably on landing, whereas a low running shot will stay closer to the intended line – with the added advantage it can roll into the hole !

« **Reply #19 on:** May 06, 2006, 08:04:01 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 06, 2006, 08:29:19 AM

Apparently you're not getting around to the right golf courses as I am.

That's easy for you to say, you're name doesn't end in a vowel [/color]

And you seem to have a bit too much of a black and white mindset about too many things to do with golf architecture and maintenance and this is a good example. Your attitude seems to be sort of an all or nothing thing.

I think I was the one who pointed our the variables and vicissitudes associated with conditioning, not you.[/color]

Obvously the reality of seasons, weather, rain, dryness etc are just that----realities, and they will make any golf course play soft or firm but in the case of firm only if the maintenance process and approach allows that.

When the weather is dry these golf courses have the opportunity to play firm and fast. In the past most all American golf courses simply weren't taking advantage of those weather opportunities but now a very good number are and are beginning to.

That's not true.

In order to PLAY fast and firm the irrigation heads and the throw patterns of the heads have to be adjusted to prevent the approaches from being softer then the greens.

That's rarely the case at most courses today, and few courses are willing to re-position their heads or completely revise their greenside irrigation system.

Getting a course is play fast and firm around the greens isn't a matter of simply turning off the water.[/color]

This kind of thing is a process---a new maintenance process and a new maintenance approach on some courses in America to a certain type of playability---eg firm and fast. It doesn't happen overnight for the simple reason long term over-irrigated turf needs the time to be reconditioned to be used to something else---eg dryness.

With greens being watered every night, or frequently, it's difficult to get the approaches dry without re-positoning the heads and revising the throw patterns.[/color]

And then too many, perhaps including you, think, for some odd reason that golf courses should be consistently maintained to play precisely the same way almost all the time.

That's a prett dumb statement from you.
When, in the entire time I've been on GCA.com did I ever say, or allude to that position ? Please stop fabricating views to conveniently suit your position.[/color]

This mindset is simply unintelligent. It is a good thing that golf courses play very different seasonally. But the key to firm and fast playability is to take advantage of the dry conditions when they occur to promote firm and fast conditions and playability.

Do you think Hidden Creek was meant to play fast and firm ?
Do you think the Superintendent wants the golf course to play fast and firm.
Try getting the golf course fast and firm in August when it's 90 degrees with 90 % humidity.
Try getting the golf course fast and firm during the wet springs.
As I said, Mother Nature provides a narrow gap in most locations.[/color]

I'll give you a good example. My golf course year after year dumped an average of about 15 million gallons on the golf course. In the last few years we've been dialing it down little by little. Last year we only used 5 million. In the past the ball rarely if ever bounced and rolled out on my golf course but now when the weather permits it most certainly does. It is the intention and even the dedication of our new super to return the golf course to firm and fast conditions as quickly as the weather will allow. That was not the way it used to be.

And when the hole is cut in the front of the green are you telling me that every high wedge approach shot will hit just short of the green and bounce on the green, or, are the approaches softer then the greens ?

Were the irrigation heads moved or modified, or, are their positions unchanged over the last 15-30 years ?[/color]

Do you get the picture?

John Chilver-Stainer,

With respect to the better players, Few, if any, intentionally play the ground game in America.

With respect to mediocre players, few, if any, intentionally try to play the ground game in America.

With respect to poor players, it's use comes in handy, but, usually by default.

« **Reply #20 on:** May 06, 2006, 09:50:46 PM »

"Apparently you're not getting around to the right golf courses as I am.

That's easy for you to say, you're name doesn't end in a vowel

Patrick:

I can't believe you said that----even with a smiley face. You know you know as many of the great golf courses as I do but it you think you don't anytime you feel the urge to go to any golf club with me you just say the word.

« **Reply #21 on:** May 06, 2006, 10:05:16 PM »

Patrick:

The remainder of your post above isn't even worth a response. Apparently you can do nothing other than come up with every reason under the sun why something can't be done. In the meantime clubs and courses that aren't as pessimistic or dense as you are seem to be getting it done with firm and fast playability.

« **Reply #22 on:** May 06, 2006, 11:03:26 PM »

My last name ends in a vowel and I had the privilege of growing up on the famed 2300 yard, nine-hole Scott-View Golf Course in Mondale, PA.

Flying the ball to the hole was really never a realistic option. Except for 2-3 holes, playing the aerial game would result in a heck of a lot of uncomfortable pitch shots from the bottom of steep banks behind most of the tiny, ultra-firm, undulating greens that seemed mere extensions of the rock-hard fairways.

As I think back on it, I'm becoming convinced that my hundreds of rounds on this modest course shaped my perceptions and expectations of the game to this day. Certainly, for a 13 year old learning the game, the course provided all of the challenge and interest one might ever want, and the whole idea of playing shots to land in areas that not only weren't directly at the flagstick, but sometimes at a steep adjacent sidehill led me to consider that a golf course was partly a challenge of physical skills and consistent execution, but also more an adventurous journey of unexpected and unpredictable results.

Predictability comes at a price, and although such beliefs may be held by only a scant minority these days, the fun factor inherent in a situation where your ball spends more time moving on the ground than it did in the air engendered in me a love for the game, and an understanding of it's potentially unlimitless complexities.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 07, 2006, 02:29:25 AM »

Patrick
Well at least there are a few out there

« **Reply #24 on:** May 07, 2006, 08:18:27 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 04, 2006, 02:47:02 PM

You'll recall the Open at St George's a few years ago---in that tournament the best players in the world were all using the ground game approach option simply because the putting greens were too firm to hold any aerial approach to the putting surfaces.

That may've been taking green surface firmness too far since the only real options in that tournament were landing the ball well short of the greens or hitting the greens and going right over them on purpose.

In that tournament the aerial option didn't really work at all and that's not ideal either any more than it's not ideal if the ground game option doesn't work at all.

Tom P.

I saw plenty of aerial shots at Sandwich. Guys that placed their drives in the best spots were afforded opportunities to fly in approach shots. I think the conditions were about as good as it gets. Much like last year at St. Andrews. In fact, other than issues with rough (which are fairly rare), nobody consistently sets up a course better than the R&A.

None of this isn't to say that having fronting bunkers and some holes is a bad thing. Not every hole should be accessible from the ground and the prevailing wind direction should be ignored once in a while as well. There is nothing wrong with a hole which requires a 5 iron over bunkers, downwind to a firm green. Sometimes the green shouldn't be the immediate target. The target should be holing out in as few strokes as possible.

Ciao

Sean

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

Patrick_Mucci

E. Jean-Marc Monrad

Patrick_Mucci

Jon Wiggett

Tom_Doak

wsmorrison

Tom_Doak

Phil_the_Author

TEPaul

TEPaul

BCrosby

Jon Wiggett

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

paul cowley

TEPaul

John Chilver-Stainer

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Mike_Cirba

John Chilver-Stainer

Sean_A