[Kenny Lee Puckett]

To all -

The aerial game is by far the easier of the two types of shots to master - it doesn't involve as much touch or feel.  Yardage to hole, "Yeah, I hit a PW that far," is going to be more comfortable for novice and expert alike - especially when we have full-time jobs.  We would rather play than practice.  So yes, technology and temprament have bought us into the target, fly the ball to the hole game.  In fact, the only time that the ground game is option #1 for me is a punched recovery or a back pin from 50 yards or less with a relatively straight runway to the flag.

I love the challenge of firm greens and fast conditions.  However, most courses cannot consistently maintain firm and fast condiditions due to:

1) The whims of Mother Nature (Wet May & June/Dry July/Wet August, etc.)
2) The fear of losing greens (And one's job)
3) Design flaws (Not enough open approaches to greens/Greens not large enough to accept the run-up shot/Greens too sloped for any reasonable downhill putt)
4) Difficult topography from the start.

Thus, design has more to do with the state of today's game than does equipment.

I played a new course in Rockland County, N.Y. yesterday in the Buick Scramble regionals.  The views were stunning, and I could not believe that the engineering, let alone the infrastructural work that had to be accomplished to carve out this course from a difficult site, especially for a daily fee course owned by a municipality.  The views were staggering from 7+ tees that featured over 100 foot drops to the fairways.  Yet, on the course's five Par 3's, there was no way for our 15 handicap woman to play a 125-140 yard shot to the green with all of the front bunkering - especially on the downhill shots!

My sister, who has made the National Mid-Am qualifying twice, would have had no shot at holding some of these greens after flying a 6-9 iron at them.

My point is that the game in the U.S. has become reliant on the aerial, for better or worse, and the front bunkering needs to have a bigger green behind it to be more receptive to these shots.  Frankly, I can fly a 1 iron high enough to check it just about anywhere in the U.S., so it doesn't really matter to me, but to the average player to have no shot from tees that make sense for them, what are we creating?

Rounds are down 10-15% this year.  In our quest to challenge the better player, are we making things too tough on the 18-36 handicapper?

KLP

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Ratcheting the firmness of green surfaces up and down will cause inconsistancy and I doubt many memberships would approve of such swings in the play of the golf course.

It's a lot easier said then done, unless the club is a dictatorship.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Ratcheting the firmness of green surfaces up and down will cause inconsistancy and I doubt many memberships would approve of such swings in the play of the golf course."

Pat:

That may be very true to some extent but try not to just come up with easy excuses not to take back the game in America from complete aerial game reliance at the total expense of the other half of golf--the ground game.

For some reason other courses in other parts of the world are able to maintain their ground game by dialing up green surface firmness and dialing down total reliance on the aerial game because of that! Do all those courses around the world all have dictators? I don't think so!

So why then is it so impossible, as you seem to be implying, to get whole memberships into this "ideal maintenance meld" on courses that are designed for a ground game alternative?

Get on board instead of trying to find every reason not to do it. There's been a lot of kudos recently for Oakmont and Mark Studer and their tree removal situation. What about Oakmont and its firmness--very much including the FIRMNESS of their green surfaces during every opportunity that Mother Nature will permit, tournaments, general play--basically whenever Mother Nature permits. How about HVGC?

How did that happen? How has it been that way at Oakmont for almost all time and the membership has always appeared to be proud of it? Take a leaf out of their book and start promoting it instead of listing the reasons it can't happen. Forget about dictators--this is education and awareness we're talking about here. Furthermore, William Fownes has been dead for 53 years!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm surprised at you.

On one hand you want us to jump aboard the Oakmont band wagon, which I think is a good thing, and on the other, you defend Pine Valley for moving slowly on their tree and underbrush removal progam.

You also know that at certain clubs, the Oakmonts, Seminoles, etc., etc., the club is far more important than any one member or groups of members.

All clubs don't enjoy that situation.  At some clubs each member feels that they are more important than any other member or members, and certainly more important then the club.  So, getting different clubs to buy into a project can be more complicated then you think.

I've been active on boards for 19 + years at several clubs, and involved on green committees at several clubs for close to 40 + years, so I have some degree of experience in perceiving membership whims and desires, and the difficulty of educating a membership, or having them agree that certain playing conditions are in GOLF's best interest, as well as theirs.

Certain clubs have the luxury of having long waiting lists.
They can be selective in who they take in.
The quality of their membership along with their philosophy can be preserved.  At other clubs, perhaps those experiencing financial difficulty, membership is sometimes open to those who simply have the money.  In the long run this undermines a club's ability to preserve its traditions, and the philosophy of its playing conditions.

Some clubs are able to recruit members who like things just the way they were, that's why they joined in the first place.
At other clubs, as soon as some members join, they want to change things, and the battle lines are drawn, and seige warfare begins, to the detriment of the golf course and playing conditions.

I asked Mark Studer a question on "getting it" in the context of their membership policies, which is at the core of our discussion.  It's a critical factor in preservation or restoration.

You're fortunate, GMCC seems like the former.

We should sit and talk at our next get together, we might learn a good deal from each other.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I'm surprised at you.
On one hand you want us to jump aboard the Oakmont band wagon, which I think is a good thing, and on the other, you defend Pine Valley for moving slowly on their tree and underbrush removal progam."

Pat:

Not anywhere near as surprised as I am at you. You're all over the place today and who knows why--probably just trying to be argumentative again and avoid the obvious in the process.

First of all, I'm going to tell you again in no uncertain term if you really are suggesting that PVGC remove from their golf course enough trees to make PVGC as open as Oakmont now is (and I remind you once was just some decades ago under the Fownses) that you really are both uninformed and dangerous in the area of classic and historic architecture, particularly when it comes to the course in question!

If that's what you really are suggesting for PVGC you clearly have no ability at all to make necessary and important distinctions in historic courses--certainly not that one.

What you're suggesting is a "one size fits all" mentality about trees that although the opposite of those who advocate trees be planted all over ALL golf courses is every bit as dangerous.

Furthermore, don't you think it a better idea to spend your time and energy trying to get some golf courses that are significant ones to buy into going in the right direction in the first place before you start criticizing those courses that are going in the right direction for doing it too slowly to suit you?

One of the interesting things about all these threads that relate to Oakmont and their tree removal program is most on here seem to think they just decided to do it and then did it. That whole program has been going on for a good long while, years in fact--all wer're seeing is the end result of it!

And lastly, maybe you have been on boards for 40 years and committees for years too, but did it occur to you that perhaps you may not have been going about trying to convince a membership to do something you believe in the right way? If I learned anything at all about trying to convince a membership of something it's NOT to do it in a confrontational way!!!

I've only been doing this for about 5 years but we all understood real fast what not to do and that was definitely to try to browbeat any members or imply that they're idiots.

We included everyone who wanted to be included in a well organized and comprehensive education campaign. Ask Gil Hanse, he does this all the time, he goes through these things all the time and he said our process was as democratic as he's seen. That should be a good lesson right there and scotch this theory of yours that positive things can only happen under a czar or dictator.

Lastly, all this brings me to what I consider to be an far larger issue on this website sometimes. Telling me that I'm displaying some kind of double standard to PVGC vs Oakmont by not criticizing PVGC for moving too slowly reminds me of it.

I know a ton of people in some of these clubs around here and some elsewhere that are discussed on here sometimes. I should mention that far more than infrequently some members, and significant ones who have to do with the management of these clubs and are otherwise real in tune with the basic restoration and maintenance philosophy that this site is well know for, say to me;

"Who in the hell do some of those people of Golfclubatlas think they are? We might agree with much of what they say but they act like they own and operate our clubs--not us!"

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Just so you know something about Oakmont as far as it being typical or atypical of any other club's membership and also so Mark Studer will not have to answer whether or not in his opinon the membership of Oakmont "gets it" or not (something I'll stake my life on he neither wants to answer or is likely to) I'm going to say what I feel about what they went through primarily with this tree removal program which everyone NOW seems to be buying into completely.

And whatever I'm about to say I swear to God did not come from Mark Studer despite me knowing him pretty well.

What Oakmont went through with the tree removal program going back a long way should be considered and out and out war amongst the memberhip in the context of how these things generally go amongst club memberships.

What me and my club went through would probably seem like a tea party compared.

But here's the thing--they (he) stuck with it, they handled their memberhip right--they did some great and comprehensive research and homework, they basically used logic and despite all the battle scars they came out the other end with a great plan intact and now apparently or more than that obviously well received from nearly everyone.

I admire what Oakmont did with their trees too but more than that I admire them for going about the program with their membership as good as they could and did.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here are some thoughts from my Cybergolf series - since there is no need to rewrite it.....

My courses usually feature many ground-level greens partially unguarded in front, since many seniors and other golfers rely on low, running shots to reach the green. While these greens allow the ground game, I don't expect better players to use it regularly. I did see Tiger Woods make a running approach on TV, but that was to the restroom after a case of food poisoning.  
 
So, naturally I wonder why every Tour pro talks about "ground game options." They must have similar feelings to mine concerning power tools: I have no real plans to ever use them, but somehow it's nice to have them around, just in case!  
 
Running shots require reasonably dry, consistent turf (modern maintenance makes running shots more practical than ever, but heavy watering discourages them) and slopes – whether sidehill, uphill, or downhill – that assure predictable bounces. Otherwise, golfers prefer aerial shots. Modern equipment allows higher shots with backspin. Aerial shots are safer, just as airlines are safer than Amtrak. Once airborne, there's not much to run into, while trains occasionally face potential collisions that could knock them off track. Except in strong winds, or where runways/fairways are slippery, and staying on the ground makes sense for both golf shots and airplanes, running approach shots are more likely to deflect off line in any direction after striking a deflecting slope.  
 
So, I suppose I will design for the ground game the day I see equipment advertisements touting balls that "fly lower" and with "less spin."  
 
When I do design for players to use ground-hugging shots, it's usually in windy climates, where such shots generally make sense. In these climates, downwind holes reduce backspin, often requiring run-up shots. In other areas, we specifically design for the run-up shot on holes where we can predict long, running shots, like reachable par-5 holes (under 575 yards), drivable par-4 holes (290 to 350 yards in length) and ultra-long par-3 holes.  
 
Occasionally, it's fun to tempt a player into a running shot on short par-4 holes, with a large green set low to the ground. I usually create one area with a consistent run-up slope, while other areas feature subtle folds and banks to deflect the ball away from the green. Such holes can lull a golfer to sleep, and allow great strategy and preferred approach angles without using traditional sand hazards.  
 
My crystal ball shows increasing future water restrictions for golf, which may restore the need, and not the option, for the ground game, since the greens will be hard enough to reject the aerial approach. That would certainly buck the trend of efficiency that equipment, green design and maintenance have created for the aerial game, but it would also bring back the rub of the green, and perhaps, a bit of the fun the game once had. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.


So, basically I agree with Kenny Lee aboout the aerial game.  It is easier for a lot of reasons.  I'm not sure its really design that led the way, though.  And I agree with the "less feel" statement.  The Dave Pelz method means there's not just less feel - you need no feel at all, just accurate yardage.....but, if golf is a game for score, why on earth would anyone purposely play a lesser percentage shot in the name of architecture?

[MargaretC]

Jeff:

I am not familiar with your work, so if my comment sounds rude to the field of GCA, in no way am I directing it to you or any specific architect.  I am a neophyte and can't even say that I am a real student of GCA.  

(You can probably tell that I feel as if I am on the verge of open mouth insert foot, but yet I will forge on... )

Increasingly, average golfers who love the game are traveling to the UK to visit the birth place of golf and love the experience.  Why then is it presumed that average golfers wouldn't love to golf at a course like Oakmont or Bandon Dunes to the extent that each, IMO, are very rare gems?

I'm certainly not saying that all new courses are mediocre -- clearly Bandon and Pacific Dunes are new with a classic feel, but the vision that lead to the creation of these courses is rare.



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Where do you come up with these wild ideas

Where did I ever say that Pine Valley should make their golf course look like Oakmont's ?

I NEVER SAID THAT..      YOU KEEP SAYING IT.

Tom, if Pine Valley was doing everything perfect, they wouldn't have had the tree and underbrush problem in the first place.  You can't put your head in the sand about that.

And, without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

No one is trying to tell them what to do, but to a casual observer, discussing the issue of trees, in the context of the wonderful job Oakmont has done, PV would seem to be moving at a snails pace on this issue, and to a reasonably prudent person, that would seem to equate to passive resistance.

What you also seem willing to overlook is, this isn't a club where consensus approval is a way of life and/or rule.

P.S.  Where is the sensitivity when it comes to Atlantic, The Bridge and other courses, or do certain clubs also enjoy "most favored nation" status for discussion purposes ?

You can't select or exempt certain clubs from discussion.
That would be intellectually dishonest,
but politically correct.      

[TEPaul]

"Tom, if Pine Valley was doing everything perfect, they wouldn't have had the tree and underbrush problem in the first place.  You can't put your head in the sand about that."

Pat:

What are you talking about? Why in the world do you think I'm putting my head in the sand? PVGC is removing trees, they have been for a while now or didn't you realize that? How do you think Oakmont came up with all the trees in the first place they just removed?

"No one is trying to tell them what to do, but to a casual observer, discussing the issue of trees, in the context of the wonderful job Oakmont has done, PV would seem to be moving at a snails pace on this issue, and to a reasonably prudent person, that would seem to equate to passive resistance."

Oh really, then what are you trying to tell them? I don't believe PVGC is trying to compete with Oakmont on the issue of tree removal but maybe to the casual observer (you) you think they should--hence this supposition of yours that they're moving at a snail's pace or suffering from 'passive resistance' about something to do with tree removal.

"P.S.  Where is the sensitivity when it comes to Atlantic, The Bridge."

Whats that supposed to mean? I never said anything at all about the Bridge except what I saw on one hole after taking a tour of the place briefly with George Tiska. As for Atlantic, I've never said a single word on this website or anywhere else about that course because I've never laid eyes on the course.

[Eric Pevoto]

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of playing Stonewall I, a course that by all appearances encourages the ground game at many greens.  A number of the greens and their surrounds fall to one side or away and just beg for running a shot through a slot or off a kicker.  It's really a wonderful golf course.

So for the first few holes, I'd ask the  caddie (who was very good), "this green looks like it falls away, don't I want to hit it to this side, or short?"  Repeatedly and interestingly, his reply was "no, you've got no business playing it like a bogey golfer, just hit it in there, it will stick."  

Granted, with all the rain, the turf was not as firm as usual.  But I will say this, numerous times the indecision caused by the option, or options, simply being there was enough to effect the shot I hit.  It's sometimes hard to pull a club and commit when it just doesn't look right.

Chalk another one up for ground game options, even without ground game conditions!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Margaret,

I didn't mean to imply they wouldn't.  Heck, I'm really just an average golfer and I love playing the old classics and near classics.  

Of course, my Cybergolf series is just a bit tongue in cheek, as I'm sure you noticed.  But, I reread your posts and mine and I'm not sure where I contradicted your opinion.

Anyway, jump right in.  As far as I'm concerned, if you're here, you must be a student of golf course architecture.  So am I, after 20 years in the "bidness", as we say here in Texas.....

[TEPaul]

Eric:

That's a fantastic post about your first round at Stonewall1. You really do have an excellent eye for all the nuances of architecture right off the bat (I got that impression during our walk around French Creek--although your knowledge of that course is anything but right off the bat).

It's too bad it's so wet now in the region as the ground game has been taken out of the equation by Mother Nature bigtime but Stonewall 1 has a number of holes, #2, #6!!, #8!, #9, #13!!, #14, #15!, #16!!!, #18 that have serious and significant ground game alternatives and most interestingly when the ground and the green surfaces are firm enough a couple of holes such as #6, #13 and #16 which almost have to be played with a shorter landing run-in shot.

Added to that, as you alluded to, a few of those, particularly #6, #13 and #15 need to be played with run-in shots which needs to not only be in a direction way off any flag but often a direction off the entire green itself. This sort of thing is very unusual in this area and is the thing that drove a few good players I know crazy. They couldn't understand how a golf hole could almost DEMAND a shot that wasn't an aerial shot right into the green and even at the flag. And the thought of needing to play the ideal shot in a direction not even at the green was really foreign to them and they thought it to be bad or weird design.

However, some of those same golfers when they finally saw how well it worked and how to do it I think were grudgingly impressed.

This is probably the most impressive architectural feature of all about Stonewall 1, at least it is to me. The reason being a course like that with holes of that type under those firmer conditions almost forces a golfer to look very carefully at not just flags and greens but at the topography and ground architecture of the course to see and understant the problems and solutions.

[Eric Pevoto]

Tom,

Thanks for the compliment.  My golf suffered, but I really had more fun looking a the golf course.  It's definitely one that requires multiple playings to have much success scoring-wise.

We actually started play at #6, and my initiation to Stonewall I began with a second shot from the left rough.  Even with softish conditions and a sand wedge in my hands, the carry was just over the left side of the left-greenside bunker.  The ball ended in the right side fringe.  After that hole, I think I was shell-shocked enough to look for run-ins on every green that looked open up front.  

Others of note:  #2  Great angles with the pond right.  The green sits up.  Surprised, Tom, that you mentioned that one for ground game options.

#3 Not really one for ground game options, but a really great, natural looking green setting.  Deserves mention.

#8 gives the appearance of options. But with such a strong fall to the left short, I wouldn't try it.  If you do try, there's a great, subtle little ridge just right of the green that determines success.

#13 as you mentioned.  Phenomenal green and surrounds.

#14 very downhill, I would imagine in dry conditions, you have to land it well short

#15, the par 3, has a cool little kicker front left

#16 is another that stands out.  At that hole, too, I had a little less than 200 yards, and asked the caddie about running it in.  The green is crowned and falls away.  He again said, no way.  Hard to imagine that in dry conditions.

#18--Not so sure.  The surround to the left looks like it will feed right, but I wonder if you're able to get to far right pins without flying it all the way in there.

To tie it back in to Pat's question, I think Stonewall stands as an example toward golf courses leading the game.  It might be a minority, Pat may have a point, but it's important that there are new courses built that offer options.  Even in wet conditions, the presence of options adds complexity.  Preaching to the choir.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eric Pevoto,

I think it is not only possible, but fact, that clubs influence golf.

Stonewall may be such a club.
I think Friar's Head will be such a club.
Pine Valley, Oakmont, Augusta, Winged Foot, NGLA, Shinnecock and others also influence golf.

TEPaul,

No one ever suggested a competition between Pine Valley and Oakmont, that's your illusion.  I don't know where you come up with these wild extremes.

Oakmont should be commended for their work, it represents dramatic improvement in many ways.

That Pine Valley is on a continuing tree/underbrush removal program is also commendable.

I'm just curious with respect to the timetables adopted by different clubs.  If you understand the concept and intent of the project, have it well planned, and have all the money you need, why wouldn't you want to complete it as soon as possible, so that the golf course, your members and their guests could reap the benefits as soon as possible ?

[TEPaul]

"Tom, if Pine Valley was doing everything perfect, they wouldn't have had the tree and underbrush problem in the first place.  You can't put your head in the sand about that."

Patrick:

When did I say PVGC was doing everything perfect with trees? If I felt that way why have I suggested that trees be removed on various holes to return existing bunkering to functionality? Does that sound like someone who has their head in the sand about tree removal.

If you decide you'd like to take your head out of the sand on the subject tree removal in your next post you definitely have to address the issue of trees at ANGC, a course you've conveniently defended on that an other architectural subjects. If you're curious as to the timetable of PVGC's tree removal why aren't you even more curious as to why ANGC continues to plant more trees? You can't have it both ways!

You're the one with your head in the sand--extremely white and manicured sand at that!

[A_Clay_Man]

With all these struggling courses, one might make the case to view trees as a by-product and a source of revenue. Either as a nursery or in board feet.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Saying that the elite courses have influence in the world of golf is true. I doubt that the influence is very far reaching, though. Using the food industry as an example, I would think that a handful of the best 5 star restaurants on the East coast would not have a broad sweeping effect on America's dining habits. Americans continue to favor the Outbacks and Olive Gardens for their dining pleasure.

When we talk Oakmont or Shinnecock, we're not talking of "maintenance melds" or"architectural principles" that are going to be embraced nor afforded by a large contingency of golf courses across the nation. That's what makes these places special to play and study. I doubt that any of us really want or expect the "chosen few" to have far reaching influence on golf!

Just my Sunday morning thought...

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

The difference is that those restaurants aren't brought into millions of viewers homes, such that their support base is magnified tremendously.

When these clubs do something their audience is considerably larger in the golf community, and they listen.

These clubs also act as a third party reference, support system and example.  On numerous occassions, I've heard the refrain, good and bad, "well, that's what club X is doing" to justify or negate a project.

Remember too, that the golf community is a smaller, more tight knit community.

TEPaul,

The trees at ANGC are not invasively systemic, rather small in number, isolated and strategic.

Do I agree with the philosophy ?    NO

Do I think it will have a negative effect on expanding the lines of play at other courses ?     YES

Do I think it's a step in the wrong direction ?   YES

But, ANGC is a different entity then PV, and each entity must be looked at and evaluated seperately, not combined for the purpose of achieving blanket amnesty on what could be a delicate subject, or for diverting focus.

My unsolicited view is, that the powers that be don't want ANGC reduced to a scoring free-for-all due to technology where 24 under wins via a play-off, and that they are desperately scrambling to protect the course from the high tech scoring onslaught.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Your points are valid. That's why we discuss!

Joe

[MargaretC]

Jeff:

"...But, I reread your posts and mine and I'm not sure where I contradicted your opinion."

Yes, I think we are on the same page.  

I really enjoyed reading Brad Klein's article on Links golf last week.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

TEPaul,

The trees at ANGC are not invasively systemic, rather small in number, isolated and strategic.

Do I agree with the philosophy ?    NO

Do I think it will have a negative effect on expanding the lines of play at other courses ?     YES

Do I think it's a step in the wrong direction ?   YES

But, ANGC is a different entity then PV, and each entity must be looked at and evaluated seperately, not combined for the purpose of achieving blanket amnesty on what could be a delicate subject, or for diverting focus.

My unsolicited view is, that the powers that be don't want ANGC reduced to a scoring free-for-all due to technology where 24 under wins via a play-off, and that they are desperately scrambling to protect the course from the high tech scoring onslaught.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

First I have to teach you everything about architecture and now I have to teach you to retrieve posts.

Here are the answers to your questions

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The trees at ANGC are not invasively systemic, rather small in number, isolated and strategic."

They're not what? Would you be meaning they're not systemically invasive?

"But, ANGC is a different entity then PV, and each entity must be looked at and evaluated seperately, not combined for the purpose of achieving blanket amnesty on what could be a delicate subject, or for diverting focus."

What a remarkable statement! I see words there but not much meaning to them. Of course different courses are different entities but the issue here is the continuation of planting trees on a golf course that wasn't designed to use trees in it's strategic intent. PV may have done that in the past but they're going in the opposite direction now (only not fast enough for you) while ANGC is going in the wrong direction, in the direction of planting more and more trees and you appear to defend that policy for some reason by calling it 'not invasively systemic' (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

A better way to explain your postion on the subject of trees and ANGC would probably be--"I don't feel like being critical of ANGC for whatever personal reasons I may have so I'd prefer to say things about the trees and the course that're politically correct or purposely nonsensical."

'Diverting focus'??

On the subject of ANGC and trees and the direction they're continuing to go with them there's no one better at 'diverting focus' than you are!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()