David, Answers to your questions are within the text of this thread allready. I'd ask you to re-read them.

Adam, I did not ask you any questions in my last post.  To the contrary, I spent the bulk of my post providing detailed answers to your questions.  

Perhaps I should suggest that you re-read my post.  Or rather, perhaps I should suggest you read it.  

_________________

Reading your recent post about touring with the other super, I was struck by the comment:

and was very receptive and appreciative for the in-put. Mostly because he is not a golfer.

While your sentence doesnt really identify who was appreciative, I assume because of the second sentence that you surmised that he was appreciative of your input.   If my reading is correct, I find this comment quite telling.  I would think at this point that you might have been appreciative of his input.  It is no wonder these guys have apparently had enough of being told how to do their jobs.

DMoriarty;

When it comes to the "ideal maintenance meld" concept the point is maintenance practices should not necessarily be similar across differing styles of architecture as it generally has been for perhaps fifty years.

I've tried to develop what may be the ideal maintenance meld for the older ground game inclusive type and style of architecture and golf course.

What you haven't seen from me is what the "ideal maintenance meld" would and could be for a far more modern style and type of course and architecture.

But the point is it probably would be quite different from the older more ground game reliant type and style.

And that is the point of the entire concept of the "Ideal maintenance meld"---eg it should be unique to various types of golf courses and architecture---and the opposite of a "one size fits all" maintenance mentality and practice that we've seen for so long on ALL courses!  

Tom,

Thanks for the explanation.  Everything you say is entirely consistent with how I understood your "ideal maintenance theory."  

To clarify, the majority of the words you quote above are Adam's, not mine.  The only sentence that is mine is the last, which was in response to Adam's apparent attempt to apply maintenance meld principles for "older ground game inclusive type and style of architecture"  to a modern course which does not appear to be designed with much ground game in mind.  

I think this happens all too often here--  People find a course they like, but instead of appreciating the course for what it is, they try to present the course as if it were entirely consistant with what they believe is the correct approach to architecture/ maintenance.  

Adam

I see you deleted and replaced your original comment to me.   No mind.

If Ken Dye intended to build a ground game course at Pinion, then might I suggest that we have a situation where his golf course is not what he intended.  

You did not correct any of my specific observations, so I take it that I recall the course more accurately than you thought I might.  If you had never seen the course but had read my description, would you peg the course as a ground game course?  

David- I'm sorry, I ever responded to you. I shoulda stopped when you made the statements about the way the golf course was designed to play, or rather your suspicions of the way it was designed to play. Why don't you call Ken yourself?

And as for me telling any super how to do anything, ever. Never happened, never will. So, why don't you comeback and try Pinon in the winter? When it is it's fastest and firmest.

David- Could you tell us all why you would travel 100's of miles to re-visit a golf course FOURTEEN TIMES that has no strategy and no ground game capabilities?  

Do you think Pinon Hills is the poster child for one-dimensional golf?

Should it be emerald green when the native surrounds mix hues that are closer to brown?

The only real problem I've had a tough time coming up with an adequate solution for regarding necessary green surface firmness on ground game accomodating courses and architecture is even those courses do have at least a couple of holes that require total aerial approaches as there is no ground game option on them. At NGLA this would include holes #6 and #17 (the left side of #17 is a ground game option but ironically only for the longest drivers!?!?).

At Merion that would include holes #3,4,8,9,10 (again ironically only for the longest drivers!?), 11,13,16 and effectively #17. That's effectively half the holes and is almost identical that way to PVGC that clearly was not designed for poor players and consequently even in that early time required far more aerial approaches (this was called back then "shot testing") than most all designs of that era.

But with the necessary firmness of the greens on those types of ground game accomodating courses and architecture it is possible to simply make the green surfaces on holes like those of aerial requirements of Merion and Pine Valley more receptive to aerial shots than the rest of the holes and still putt with the same speed etc.

The only problem with that practice is players would have to understand that and basically read the architecture of the course accordingly and that might be a lot or too much to ask of them!

David:

To me the trick with the ideal maintenance meld with any golf course is to simply look very carefully at any course's architecture and to then come up with as many interesting playable options as possible and to have them functioning in some form of balance simply to create situations that're very much less than obvious in reliability. But obviously with a course design that has a great deal of aerial approach demands very firm greens will just kill a reasonable option---eg the aerial one!

Lightening and thunder is booming all around my house--over and out!

"I have a different view. I think there are so many little humps and bumps, and each and every one has the ability to be used, by a creative shot-maker."

Adam:

Now your talking! That's the way to look at a golf course in my mind. I say if any ground is "good for golf" and near enough to general play use it for golf! That means shots can and will be cleverly played on that ground or less cleverly lost on it!  

David- Since I don't rule out me having serious deficencies, I'd say that the reason I didn't tackle your descriptions, one by one, was because they were over-whelming, to me. Either in their inaccuracy, or possibly because they were so subjective.

 As emplified by this;

And I still cannot imagine running the ball into most of these greens, given the steep slopes in between ledges

You seem to have a one dimensional outlook on what a ground game is.

  It is much more that just running the ball up. And it's much more than what I can imagine, it's about what ANYBODY can imagine. "It" is also exemplified by playing kicks. That to me can be an aerial shot, to the left edge of a right hump to get a left kick. Comprhende?

My favorite hole to discuss the playabilty of pinonhills is the original 6th. Not the signature par 3, the one with the hillside on the left. Do you remember that hole? It has an almost ribbon like roll to the hillside, and certain balls too short, won't reach, and balls hit just a tad long, will likely find the grass scoop in the back. But balls played exactly right might not only find the putting surface, but maybe the bottom of the cup too. In it's current meld, any ball and that is to mean every ball hit, to that hillside, between the months of May and November, get ZERO bounce or roll. Is that how that hole was designed to play. Really think about it and give me your best shot.


P.s. I have no tone to my post, as you can see by new tag line, this is my essence.

George - it would depend on the size of the tiers, wouldn't it?

I can see a very viable play running the ball all the way up two small tiers.  But large ones, and it becomes more difficult to do that than to just try and fly it to the right tier.. think of all that can go wrong.. hitting the side of the tier, not hitting it hard enough,etc.

I haven't see the ones at Pinion - never been there - so I have no clue how it applies there.

TH

I can see a very viable play running the ball all the way up two small tiers.  But large ones, and it becomes more difficult to do that than to just try and fly it to the right tier.. think of all that can go wrong.. hitting the side of the tier, not hitting it hard enough,etc.

I haven't see the ones at Pinion - never been there - so I have no clue how it applies there.

What I find interesting about the "discussion" on this topic is that playing the ground game and firm and fast conditions are not necessarily related.

With lenghty approach shots, yes, the firmness of the turf may dictate aerial vs. semi-aerial (land within 10-yards of the green) approaches.  

But from 20-60 yards, if there is an open front and access to the green, the turf does not have to be firm and fast to play the groud game.  To me, the tightness of the turf (closely mown) dictates whether or not you want to try and pinch a lofted wedge shot, or bump and run a shot to the hole.

Doesn't this flexibility of design impact the most strategic of choices?

Excellent observations, Mike.  Yes, the tightness of the turf does have a huge impact on things, as you just saw on your trip... How many of us really have the skill to hit lofted pitches from that type of turf?  The margin for error is just SO much larger to hit something along the ground, so we do it that way.

And you're also right that a green and it's surroundings need not be firm and fast for the ground game option to be used, on those 20-60 yard shots.  It's just EASIER to hit it along the ground when the firm conditions give some predictability to the roll, and conversely, easier to hit it in the air when soft conditions give predictability to where the ball will stop.

All of this should get factored in, for sure.

In any case the big IF is your assumption "if there is an open front and access to the green."  Take that away and the choices go with it.

TH

Lou:

I believe Mike knows this and it wasn't his intent to suggest otherwise.

Just change the word "necessarily" in his quote to "absolutely", and I think it conveys his intent better (even though "necessarily" does work - I believe I understood his intent).

That is, it doesn't HAVE TO BE firm and fast for ground game options to work.  Such are optimized in such conditions, but they aren't NECESSARY to allow for the shot.   What plays into this as much or perhaps more than conditions are the obstacles in the way (or not) and the slopes and contours to be covered, as you say.

Everyone can use an editor now and then, even great Santa Clara grads.  

Mike B,

That is an interesting observation, and I agree.  I might add/emphasize that the difference in grass height between fairway and green is also crucial.  

We had experience with this at Rustic, when for a while the course was plenty firm but the collars were being maintained slightly higher than usual.  Running the ball through the collar became much more difficult, as it was extremely hard to reconcile the slower speed of the collar with the faster speed of the greens.

As for whether the ground game as you understand it is completely foreign to me, I dont think so, but perhaps that is not for me to say.  I can tell you that at my home course I regularly try to bounce my ball onto the green from various points off the putting surface on around 14 of the 18 holes, depending on the conditions, my position, and the pin.   Does this qualify me to speak about the ground game?  

In contrast, at a course like Pacific Dunes one can play the ground game even in and after hard rain, possibly because the greens have the same grass type and there is little difference between the height of the greens and fairways.  

This is one reason why I think that Mike Hendren's suggestion, that natural courses ought not to have extended collars, is a mistake.  The ground game just becomes too difficult if there is a vast difference between the approach area and the green.
____________

Lou Said:

Tiered greens no more than heavily contoured surfaces common in the "Golden Age" period preclude the ground game approach.

I am not sure how to read this, except as an over-generalized and unsupported slap at classic era courses.  I And here I thought we were discussing Pinion.  Perhaps you should start a new thread and expound on this interesting position.  

But back to the topic at hand . . . Surely you agree that, for the most part, the greens at Pinion are ill-suited for ground attack?  (You've played Pinion, havent you?)

Do the greens at Black Mesa or the Rawls Course inhibit the ground game?  If not, those at Pinion Hills wouldn't either.

I find this an odd position, and I am not sure I understand the underlying logic.  In the photographs Ran posted of Black Mesa, I dont see any greens multiple tiers connected by formal, steep slopes.  Nor do I see any of the Mickey Mouse ear tiers which are so common at Pinion,  nor do I see any tiers which are not directly reachable on the ground, either by their position relative to the line of play, or by feeding contours in the greens.  

So perhaps you can explain your conclusion?
________________________________

Adam,  Mike's point above is one reason I have trouble with your analysis.  It seems evident that the rough extends right to the 3 foot collar at Pinion.  It is asking alot to expect golfers to intentionally try to bounce it through rough and onto a fast green while still controlling their distance.   But maybe I am just not enough of a free thinker on the course.

As for Old No. 14, again you pick a hole I very much enjoy.  I I find this hole to have a very similar feel to Old 6, discussed above.  Perhaps it is because these are two of the only holes where one has a sense that a missed shot will result in a ball making it to the native.  Both these green complexes fit wellwith the landscape and dont rely completely on grass mounds and grass bunkers for their character.  

That being said, I cannot imagine trying to run the ball back to the right corner, but I dont remember the actual green surface too well so I'll take your word that this is possible.  Is the back right level above or below the other tiers?  I dont remember.

In general though, these two holes may well be the exceptions that prove the rule.  They are out of character with most of the rest of the green sites (with the possible exception of the par 3 with all the tees.  They both have a side where the green complex feels convex, rather than concave.

As for you preference to play old No 14 out of the rough, off the upslope of one of the mounds . . . to each his own.  I hardly think that Mr. Dye would have imagined that this would be the ideal route.  There is a hole at my home course which requires a somewhat similar second shot and I too prefer to hit off the upslope so as to launch the ball (this time to a back left area)  but the course has a small swale which runs through the fairway so I can do so from the fairway, provided I hit an accurate distance from the tee.  

I asked about when you play because I often play very early in the morning and we inevitably are whining about how wet the course is, and cursing them for having any water on.   On days I have gone out for a second round it has sometimes been startling how dry it had become.  Perhaps pinion doesnt drain well?  (a question, not an accusation)

Adam, let me clarify again.  I am not opining whether PH is currently being maintained properly.  I have now idea.  I am just questioning whether the course was designed with extensive use of the ground game in mind.