[Jeff Goldman]

At the risk of log..., I would like to repeat a question:  GCGC has greens that slope away toward the back.  I read where Tom Doak wrote that this helps maintain the difficulty of the course.  Why?  

Jeff Goldman

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Because it's not as easy to stop approach shots into greens that slope away from you as it is to stop them on greens that slope towards you.

[Jeff Goldman]

TEPaul,

Yeah I knew that (chopped the 2nd part of the post, which is):  Does that mean it is better to come in from the ground in front of the green and roll it up or fly it directly at the hole?

[SPDB]

It's really amusing to watch the arguments Pat tries to throw out when he's in retreat. For some reason this argumentative flotsam and jetsam seems to constantly litter his threads.

Here, he has posed one of his most interesting diversionary argument - emphasis of the ground game on non-par 3 tee shots.  

Let's use Pat's example - the 4th at Pine Valley, which Pat cites as an example of not emphasizing the ground game because the tee shot requires a carry.

What moron would say to himself while standing on the tee of this 450 yd. par 4  (or any for that matter), and think to himself, "i'm going to try to utilize the ground for this tee shot. I'll just play a nice little cute bump and run drive. Even though I'll sacrifice some length, and still have 325 yards in, its the savvy play."

Pat - don't confuse the issue simply because your wrong. Tom has pointed out instances where the ground game is an option at Pine Valley. Ground game apart from using slopes or sling shots has never been about an emphasis on the tee ball. That's why carries are far more common off than the tee than they are into greens.

[TEPaul]

"What moron would say to himself while standing on the tee of this 450 yd. par 4  (or any for that matter), and think to himself, "i'm going to try to utilize the ground for this tee shot. I'll just play a nice little cute bump and run drive." "

SPDB:

I've been laughing out loud over that one for the last five minutes. What moron would think of something like that? Well, as you said when Pat's in his debating retreat mode he can think up some golf strategies that none of us could even dream about!

But the thought of that shot and that strategy is just too funny to let go. Next time I go down there I've got to recommend that at least they turf over the incline up #4 to the top of the hill so that extremely interesting ground game driver option might someday be utilized by Pat.

You know, I doubt PVGC wants to take this kind of abuse from Pat about their lack of ground game architecture and would at least be willing to fairway turf the incline up #4. Who knows maybe they'll fairway turf all the cross hazards out there so Pat can putt the ball all the way from the first tee into the 18th cup!



Where is that Pat Mucci anyway? He must be hiding in some hole 6-8 feet under the ground!

[SPDB]

The amusing thing is, for those of us who don't have mastery over trajectory with a single club, we have to club down in order to keep the ball lower (e.g. 1/4-1/2 5 iron from 150, etc.)

What do you club down to from the driver?

there's only one answer -

the putter.

Tom - Next time you play out at PV with Marucci or Sigel, or one of those other big GAP guys who think they know PV, step up to #4 tee with your putter, and spout off about the numerous "options" Crump provided, then tell them you want to try the "ground route" this time. Bump and run drives, low runners, and putters off the tee are the hallmarks of any savvy player who can utilize the aerial or ground game off the tee.  

Isn't it amazing? Pat will start out with an assertion or, more often a rhetorical question, and then when someone provides evidence to rebut his proposition, he'll bring up some ancillary and absurd counter-proposition rather than just admit that the person made a good point.

[Dan Kelly]

Also, there is a very interesting statement in the article on nregan's thread on the size of greenswards (1923), in which the author makes a statement to the effect that only the highly skilled player can in fact play the "ground game" adeptly.  I hadn't thought of this before, but I think it is true, based on my experience.  This leads me to think that perhaps it IS possible to design a hole/course that:

1.  allows the less than skilled player to tack his or her way to the green
2.  offers preferred aerial options (off the tee and to the green) for the more skilled player (or the foolhardy), and
3.  offers a "ground game" option which allows the very highly skilled player to trump the "aerial" player with a shot of more finesse.

This is more or less what I was trying to get at in Post #11 in this thread. You've said it more completely and articulately -- and have been just as completely (and intermittently articulately) ignored as I was.

Is it possible that there's a golder-than-Golden Age yet to come in which golf-course architects design more and more courses/holes that meet all three of your criteria?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

Does that mean it is better to come in from the ground in front of the green and roll it up or fly it directly at the hole?

It depends on two things, maybe three.
1.     How observant were you when you played # 7
2.     Where the pin is
3.     What the weather, wind and ground conditions are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

The ground game on the tee shot at # 4 at Pine Valley is not an option.

Neither is it an option on the tee shot on # 3, the approach to # 2, the tee shot on # 5, the tee shot on # 6*, the second shot on # 7, the approach shot on # 7, the approach shot on # 8, the tee shot on # 10, the approach on # 12*,
The tee shot on # 13, the tee shot on # 14, the tee shot on # 15, the tee shot on # 16, the tee shot on # 17, the tee shot on # 18 and the approach shot on # 18.  I'm leaving out many other tee shots where a good carry over sand and scrub is required, which renders the ground game non-existent.

I would question the efficacy of ground shots on many other holes in terms of likelihood of execution and obtaining the desired results, like the approach to # 15, # 13, # 12 and many others.

The options you eroneously allude to are figments of a vivid imagination, perhaps a desire to have fantasy overcome reality.

Things that seem ideal in the lab don't pan out in the field.

With regard to hitting a club lower then a driver, any golfer worth his salt knows that choking down, and/or playing the ball deeper in your stance, and modifying the tee height will produce the desired effect.  Your absurd jump to the putter indicates a lack of familiarity with shot making.

Pine Valley remains PRIMARILY an AERIAL golf course, EMPHASIS ADDED, it's too bad that your lack of recognition or knowledge causes you to ridicule rather then learn.

[SPDB]

you're repeating yourself, and still not making any sense. ground game off the tee (on par 4s and 5s) is irrelevant in most cases.

[SPDB]

assuming the fairway started at the end of the tee box on
#4 or any other of the par 4s or 5s at PV (or any other course in the world), what purpose would be served by using the GROUND off the tee?

It seems like Bob, you've confused low ball flight (perhaps to cheat the wind) with use of the ground. Aerial shots can still be employed using a low trajectory.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

ground game off the tee (on par 4s and 5s) is irrelevant in most cases.

Could it be irrelevant or minimal throughout the rest of the golf course ?

Tell me, when you've played Pine Valley, when did you use the ground game to approach a green ?

Tell me the green and your distance from it that caused you to elect the ground game

[SPDB]

pat- just deleted a very long post. this thread pretty well illustrates what i think goes wrong with a lot of your posts. I started out the thread agreeing with you. I think the ground game is mostly idealism, seldom practical. But you started losing me when you made absurd arguments about PV not emphasizing the ground game because it's not emphasized off the tee on par 4s and 5s   . You alienate people from your argument by taking certain examples to their absurd conclusion to prevent admitting somebody else's is right. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE GROUND GAME IS LARGELY A FANTASY. I DON'T DOUBT ITS EXISTENCE, THOUGH.

Like I mentioned to Bob, I think you might be confusing use of the ground with low trajectory. The aerial game can still be utilized, and is used with regularity by a low ball flight.

Your absurdity reaches its zenith by citing the tee shot at the 15th as a hole that doesn't emphasize the ground game. The 15th is 575 YARDS LONG. Even if there was fairway up until the tee box, what possible reason would have for using the GROUND off the TEE, except if your objective was to make 7? (PLEASE ANSWER THAT ONE)

As to your questions: (except the first, which i don't understand).

I can't recall a time at PV where I used the ground, except by mistake. But that doesn't surprise me because I HARDLY EVER USE IT. There was a 4 iron from ~235 at #4 after a forced backward play out of the right junk. But then again it was 102 degrees that day.

That same day I tried to play a running drawed 5 iron into 13, but it wouldn't bend and stuck me on the business end of that snarled little scrub pine to the right of the green.  

That's it, though. But i'm not the person to ask.

[TEPaul]

"I would question the efficacy of ground shots on many other holes in terms of likelihood of execution and obtaining the desired results, like the approach to # 15, # 13, # 12 and many others."

Pat:

Then why is it I've been able to use those ground game options on those very holes for years? Maybe you think it's a figment of someone's imagination but those shots contributed to some nice scores that legitmately went on my card.

And no ground game option on #5? Oh really? There's only about fifty yards of fairway in front of that green. I guess that's been a ground game figment of my imagination that I play a 2 iron into as well.

And hole #12 your just so wrong about. The option of hitting a good long drive just down to the right of that green produces one of the best little ground game bump and run options on the course that I've seen good players use for years! Just to use that option filters directly back to the tee shot. If you lay back on that hole is the only time you must hit an aerial shot unless the pin is somewhat front and you play the ball to the front of the green which is really a great safe play as it takes the greenside bunkers on both sies basically out of play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

this thread pretty well illustrates what i think goes wrong with a lot of your posts. I started out the thread agreeing with you. I think the ground game is mostly idealism, seldom practical.

Isn't that what I said in the title and opening remarks?

But you started losing me when you made absurd arguments about PV not emphasizing the ground game because it's not emphasized off the tee on par 4s and 5s

That's absurd, that's not the entirety of my position, merely a component of it.  That's your extreme interpretation which leads you to a false conclusion.

You alienate people from your argument by taking certain examples to their absurd conclusion to prevent admitting somebody else's is right.

No I didn't, TEPaul tried to insist that PV was a ground game golf course, asserting that it was a universal option, when nothing could be further from the truth

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE GROUND GAME IS LARGELY A FANTASY. I DON'T DOUBT ITS EXISTENCE, THOUGH.

I'm glad you finally came to terms with logic and agree with me.  I never doubted its existance either, I just asserted that its significance might have been overstated, hence the words emphasis and myth.

Like I mentioned to Bob, I think you might be confusing use of the ground with low trajectory. The aerial game can still be utilized, and is used with regularity by a low ball flight.

I never asserted that it can't be utilized.
Would you cite for me the specific reference where you allege I made that remark ?  That's another example of you taking my position, distorting it, and then magnifying and ridiculing it.
Again, Cite for me where I ever said the it can't be utilized.

Your absurdity reaches its zenith by citing the tee shot at the 15th as a hole that doesn't emphasize the ground game. The 15th is 575 YARDS LONG. Even if there was fairway up until the tee box, what possible reason would have for using the GROUND off the TEE, except if your objective was to make 7? (PLEASE ANSWER THAT ONE)

It's simple, on a fairway that runs uphill, acting as a semi-backstop, a tee shot could go further if a low draw were hit that would run and run and run, versus an aerial shot that would hit and stop.

You need to learn more about shot making, course management and strategy  

I can't recall a time at PV where I used the ground, except by mistake. But that doesn't surprise me because I HARDLY EVER USE IT.

THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT !
NOW DO YOU GET IT ?

[SPDB]

Pat - you're remarkable. don't twist my words to inflate your ego. I've always maintained that the ground game is a mystery. (AGAIN, SEE PAGE 1 OF THIS THREAD).

And in other Mucci Misrepresentation news (M&M from here on out), Tom Paul only said that it was an option at some holes. You then twisted his words in order to make an extreme point. In doing so you cited the examples of the various tee shots on 4s and 5s which have no relation to the ground game. That's where you lost me, buddy. You were going along so well, too.

Just concede Tom's point, that there are some ground game options at PV, won't you?

[TEPaul]

"No I didn't, TEPaul tried to insist that PV was a ground game golf course, asserting that it was a universal option, when nothing could be further from the truth"

Pat, what kind of crap is that? The ground game at PVGC is a 'universal option'? Just go find where I ever said anything about the ground game being a 'universal option' at PVGC and quote it. And what the hell is a 'universal' ground game option at PVGC? Is that where you can putt the ball from the first tee all the way around the course into the 18th cup including hitting one of those cute bump and run drives up the incline to the fairway on #4?

What I said about PVGC and it's ground game is that on about half the holes there's a ground game approach option and about half the holes there's an aerial approach requirement. And furthemore I mentioned that there's about the same balance of holes that have ground game approach option/aerial approach requirement at Merion. Go check out post #19 and read it this time!

[ForkaB]

Those who argue that the "ground game" is irrelevant when talking about tee shots (or 2nd shots to "par" 5s) are conveniently forgetting how the game is played at the highest level on links courses.  On such courses, the low running hook shot with the driver (or in the case of Tiger, the 2-iron) is an indispensible part of the serious golfer's armory.

I haven't played Pine Valley, but I suspect that this shot would not be an option on many of the holes which are being discussed above.  I know it would not at many other golden age courses I am familiar with, some of which I have mentioned above.

PS--while Pat can be infuriatingly stubborn, so can those whose lives seem to revolve around trying (usually inconclusively) to catch him out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Just concede Tom's point, that there are some ground game options at PV, won't you?

Would you cite for me, exactly where I ever said that there weren't any  ?  

I never made that statement.
That's not remotely close to the theme and point of the thread.

Perhaps you should reread the title and opening post in order to see that you've lost your way on this thread,
and, you conflictingly concede my point from time to time.

You did say that you hardlly ever use the ground game, didn't you ?

Therefore, any emphasis on it, on your part, would be more of a myth then a reality, wouldn't it ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Once again Pat--the ground game option in golf and architecure is an OPTION and a good one! It's not an absolute requirement and it really never was.

I thought that your above remark implied a universal concept

Once again, Pat, the gound game approach option does not have to exist on all holes of any golf course to be more than worthy of being maintained as extremely functional on those holes that were architecturally designed to offer it. Can't you understand that simple fact?

YES, but what you failed to comprehend was the gist of this thread and the concept of relativity.  We aren't talking about the existance of the ground game, we're talking about over-emphasis on the ground game being more of a myth then a fucntional reality.  Don't you understand that ??

And please don't be trying to point out to any of us that perhaps half the holes of Golden Age architecture on courses like Merion or PVGC have an aerial requirement and no ground game option.

Where did I ever say that ?  That's your convoluted reasoning

This incredibly ridiculous notion of yours that holes like PVGC's #2,3,5,7,8,10,14,15 and others have some kind of aerial requirement at some spots on them and therefore the ground game has been over-emphasized or some kind of myth is just beyond belief!

No, it's not.
SPDB admited that he's never employed the ground game at PV, except by mistake.  If he's played a strictly aerial game at PV, then one could say that any promotion of the ground game on his part would be in direct conflict with his actual play, and hence, any emphasis on the ground game by SPDB would be more of a myth then a reality on his part.

This thread ranks right up there as about your most non-productive and actually destructive to many of the things that some people on this site are trying so hard to reestablish.

No it doesn't, you're just upset or having difficulty grasping the concept put forth because you think it conflicts with your desire to promote the maintainance meld.

[Patrick_Mucci]

redanman,

A ball that doesn't get airborne quickly, with good carry, will never reach that point in the fairway you desire. You did mention the need to carry a hill off the tee, didn't you ?

A line drive drive equals disaster.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you completely ignore the critical need for a high trajectory drive to get to the top of the hill.

[Andrew Summerell]

There seems to be alot of talk going on here.

I used the ground game 4 times today, admittedly on a links course (NSW golf club), & chose not to twice when I should have.

The ground game is very relevant for me in the right situation.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

This thread is definitely not a pain in the ass! Pat Mucci may be a pain in the ass but this thread defnitely is NOT. Matter of fact, this very thread just may be one of the most fundamentally important ones ever posted and discussed on this site.

Why? Because it goes right to the heart of a most fundamental and important concept in golf and in classic/strategic architecture and design---that being the maintenance and potential use of the GROUND GAME OPTION in golf!

To have anyone propose for any reason--to allow anyone for any reason to make some case that the ground game option in most all architecture is a myth or emphasis on it's a myth is the beginning of an extremely corrupting logic and trend. That of course, is that the ground game and the dedicated maintenance of it is really not necessary in golf, in golf strategy and in golf architecture. Pat Mucci, for some odd reason, appears to be trying to make that point--and he must not be allowed to!

Where does the point of the ground game as a myth or emphasis on it as a myth lead and lead very quickly? It leads very quickly to the mentality and mindset that aerial golf is all that matters! That's basically where we've been for the last fifty years as Americans comprehensively over-irrigated their golf courses with no real thought or understanding to what that was doing to the extremely interesting and thoughtful ground game OPTION!

I repeat again, for Pat Mucci's benefit, that the ground and and the firmness of it effecting and accomodating the ground game is a useful and interesting OPTION in golf--and it must be maintained in golf--it must be restored and reestablished where it not longer exists because of softness and lack of thought in maintenance! But the ground game, other than in sometimes extraordinary circumstances has never been a required shot as the aerial shot often is---but that's not the point here. Whether or not the ground game is a myth and whether or not it should be maintained is the point here!

Again, that's the point! The ground game should always remain as a useful and challenging and interesting option to the option of the aerial shot! And to have it remain as an interesting OPTION, the maintenance of it, the maintenance of the ground in a state of firmness when weather allows needs to be a very dedicated effort again.

And anything at all that argues that the ground game OPTION is a myth does not serve the purpose at all of maintaining the firmness of the ground for the ground game option to function properly! Arguing, for any reason at all, that the ground game, in an archectural sense, is a myth on most courses that I'm aware of, particularly those older strategic designs, corrupts and destroys the ground game option---and that logic and trend must not be allowed to continue to happen.

[TEPaul]

I've asked Pat Mucci numerous times what his point is exactly for posting this thread which asks if emphasis on the ground game is mostly a myth? And, of course, he refuses to supply an answer, as is his habit.

But perhaps he has supplied an answer in this response to SPDB;

SPDB said;

"I can't recall a time at PV where I used the ground, except by mistake. But that doesn't surprise me because I HARDLY EVER USE IT."

And Pat Mucci responded in capital letters;

"THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT!
NOW DO YOU GET IT?"

So, I guess we'll have to assume that is Pat Mucci's point. Pat Mucci has to mean if a player like SPDB hardly ever uses the ground game option at PVGC then that ground game option must be a myth to SPDB somehow. I suppose we'll have to assume that if Pat Mucci also hardly ever uses the ground game option at PVGC then it must basically be a myth to him too! How could anyone possibly draw any other conclusion after what Pat has said here? (although there should be no doubt that Pat Mucci will try to figure out some convoluted way of deflecting or avoiding this point and this conclusion!)  

So, I submit that Pat Mucci's logic and mindset is that if the ground game is not used by him it must be a myth for all! I support that by noting that Pat has remarked that in his opinion the ground game option does not really exist architecturally or otherwise on approaches to holes such as PVGC's #5, #12, #13 and #15. That's a curious thing to say because I've been using those ground game option for years on the approaches to those holes!

And furthermore, how can anyone not assume that Pat Mucci's mindset here--that if an option is not used by him it must be myth and consequently should not exist even if others use it and think it does exist and should exist?

To me, Pat Mucci's mindset here is nothing more than that well-known and traditionally destructive and corruptive mindset of the self consumed green chairman who exclaims that if something on the golf course does not pertain to or suit his own game it should not remain and must no longer exist?

How can any other conclusion be drawn at this point after what Pat Mucci has said on here?

In maintaining, in restoring and in preserving any golf course, and certainly a PVGC, anyone should understand that they must think of everything any golf course was originally designed to do architecturally and for everyone--for everyone's game--not just the game of Pat Mucci or any other single golfer's game!

That to me is a fundamental in understanding architecture--that any golf course should be maintained in the way it was designed to optimally play for everyone.

There's no doubt that PVGC, like Merion, has approximately half its holes that do require an aerial approach shot to play correctly but there's also no doubt that on approximately the other half the holes at PVGC (and Merion) a ground game approach shot is architecturally provided for as an option to an aerial shot.

The ground game option on those holes at PVGC and Merion that architecturally provide for it should be maintained at all costs. Those ground game options on those holes are definitely not a myth and emphasis on preserving them is definitely not a myth ether as Pat Mucci is apparently suggesting.

I often kid Pat about being wrong about 98% of the time and as most know I'm only kidding him. This time I'm not kidding, this time I believe Pat Mucci is very wrong and he should admit it, and others should tell him he's wrong--because not doing so is ultimately destructive and corrupting both in prinicple and in fact:

On this thread I said to Pat Mucci:

"This thread ranks right up there as about your most non-productive and actually destructive to many of the things that some people on this site are trying so hard to reestablish.”

And he replied to me;

”No it doesn't, you're just upset or having difficulty grasping the concept put forth because you think it conflicts with your desire to promote the maintainance meld.”

Pat:

I’m definitely not having any difficutly grasping the concept you put forth here but I certainly do think the concept you put forth here conficts with my desire to promote the ideal maintenance meld on any golf course which I surely do believe in strongly. The ground game options that architecturally exists on those holes at PVGC should be preserved and maintained as they are definitely not the myth you apparently think they are!

[TEPaul]

Here's an excercise for you redanman;

Either skip my posts altogether or learn to read them faster or skim them for whatever meaning you think you're looking for. And after that if they still bore you then guess what--that's your problem, not mine. You think my posts are too long and too boring and I think your posts are short and basically meaningless if discussion is the goal.

I'll be honest, you do have a take on certain things that rubs me the wrong way and if the feeling is mutual then I guess that's the way it's going to be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()