Prevailing Perversions of Past Predilections

[DMoriarty]

Prevailing Contemporary Wisdom:  In the (g)olden days the equipment was so deficient that the golfer had no choice but to tediously tumble the ball along the ground, barely able to clear the tallest blade of grass.  This is especially true regarding the short game, where before the magical modern sand and lofted wedges, one had no choice but to bump and run and bump and run and bump and run and bump . . .


My Take: This is a bunch of bunk.   Another weak justification for boring modern designs which neglect to provide for any option but the aerial game . . . the only reason they ran it up is that they had to, they dont have to any more so why bother?

Oh yeah, for the sake of this discussion I am setting aside sand shots.   Not that there is nothing to talk about there, but for simplicity let's set that aside now.  

[texsport]

If it wasn't the case, that shots had to be bounced in, why do old designs feature bunkers with big gaps between them and the putting surfaces?

The ground game is not a test of great ball striking! It involves imagination, but luck plays much too large a part in the outcome of bounced shots. That's why it's only used when it's the only option.

It's the best option when it's the only option!

That doesn't mean the ground game option shouldn't be available. It adds playability for all levels of players to a design.

[ForkaB]

David

Here is a quote from 1904:

"I stood beside the putting green at "The Witch"...a hole of 165 yards.  I saw J. H. (Taylor) play his "Taylor Mashie" off the tee, saw the ball coming up, saw it pitch on the green and bite into the turf and spin back for a yard."

Good players have always favored (and try to find ways to play) the aerial game.  The ground game exists at many courses, and does give lesser players more options, and is neat to play from time to time, but it is always a secondary choice (due to circumstances and/or ability).  To argue otherwise is futile.

[DMoriarty]

If it wasn't the case, that shots had to be bounced in, why do old designs feature bunkers with big gaps between them and the putting surfaces?

C-H-O-I-C-E-S

The ground game is not a test of great ball striking! It involves imagination, but luck plays much too large a part in the outcome of bounced shots. That's why it's only used when it's the only option.
 
It's the best option when it's the only option!

Unless one plays golf indoors, the ground game is NEVER the only option.

_________________________

Rich,  

So we are in agreement that in the past the equipment certainly allowed for an aerial attack.  

As for the rest, for the sake of argument I will concede.  Now could you please go back to Mike Hendren's thread and tell my why this isnt a beautiful thing?  

[Mike Benham]

Dave -

Ask yourself the question about the equipment.  

Having watched you play hickories, even with a modern ball, do you think that the old-old equipment allowed you to get the ball airborne?

Mike

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I try to leave my game out of these things, as I am not entirely consistent with anything I hit.  I wish I could blame it on the hickories, but I knw there are many days where I cannot get it airborne with the best of equipment.  Bad days are certainly worse with hickories, but generally on a decently struck ball, getting the ball airborne is not an issue.  Especially with shorter irons.  

[texsport]

The ground game is not a test of great ball striking! It involves imagination, but luck plays much too large a part in the outcome of bounced shots. That's why it's only used when it's the only option.
 
It's the best option when it's the only option!

Unless one plays golf indoors, the ground game is NEVER the only option.



You are correct sir! But please let me clarify my general statement.

I meant, in the context of trying to most efficiently play a golf course, that the ground game is utilized when it is the only option available to get your next shot close to your target.

Examples: Out of rough during the U.S.Open or from under trees at any course.

[DMoriarty]

John,

Let me clarify as well.  Even from the rough at the US Open the golfer has a choice to try to carry it to the hole, or not-- I've seen Goosen hit a number of soft shots from off the fairway.  The fact is that for some players under certain circumstances (including the best players in the US Open)the ground game is sometimes the best option.

But this is really more for Mike Hendren's thread, where he postulates that the ground game is only for gutless hacks (or something like that . . . .)

The point of this thread is to challenge the notion that the old equipment forced past golfers to utilize the ground game.  Golfers in the past could hit it high or low, and could even stop the ball.  They chose to use the ground because sometimes the courses they played gave them that option, and sometimes the ground game was the best option under their circumstances.   Wouldnt it be nice if today's courses also gave us that choice?

[A_Clay_Man]

David, I agree with most of what you are saying and why you are saying it. Re; Hendren's thread. However, I hope you don't have what seems like a limited definition of "the ground game". It isn't just about running the ball in from xxx yards, or scuffing it off the tee, it also includes the use of features, obtainable through the air, that once struck, causes the ball to bounce in a calculated direction. Ala Pinon Hills (and many others), where the green side mounds allow for the creative golfer, to aim away from the pin, and trust his local knowledge (or nose) that this the way to get close to any specific pin position.

Isn't it obvious from venues like Pine Valley, or many of Ross's courses, or, features like a Tillie par 5 green ringed with bunkers, that the aerial test was still very much a part of the test, back in the (g)olden age?

[DMoriarty]

Adam, I agree with your point, just not your example.  I admire your creativity in trying to characterize and play Pinion as a ground game course, but it just aint so.  Triple terraced greens do not great ground game holes make.  But then we've exhausted that topic elsewhere, I hope.  

[A_Clay_Man]

David, It's fascinating to me that you continue to hold on to your prediliction. That was my point.
 Not only did the the architect, himself, tell me with his own words, that he designs open green fronts, for the GG option. I witness it all the time.

Just yesterday, I golfed with an elderly gentleman who utilized the open green fronts for his GG approach, and he did so many many times to great effect.

If you choose to call me a liar, the way Sean recently did, when all I am doing is re-counting actual events, with no motus or agenda, is a pity.

[texsport]

John,

Let me clarify as well.  Even from the rough at the US Open the golfer has a choice to try to carry it to the hole, or not-- I've seen Goosen hit a number of soft shots from off the fairway.  The fact is that for some players under certain circumstances (including the best players in the US Open)the ground game is sometimes the best option.

But this is really more for Mike Hendren's thread, where he postulates that the ground game is only for gutless hacks (or something like that . . . .)

The point of this thread is to challenge the notion that the old equipment forced past golfers to utilize the ground game.  Golfers in the past could hit it high or low, and could even stop the ball.  They chose to use the ground because sometimes the courses they played gave them that option, and sometimes the ground game was the best option under their circumstances.   Wouldnt it be nice if today's courses also gave us that choice?

Well, I'm going to have to disagree in general. With very few exceptions, the conditions dictating the bounce up shot as the best option to greens are found only in Europe and on U.S.Open courses in this country.

I also disagree that hickory era players stopped the ball very effectively. The chief reason the ball stopped was slow greens. I've played hickories some myself and there is absolutely no comparison between hickories/balata balls and steel shafted, square grooved/ modern balls for spin or stopping power. The only place in the U.S. where bounce up shots are best is setups like at Pinehurst, where greens designed to Stimp 7 or 8 now run 12-13 and aren't watered except to prevent losing the greens.

Bouncing the ball leaves way too much to chance and we witness it every year at The Britiish Open.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I saw what Ralph's clubs could do when struck well.  They were very functional tools when hit on the sweet spot. No question.

I hit David's (lefty) hickories at Hidden Creek and they are very functional. I hit the green closer to the pin on the par 3 #14 with his #8 club then my 5 iron. His brassie (I think) let me reach the greenside  in 2 from my drive on the par 5 17th.  These are good products though not forgiving as modern clubs tend to be.

Back to the question.

Perhaps in the spring during wet season they played the aerial game by necessity.  Perhaps in summer and into the fall when things were all baked out (no irrigation) they played the ground game by necessity. Courses had to be flexible because agronomy forced them to allow for the seasons.  Today we control mother nature with 4000 sprinkler heads or single line that narrowed fairways.

I recall my early days playing the game (late 1960's) this was still the case at every muni I played. I could reach the par 5 17th at Split Rock back then and with an iron.  Only thing was it rolled forever insted of hitting the green and stopping as with today's equipment. In the spring or after a huge thunder storm I had no chance of reaching that same hole.

[ForkaB]

One of the prevailing perverse predilections is that such as espoused by Geoff C. above, namely that in the "golden age" (regardless of how you define it) the climate was the same as it is today.  To say that.......

"Perhaps in summer and into the fall when things were all baked out (no irrigation) they played the ground game by necessity."

......is ingenuous.

The UK was at the end of a "mini ice age" well into the early part of the 20th century, and I do not think that any of the courses being played with hickories were ever "baked out" at least as we might understand that term today.  They had no irrigation because they didn't need it, even up to the 1970's.

Ever wonder why those guys played in tweed jackets and ties in the middle of the summer?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

What ball were you using ?

John Kendall Sr,

I'd agree with you, and I'd add that I don't consider hitting short of a green, when the hole is cut up front, as an application of the ground game.  In that configuration, the approach is part of the green, tactically.

Rich Goodale,

That was very funny.

[DMoriarty]

Adam, I did not call you a liar, nor did I plan to call you a liar.  We have a difference of opinion.   You think Pinion is a design that makes terrific use of features to allow the golfer to bounce/roll her ball to the desired location, and I disagree.  We've both repeatedly given our reasons why we believe what we believe and neither has budged.  So why not just agree to disagree?  
___________________________

John Kendall, Sr.  

My experience with hickories has been different than yours, as has the experience of others.   While they all may not stop like a square grooved lofted wedge, with a proper swing (the one that eludes me much of the time) one can definitely hit them high and soft, and one can definitely put spin on the ball.
_____________________________

My experience with golf courses has also been different.  Interesting ground game options do exist in america, although they are too few and far between.  

You say that the ground game at the british open leaves too much to chance?   I disagree.   Think of the year Ben Curtis won.   Tiger et al got in trouble with the aerial game, not the ground game.   Tiger was trying to force high six irons despite the conditions and it did not work.  Curtis listened to his caddy, kept the ball down and let the ball roll.   It worked pretty well for him.  
___________________________

Shivas, is it possible that one reason they sometimes played running shots is that they found it to be the better option in many circumstances?    Keep in mind the differences in the course they played on vs. the courses we play on.  

[Steve Wilson]

I've only been playing hickories for a month, but like Shivas I was astounded at the trajectory I've been able to achieve with the irons.  True, the trajectory is not as long or as highas with my regular irons, but hitting shots that go high and land soft is not a problem (doing it consistently is a problem, but that's my game not the clubs).  I'm certain the better players in the hickory era could stop the ball effectively with the older clubs.

As for the ball, for the most part I use Pro Vs as I was advised by the hickory players I met at Gettysburg last month.  Naturally the Pro Vs really go, but I've also been using some old Titleist  balata 100s I found in my shag.  

I also remember reading (I have to start cataloging this stuff so I can cite) an account of Walter Hagen watching a tournament in the fifties and telling his companion as they watched an approach shot coming in "That's how Jone's ball looked."  He was commenting on the height and how quickly it stopped.  There is no justification for assuming the quality of the equipment forced players to use the ground game.

The aerial game will always be the first option for the very best players (and the unimaginative;)).  There's less that can go wrong.