[Jeff_Brauer]

As mentioned in another thread, I think sometimes we extrapolate what we see on a few courses of any era and broad brush those characteristics to the who generations of courses.  For example, all golden age courses were great because Cypress Point and the other top ones were.  On the flip side, all modern courses are bad becasuse RTJ or Nicklaus had design periods where aerial shots were almost required.

To me a green allows the ground game if:

There is a frontal opening for at least part of the green that is more than 30' feet wide
The slope in front of the green is not more than about 10% uphill, which would tend to kill any roll.
To qualify, that opening must be accessible from some part of the fw, but not all, following Golden Age traditions

The question is, how many greens on your preferred course allow the run up shot to at least some portion of the green, by these criteria? 

My home club of Great Southwest is a Plummer/Byron Nelson course with 15 greens remodeled by me. (Oddly, the three greens I didn't remodel had been done by their low handicap super and each has frontal bunkers.  He told me he thought it was good design to stop the topped shots from reaching the putting surface)

The only other greens, largely unchanged from the original designs, that require aerial approaches are the par 3 third (standard water hole) and par 5 9th and 18th.  Of my greens, the 4th has a narrow cat walk approach, and the par 3 6th and 17th and off set 16th have slivers at the sides.

If we count the last 3 as no green front openings, overall this hybrid design from 1979-2008 has 9 each of greens that allow the run up vs. those that don't.  If I am charitable on those tweeners, giving them 1/2 a point, its 10.5 to 7.5 run up vs. not.

On some of my original designs, like the Quarry (selected because its designed to be tough)

Holes 1(frontal bunkers),6(narrow ramp),9(steeper slope),13(native bank), 17 (par 3 with pond) probably don't allow the run up game.  The 11th, a short par 3 has a sliver, but I doubt many would run it up anyway.  So, that's at worst a 12/6 ratio.

My other "tough design" is Colbert Hills.  It would have a 14/4 or 13/5 ratio. (Its funny how many greens when I really think about it are tweeners)

On my most recent moderate fee public course, Sand Creek in KS, the ratio would be 16/2, although a few are tweeners.

So, perhaps my perspective is skewed by my designs.  However, I think we have enough input here to conduct some informal, but valuble research. It will be interesting to see the results.

Please include the era and if comfortable designer of the primary design of your course.  If you keep the answers succint enough, perhaps we can tally them and get a good idea of the true ratio of run up greens in the golden age, 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. through modern eras.

[Mark Pearce]

A 15/3 split on a 1914 Colt design.  Oddly the three that don't allow the ground game are consecutive (par 4 12th, long par 4 13th (it sort of does but a steep bank kills anything landing short) and par 3 14th.

[Sean_A]

As mentioned in another thread, I think sometimes we extrapolate what we see on a few courses of any era and broad brush those characteristics to the who generations of courses.  For example, all golden age courses were great because Cypress Point and the other top ones were.  On the flip side, all modern courses are bad becasuse RTJ or Nicklaus had design periods where aerial shots were almost required.

To me a green allows the ground game if:

There is a frontal opening for at least part of the green that is more than 30' feet wide
The slope in front of the green is not more than about 10% uphill, which would tend to kill any roll.
To qualify, that opening must be accessible from some part of the fw, but not all, following Golden Age traditions

The question is, how many greens on your preferred course allow the run up shot to at least some portion of the green, by these criteria? 

My home club of Great Southwest is a Plummer/Byron Nelson course with 15 greens remodeled by me. (Oddly, the three greens I didn't remodel had been done by their low handicap super and each has frontal bunkers.  He told me he thought it was good design to stop the topped shots from reaching the putting surface)

The only other greens, largely unchanged from the original designs, that require aerial approaches are the par 3 third (standard water hole) and par 5 9th and 18th.  Of my greens, the 4th has a narrow cat walk approach, and the par 3 6th and 17th and off set 16th have slivers at the sides.

If we count the last 3 as no green front openings, overall this hybrid design from 1979-2008 has 9 each of greens that allow the run up vs. those that don't.  If I am charitable on those tweeners, giving them 1/2 a point, its 10.5 to 7.5 run up vs. not.

On some of my original designs, like the Quarry (selected because its designed to be tough)

Holes 1(frontal bunkers),6(narrow ramp),9(steeper slope),13(native bank), 17 (par 3 with pond) probably don't allow the run up game.  The 11th, a short par 3 has a sliver, but I doubt many would run it up anyway.  So, that's at worst a 12/6 ratio.

My other "tough design" is Colbert Hills.  It would have a 14/4 or 13/5 ratio. (Its funny how many greens when I really think about it are tweeners)

On my most recent moderate fee public course, Sand Creek in KS, the ratio would be 16/2, although a few are tweeners.

So, perhaps my perspective is skewed by my designs.  However, I think we have enough input here to conduct some informal, but valuble research. It will be interesting to see the results.

Please include the era and if comfortable designer of the primary design of your course.  If you keep the answers succint enough, perhaps we can tally them and get a good idea of the true ratio of run up greens in the golden age, 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. through modern eras.

Jeff

At Burnham I would place the ratio 13/5 with one of the aerials sort of a tweener depending on the season.  Personally, I thinks this leans a bit too much toward the aerial (all of the par 3s are really aerials) and would like to see one hole altered to receive a bounce in off a dune.  Only one of the aerial holes is modern, but the tweener is also modern.  I hadn't thought of it before, but I guess I am saying the modern alterations have gone a bit too far imo. 

At Pennard, assuming one hasn't hit a Sally Gunnel, there are more aerial holes there then folks probably imagine.  According to your definition I would say the ratio is 13/5 with three tweeners.  #s 5, 7, 10, 11 & 13 are really aerial shots due to steepness etc rather than fronting bunkers.  #s 9, 14 & 16 are doable as grounders, but they are quite difficult to play this way - a lot of experience is usually necessary.  Of the aerials three are what I would call modern.  I don't think the balance is bad though because the course is a bit short.

Ciao

[Lloyd_Cole]

Approach shots - 12 must be flown if hitting in regulation.
The majority of the greens have a tiny fringe surrounded by gnarly rough and bunkers except where the fairway meets the green complex so only the straight hitter has much of a chance to play the pitch and run. Having said that, some of the rough can be thin and the ground firm, so the shot is playable, but not predictable.

[Greg Krueger]

My course was opened in the late 60's, do not know original architect, was redesigned by Bob Moore in 2000. 9/9 is the count.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Keep it coming.....

Sean, I like the mention of the season, but I figure that even in the golden age, the run up shot was a lot less feasible in the spring than summer, no?  If anything, the emphasis on controlled irrigation and more drain tiles in modern times might make the run up game more consistent, which some view as a bad thing, but it might allow it more in spring, even if it allows it less than we would like in summer.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

I've found that one of the greatest misconceptions on this website is that some of the best of the "Golden Age" courses allowed for a ground game run-in option to almost all greens.

This is simply not the case on some of the best of those old courses of that era and the best examples are probably Merion East and Pine Valley.

The point is those architects really were into a architectural or "golf" process they sometimes referred to as "shot testing" and that idea really did evolve into this cliche sometimes referred to as "hitting every club in the bag."

Many more of those "shot tests" back then were of an aerial requirement than most on here realize or admit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I agree....but answer the question for Gulph Mills.....I know the 8th sure doesn't allow the run in. And maybe your 18th, given how uphill it is!

[BCrosby]

I don't know of anyone who thinks that a useful distinction between GA courses and modern courses is that the former promoted the ground game and the later promoted an aerial game. In both eras, some did, some didn't.

What makes ANGC, PV, Cypress, NGLA et al. great has little to do with their promotion of the ground game.

BTW, reading about the Haskell ball issues over the weekend, one of the things many people noted about it was not just its additional length, but the fact that its dimples allowed good players to spin and control the ball in the air with much more precision. So as early as 1903 or so, the aerial game was already on the menu and seen as an easier way to play by better players. The aerial game that the Haskell permitted was a main argument used against the new ball. All for naught, of course.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
At home it's two out of nine, our 3rd hole is an Alps and our 5th is a short.
Seth Raynor, 1926.

At a course from my youth: CC of Torrington, it's 3, possibly 4, out of 18. O.E. Smith, 1929.
 

[Sean_A]

Keep it coming.....

Sean, I like the mention of the season, but I figure that even in the golden age, the run up shot was a lot less feasible in the spring than summer, no?  If anything, the emphasis on controlled irrigation and more drain tiles in modern times might make the run up game more consistent, which some view as a bad thing, but it might allow it more in spring, even if it allows it less than we would like in summer.

The hole in question is #12 at Burnham.  Drainage isn't the issue.  Its just reaching the green in two which is bloody difficult into the prevailing winter wind and through the rather large swale short of the green.  The exact opposite is true for the summer months.  Trying to fly the green is folly - you have little chance even with a wedge.  The runup is the shot of choice for many. 

TomP

You have mentioned a few exceptions to what I believe is an overwhelming general rule for Golden Age courses. 

Ciao

[Dan Boerger]

Interesting question, but like so many things a plethora of variables make this difficult to answer. At Aronimink there are maybe 7 - 9 holes that neatly fit into this "ground game" category. But what about a shortish par 4 (2nd at Aronimink) where a narrow run up is much more possible the closer you are to the green.

I think the conditioning often dictates using this strategy. Is it firm enough? Is it consistent enough?

[JMEvensky]

My course is Ellis Maples,ca. 1971.

Only 3 greens prevent a ground approach as designed.Two 3-pars and one shortish 4-par have bunkers fronting most of the green.

Unfortunately,we play on zoysia fairways.This does more to stop run-ups than anything.We're looking at re-grassing the approaches with a bermuda hybrid.In this part of the world,TifSport seems to be a good solution.

[wsmorrison]

50:50

1.  ground or aerial
2.  ground or aerial
3.  aerial
4.  aerial
5.  ground or aerial
6.  ground or aerial:  false front increases the need for accuracy for either strategy)
7.  aerial:  elevated green and narrow opening are more suited for aerial on a short hole
8.  aerial
9.  aerial
10.  ground or aerial
11.  aerial
12.  ground or aerial:  positioning dictates which is available, right side aerial and left side ground or aerial
13.  aerial
14.  ground or aerial
15.  ground or aerial:  elevated green and moderately open front
16.  aerial
17.  aerial
18.  ground or aerial

[ChipRoyce]

Here at Great Hills, our course runs really firm and fast. However, the missing feature of this is the ability to run the ball into most / all of the greens.
Between the design (done in early 70's with many in a "push up" design) and the way they drain (most water funnels down the front of the greens), shot that hit into the approaches tend to hop once and die rather than allow for a release into a green.
Very frustrating as this would be the missing piece to a very exciting course

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't know of anyone who thinks that a useful distinction between GA courses and modern courses is that the former promoted the ground game and the later promoted an aerial game. In both eras, some did, some didn't.

What makes ANGC, PV, Cypress, NGLA et al. great has little to do with their promotion of the ground game.

BTW, reading about the Haskell ball issues over the weekend, one of the things many people noted about it was not just its additional length, but the fact that its dimples allowed good players to spin and control the ball in the air with much more precision. So as early as 1903 or so, the aerial game was already on the menu and seen as an easier way to play by better players. The aerial game that the Haskell permitted was a main argument used against the new ball. All for naught, of course.

Bob

Bob,

And yet, this thread stems from one of those broad brush comments that "Modern Courses are designed to force the aerial game."  So, it appears to happen.  By asking for "facts" in this survey, I am simply trying to dispel a myth, and I agree that the ground game was dying the minute it hit the USA shores, for both agronomic and equipment reasons.  The push by a few writers to reinvigorate it is a new thing, and SOMETIMES people write about bringing back the old days, when IMHO, they don't really know what the old days were all about. (Frankly, neither do I, for sure)

Chip,

As I mentioned, the ever growing trend towards more construction to achieve certain goals might be applicable to your club. I know of some courses extending sand and herringbone drains down the approach to keep them drier.

[wsmorrison]

I like a hole where the architecture dictates whether you can play an aerial or ground shot or are required to hit an aerial shot depending upon the positioning off the tee or on a second shot on a three shot hole. 

Take the 8th hole at Shinnecock Hills for instance.  If you play out over the bunker field to the left edge of the fairway, you have the option to hit either an aerial or approach shot depending upon wind and turf conditions.  If you play along the right side of the fairway, you have to hit an aerial shot and thus are more constrained by the wind and turf.  If the conditions are against you, then you are in a lot of trouble as the slope off the right greenside bunker is sever and the chances of going off the roll-offs are quite high leading to difficult recoveries.  This designed in variety depending upon strategy and execution is one of the factors that separates the very great designs from solid designs.

[Adrian_Stiff]

This is a great thread, its lead me to think that a lot of par 3 holes are pretty much aerial, my home course is a 16/2 although when I thought about Burnhan I had that a 15/3 as well 5/9 & 17 being the aerial, I think 14 has a ground option (although I would not put up a big arguement). St Andrews is 18/0; Prestwick I started getting confused atthe 5th how to categorise, but i guess 17 is for the red corner.

[Tom Huckaby]

My home course is a late 60's design by the great George Santana.

The ratio is 18-0 in favor of the ground game.  On four holes there are somewhat steep slopes in front of greens, but in each case unless it's exceedingly wet a ground approach can be played, and often is the better play.  There are zero greens where hazards prohibit a ground approach.

Interesting, I never thought of it this way....

TH

[Paul Stephenson]

13/5 in favour of the ground game at my club.

2 of the 5 aerial holes have no trouble short but may break your 10% rule.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Why do you limit the definition to frontal openings? There are plenty examples where playing the ground game from the sides of targets, and, even some from the rear, is still playing the ground game.

[cary lichtenstein]

17/1

[Bill_McBride]

I think Jerry Pate's design of the new Pensacola CC - you can't call it a renovation - really features the ground game and makes it fun for players of all levels.  There are only three holes where you can't run the approach shot onto the green.

#11 is a short par 3 with a pond in front.  Still the front tee is far enough left that the ladies typically run their approach shots onto the left side of the wide green whenever they can.  There's a ridge front to back that splits the green into two halves, so no ground game shots to the right half.



#14 (par 5) should be approached from the right to most pins and that shot can be played on the ground.  To front pins it almost has to be to get close.  This is a split fairway hole, to get that ground game shot the second has to be played well right of the cross bunkering that blocks a direct shot to the green.



#15 has a creek across the front that requires an aerial approach, the only 100% such requirement on the course.

The fact that our bermuda fairways are typically firm enhances this design.

Here's the #13 green (435 yd par 4), not atypical of the ground game approaches at PCC:

[Mark Chaplin]

Deal in the summer is 16/2 with 4 greens being hard to pitch and stop on at all without a perfectly struck shot, #2, #3, #12, and #15.

Sandwich is closer to 12/6 although certain greens can be fed into #1 & #15 being good examples but you still need to carry the cross bunkering.

The 200yd plus par 3s at both clubs allow for a run in approach.

[Dave Givnish]

15/3 favor ground game @ Desert Forest

3 include #1 par 4 (narrow approach, deep green); #3 par 3 (aka short par 5) with wide access left of the green from collection area and 2 "lady's aid" in front"; #14 short downhill par 4

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()