News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« on: August 17, 2009, 11:07:03 AM »
I am quite busy with other things, and unable to participate as frequently.  However, I had a thought which might generate some conversation.

Clearly, the most efficient way to navigate a golf course is through the air.  Virtually all of the best golfers, those who score the lowest scores, advance from tee to green through the air.  The very best can control the trajectory and spin.  A few times each year, the best play in very firm conditions, where shot curvature and rollout are a factor.

Good golfers are often singularly focused on scoring well and getting better.  But talented athletes/golfers are also most capable at using course contouring and firm turf to their benefit.  Only under extraordinary circumstances, at least in the United States, is a shot, intentionally played to roll a long distance, the best scoring choice.

Experience matters when evaluating "the ground game", the quality of strategic interest that course contouring provides.  Only playful scratch players, willing to forego the neverending quest for improvement to experiment or play for fun, regularly experience tee to green contouring.  Good players may be best qualified to discuss greenside contouring, as they tend to have a greater short game arsenal.

I would suggest that three types of players are uniquely qualified to evaluate the ground game from tee to green:

1.  The middle-aged or older veteran male player of modest strength, the 5 to 15 handicapper who controls his ball well but incapable of the high soft shot.
2.  The veteran female golfer, a greater range here, but still the 2 to 25 handicapper who controls her ball well, with limited ability to hit it high and soft.
3.  The better, stronger player with ample experience in the wind or on firm turf.

To put it another way, if you're a good golfer who plays parkland courses all the time, and never takes the time to fool around and learn how to hit low shots, how the hell can you evaluate the ground game?  The genesis of this post is a comment Joe Hancock made a couple months ago about taking a couple clubs out on the course and trying different things.  The private club member, or somebody in the golf profession, is much more likely to experiment.  There's too much pressure on the daily fee player to perform well.

Maybe I've got it wrong.  Perhaps the better player, generally possessing superior atheltic abilities, can see how course contouring would affect play, just as well as the player who experiences it on a regular basis.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2009, 11:27:12 AM »
Only under extraordinary circumstances, at least in the United States, is a shot, intentionally played to roll a long distance, the best scoring choice . . . To put it another way, if you're a good golfer who plays parkland courses all the time, and never takes the time to fool around and learn how to hit low shots, how the hell can you evaluate the ground game  . . . Maybe I've got it wrong.

John -

I am a good golfer who plays parkland courses almost all of the time. My best drive goes 280. My arch nemesis is the heeled drive into the forest.

Yesterday I had occasion to play four recovery shots under the branches and along the ground. Three of them were excellent and the fourth hit a tree dead on and nearly hit my equipment for what would have been a devastating penalty.

Not a round goes by where I am not attempting to roll one onto the green from 100 yards away with a four iron.

I am qualified to evaluate the ground game!

Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Peter Pallotta

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2009, 11:32:52 AM »
John - a good topic. I can't contribute much, and hope that I'm not taking this OT.  But while I agree that "the most efficient way to navigate a golf course is through the air,"  I think the safest way to navigate a course is along the ground. A golfer's expectations come into play here -- you may be hoping (and expecting) to break 80 every time out. I'm hoping to break 90, or, these days, 100. The famous and much-loved "easy bogie, if fairly sought" is the product/result of the ground game.  I'm pretty comfortable with the ground game; I know I look for it on approach shots.  If you played it more often, you'd be better at it than I am in every way (you no doubt already are) -- but rare is the course, I'm thinking, where it would result in better scores for you.

Peter 

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2009, 11:37:53 AM »
John, I don't know if you need "ample experience" in firm conditions to play/evaluate the ground game.

I probably play only about 10% of my rounds in that condition, but anyone who played a round with me at Ballyneal or Chambers Bay knows I hit nothing but punch shots and hybrid putts from 100 yards in when given a chance.

I think all it takes is ample imagination.

TEPaul

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2009, 11:38:51 AM »
JohnK:

What you seem to be expressing (and asking) is basically the basis from which and for which I constructed my IMM (Ideal Maintenance Meld) ideas.

There are a number of factors that go into it but one of the primary ones is the realization, understanding and acceptance that if you offer good players receptive (softish) greens all the time they will pretty much stick with their aerial game all day long, all month long, all year long and for their entire careers. And why wouldn't they? THAT is pretty much what happened to a couple of generations of American golfers John.

If you want to get the attention of good players to even look at much less use the ground game you just have to do one thing for starters-----eg begin to DIAL DOWN to some significant degree their stock reliance on their aerial game and the only way to do that is to really begin to FIRM UP green surfaces!

Of course, "through the green" areas, particularly approaches need to come next with firmness.


PS:
Am I qualified to evaluate The "Ground Game?" Yeah, I guess I am now because I've thought so much about it for the last ten years but I am one of those Americans who grew up on softish and receptive American courses and like all other American tournament players my total stock in trade was the aerial game. I was even one of the first real practicioners of the stock greenside chip flop shot and I was one of the first out there who had a 60 degree wedge that I used on ever single greenside shot no matter what it was.

I even remember about twenty five years ago the pro at my club was watching me in the club championship hitting all these long swing flop shots around greens and afterwards he said: "You know you really should try to get the ball on the green and running" and I said to him: 'Bullshit, Willie, there's nothing I know of in the air that's going to take my ball off line." He thought about that for a while and said; "Hmmm, good point." Afterwards he said he just thought that getting the ball on the ground was an easier chip to execute than a precision flop shot but I just told him not for me because I was so used to it.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 11:50:59 AM by TEPaul »

Jim Colton

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2009, 11:47:18 AM »
John,

  Over the last years, I've crept into your first category (maybe not coincidently but the exact same time as I entered what I'd consider middle-age) and have evolved immensely as a golfer.  I'd classify it as a good thing even as my handicap soared.  I used to be very much a 'scoring well/getting better' guy.  Once I came to the realization that path was in many ways fruitless, I've started to concentrate on shots and the joy in trying to execute and occasionally pulling it off in the company of good friends.  Do I want to score well?  Yes, of course.  But I can say with confidence that playing poorly has little impact on my level of enjoyment these days, and I've tested the limits of that hypothesis repeatedly the last 18 months.

  Wyatt and I were talking about this exact transformation this weekend, in what I related to Morpheus telling Neo to 'Free...Your...Mind'  The process has been a slow one for me, starting with St. Andrews in 2000, Bandon in 2006, Ballyneal the last 18 months and this past weekend in Northern Michigan (we half-jokingly that someone w/ deep pockets could pluck promising but unenlightened 25 year old Jim Colton-types and expose them to this different definition of golf.  Any takers?)  

It's safe to say that after this past weekend's eye-opening experience, I will never look at the game the same way again.  I still have a LONG way to go, and spent most of yesterday completely baffled by trying to compute and make sense of different options, deciding on the best route and trying to execute on that decision.  Most of the time I screwed up on all fronts at the same time, but what is promising is the desire to keep learning and evolving.  I'm having more fun playing bad golf than I ever had shooting 74-78 and beating myself up over double bogeys.

Jim

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2009, 11:50:19 AM »
Great topic!

Don't you think that the features and conditioning which favor the ground game actually work to make the golf course play harder for the lower handicap golfer? It seems to me that the lower handicap golfer has more of a chance of his ball bouncing and rolling too far and in to trouble on a golf course that is set up for the ground game. But the classic aerial game presentation is set up with all kinds of containment features and conditions that stop the ball from moving too far from where it lands.

The game is played with a ball. And what does a ball do? It does a lot more than just fly and land. It bounces and rolls too. A group of us superintendents were playing the other day and afterwards we talked about how the art of greenkeeping is in presenting a field of play where the ball reacts to what is on the ground, and how every dynamic of what a ball does comes in to play on a golf course. I know that's when I feel like I am doing my best work.

 

TEPaul

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2009, 11:58:12 AM »
Bradley:

I've felt for about ten years now that promoting the ground game for good players by dialing down their stock reliance on the aerial game certainly does make things more challenging and probably more difficult for them simply because compared to their old stock reliance on their "stick it" aerial games they now have one more thing to think about and good players don't like to have to think about a number of alternative types of shots when they get to their ball and before they decide what to pull out of their golf bag.

We on this website that have any age at all on us pretty much have to admit that generally speaking the so-called "ground game" was pretty much stone dead in America for a considerable number of decades. Thank God that is beginning to change now. How in the world American golf could've lost just about one half of the game of golf without really realizing it is kind of beyond my comprehension now, but I have to admit when I played it all those years it never even occured to me. The aerial game was not just the thing, it was the only thing possible because American golf killed the ground game pretty much stone dead for a number of decades.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 12:03:47 PM by TEPaul »

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2009, 12:00:10 PM »
As you have witnessed, John, I am one of those older players who can no longer hit the ball much beyond his shadow but can still have fun on the golf course.

However, the correct IMM is definitely required to get the most fun out of the ground game.  Links courses in the UK offer the best opportunities, although there are some US venues that do as well.  Bandon, the Kingsley Club....a handful of others. I hope to get to see Ballyneal and Sand Hills one of these days. Unfortunately most American golf is set up for that aerial game.

The most fun shot I can remember from last year was at Golspie, north of Dornoch.  I had a 120 yard shot into into a brisk wind, on a par 4 with a back pin, and hit a low, left to right curving five iron that landed out in front of the green and made its way to 5' behind the flag for a birdie.  This is as much fun as golf gets!

This shot would regrettably not have been possible on my home course, as too many areas in front of greens are too moist for such a shot to succeed.  Too bad.

Mike Wagner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2009, 12:04:59 PM »
John,

This is a very cool topic.  I think it's apparent that FOR THE MOST PART, American golfers are scared of the ground game.  They don't know how to play it.  It must be a product of experience.  I can't tell you how many times I see people try to flop that shots that should literally be played with their putter.  Blows my mind.  I think it's an ego thing combined with just simply lacking experience and developed touch.  Some people think they should look like tour pros and one-hop stop their chip shots.

If people just tried different shots -especially around the greens - you know the one - where their worst putt would be inside their BEST chip.  

It's not just reserved for the Bandons and Ballyneals either..

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2009, 12:14:51 PM »
The aerial game was not just the thing, it was the only thing possible because American golf killed the ground game pretty much stone dead for a number of decades.

Tom,

To my amazement, I read somewhere that Bobby Jones complained about golf courses being lush and really wet when he was playing competitively. Now just think about that. Even then, golf courses in America were soft and "holding". You know that many greenkeepers would be in trouble if their greens didn't "hold".

One of the reasons why Bobby Jones left competitive golf was because he couldn't stand how golf courses were being maintained. After he played overseas he realized that the American game was not the golf ideal that he was exposed to. I think that the ideal of ground game was actually a very short lived thing here.


Jack Vance

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2009, 12:16:20 PM »
Great subject, John! Have fond memories of playing La Hinch in a "wee zephyr". 42 on the out 9 into the wind trying to keep the ball shoulder high...36 coming in with 30 knots behind me...It was HEAVEN for a "short knocker to reach the par 5's in2. A career round, and an instant appreciation of the 'Ground Game". Only wish we had more courses like Bandon/Pacific in US!  
Regards, Jack Vance
Atlanta Area[ Duluth]

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2009, 12:17:29 PM »
I would suggest that three types of players are uniquely qualified to evaluate the ground game from tee to green:

1.  The middle-aged or older veteran male player of modest strength, the 5 to 15 handicapper who controls his ball well but incapable of the high soft shot.


I'm in.

I have also reached both the 10th and 16th greens at The Old Course with driver (no more than 250 yards) and putter - the latter to six feet.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM by Michael_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Jim Colton

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2009, 12:20:50 PM »
Also, we golfers tend to value obvious risk-reward holes as a good thing, but the subtle risk-rewards options that likely present themselves around the green or even on any shot if you take it to the next level are largely lost and not valued by most golfers.

Talking about the better golfers, I think there's the possibility of coming out the other side even better than when you started, IF you are willing to go through the pain and confusion first.  Tiger is obviously the best in the world for a lot of reasons, but one of those reasons is his ability to hit all sorts of shots and have the stones to try it when it matters most.

TEPaul

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2009, 12:21:48 PM »
JohnK:

I've got two good stories that highlight my reawakening to the ground game and how little I knew about it or used it (because I never had to and I NEVER practiced it).

The first time was in qualifying for the NGLA Singles tournament about ten years ago. I was right in the middle of the 9th fairway with 120 yards to a back pin. For me that was just a stock pitching wedge which I practiced all the time and was very sure of. But I had become so fascinated with how firm and fast throughout NGLA was (I had never seen that before in America) I told my caddy to hand me a 6 iron because I wanted to chip it along the ground because this was about the first time I thought the ground would allow it on a course I was playing on. He said: "It's just a stock PW which you know so well, and how well do you know that kind of 120 yard chip shot with a 6 iron?" I said I'd never really tried it but it couldn't be very hard and with that I tried it, hit it dead fat about half way to the green.

The other time was on the 15th hole at Royal County Down in about a 30 MPH side wind. I was about 70 yards from the flag in the middle of the fairway and I asked my caddy to give me my L wedge. He told me that wasn't a good idea because the side wind was so strong and that I should just try to run the ball along the ground to the green. I told him I could hit that 70 yard L Wedge in my sleep and that I'd just play about 10 or so yards to the right to allow for the wind. So I hit that L Wedge perfectly way up in the air about 10 yards to the right of the pin and watched the wind take it not just off the green but right into the bushes on the left. I think I heard my caddy whisper something like: "Dumb fucking Americans and their aerial game fixation."

Matt Bosela

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2009, 12:34:31 PM »
This is a great topic and one that couldn't be more timely from my perspective.

I've never played in Scotland or Ireland.  I haven't played Sand Hills or Ballyneal.  Almost all of my golf has been on parkland layouts with the odd 'links-style' course mixed in.  However, those so-called links-style courses may LOOK the part but don't play the part.  You still are practically forced to fly the ball in because the conditions are too soft for the ground game.

I had my 'ground game awakening' just five days ago when I played the new Sagebrush Golf and Sporting Club, the remarkable Rod Whitman/Richard Zokol/Armen Suny design in Quilchena in the interior of British Columbia.

A minimalist design that was based on the same playing characteristics seen at Ballyneal, Kingsbarns, Sand Hills and the like, Sagebrush embraces the ground game like no course I've ever played.  I had the extreme good fortune to play a round there with Mr. Zokol himself and the whole round was an eye opener for me - 225 yard shots played with a stinger 6-iron, meant to land about 150 yards and roll 75 more down to the green.  A 270 (!!) yard par three that can be reached with a 4-iron if you hit it up the right side and get the generous bounce and roll the hole was designed to give players.  The 413 yard par four 3rd hole that I almost reached off the tee.  The 5-iron I had to hit from 150 yards about ten feet off the ground going back into the healthy breeze.

I've never felt so exhilarated on a golf course before.  I didn't care one iota about score - I just wanted to keep trying creative shots, hitting away from the pin intentionally in order to hit the feeder slopes that would take the ball back toward its intended destination.  You literally couldn't wipe the smile off my face the whole time I was there and can't wait to experience that type of golf again.

ps: I'll be writing an extensive review/pictorial of my time at Sagebrush sometime before the end of the week.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 12:41:47 PM by Matt Bosela »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2009, 12:56:00 PM »
I would suggest that three types of players are uniquely qualified to evaluate the ground game from tee to green:

1.  The middle-aged or older veteran male player of modest strength, the 5 to 15 handicapper who controls his ball well but incapable of the high soft shot.
2.  The veteran female golfer, a greater range here, but still the 2 to 25 handicapper who controls her ball well, with limited ability to hit it high and soft.
3.  The better, stronger player with ample experience in the wind or on firm turf.

I would add two more broad categories:

4) If you're an overseas links golfer (I'm assuming on this one)

and

5) If you play a lot of (baked out) munis and mom and pop courses.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2009, 01:25:23 PM »
"Only playful scratch players, willing to forego the never ending quest for improvement to experiment or play for fun, regularly experience tee to green contouring."

Perhaps this is because today's players mistakenly learn to play the game through the air all the time. I would maintain that a mid to high handicapper should not spend an inordinate amount of time trying to learn to hit the sand and lob wedge to an unprotected pin. The amount of practice necessary to get clean contact with especially the lob wedge is beyond what recreational golfers have to time to dedicate. Then there is the matter of the differences in spin between the variety of balls a single recreational player will use that also varies the outcome. I think older players who learned to bump the ball into position, because they learned without these high lofted clubs are at an advantage. I think many of the frustrations of the recreational golfer stem from trying to play the high lofted clubs. E.g., last weekend I was paired with a couple of 40 handicappers (my estimate), of which one continued unsuccessfully to hit the lob wedge time after time. Unfortunately, watching TV they think that is the way they think the game is to be played.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2009, 04:17:20 PM »
John,

I don't know if I'm qualified to evaluate the ground game, but I sure have had to deal with it over the last two and a half months.  I think Tom hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the through the green area.  The best example of this that I can think of were the two US Opens at Pinehurst.  Specifically, the shaved off areas around the crowned putting greens.  Now, when the players ball runs off and remains on this fine cut of grass, the golf course has given him options for the next shot.  Sure, he can pop it up and on but there are severe consequences for a less than precise shot.  The ball can also safely be putted or pitched low with a 5 or 6 iron.  As Americans, we are comfortable with the wedge, and our best wedge will probably be better than our best off the green putt or run-up.

The biggest reason IMO that there is not much ground game in the US is that there is really no need for it.  Seldom do I feel that I must get the ball on the ground quickly.  Also, the consequence for failing on a short pitch is not much worse than a 20 ft putt.  Now, large elevation changes (crowned greens) and possibly bunkers change the entire complexity of the shot.  The consequence of failure may be that the ball rolls back down to your feet or a thin shot (easy to do on a tight lie)  goes over the other side.  The decent golfer IMO is not no longer stopped out at bogey. 7,8, and 9 have been brought in play.  How many of you have been on a links course near a green in regulation and made double or worse?  I'm living on what I think is the best par 3 in the world and see 7s and 8s every day.

I have been playing links golf every day on a course that has severe slopes around the greens.  Some of the crowns are shaved and some are not (making a putt or run up extremely difficult if not impossible).   In determining whether to go ground or aerial, I look what's between my ball and the hole and how much green there is to work with.  Purists, for lack of a better term, will not care for my conclusions.  Personally, I think it's just easier to hit the ball over the awkward swales and let it run out or check.  Sometimes this is not possible and a putt or pitch is absolutely optimal.

Here is an example.  For simplicity let's assume no wind and flat, extremely tight lies on hard pan and firm, fast greens.  I think most of us are familiar with the 17th at The Old Course.  Let's say the flag is cut 25 ft past the Road bunker and the players ball is 10 ft short of the bunker.  Impossible shot.  Either a miracle 60 deg or putt around the bunker.  No real options.  Now, let's say that the players ball and the flag are 20 ft right of their original position.  Now, the player has many options.  I may try to hit a spinning wedge that lands on the top of the plateau that checks and runs.  But I can also putt it up the hill or pitch it to the base and run it up.  It's an easier shot because past the bunker there is a slope that runs toward the road.  Right and left of the bunker, this slope gradually becomes flat.  The difference is options.  We just don't have many of these options in the US.  Personally, if I can take the slope out of play, I do.  But, it is only a function of how much green there is after the trouble area.  If there is little green, the wedge stays in the bag.  If a lot, I pitch it.  Why not?  Americans are just more comfortable with the wedge.

Finally, if you miss a crowned green and go into a bunker, it may be a blessing.  You now have absolutely nothing to think about regarding club and shot selection.  The only problem is whether the lie and stance are OK (which a lot of the time they are not). 

John,  I talked to Bruce at Renaissance Cup about the left greenside bunker at #9.  It has no lip and he said putting was an option he and Tom intended (same at #3). 

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2009, 04:21:54 PM »
Steve, you must be staying in Dornoch!   I don't think there is any housing anywhere near #10, so you must be up by #2. 

Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2009, 04:35:30 PM »
John, I am not sure what you mean by "qualified to evaluate the ground game," but here's my two cents.  I'm an older senior golfer playing to an 18.0 index right now.  Given the opportunity, I much prefer to play the ball along the ground from 50 yds. out or so, or further under good conditions, onto the green.  I'll even punch longer shots along the ground when I want more control.  I've got much better control over the distance and direction on low shots than high ones.  I'm also better at avoiding bunkers when I play along the ground.  I'm pretty good at evaluating my own ability to play along the ground.  Based on my experience, I've learned when and when not to try a ground game shot, based on the contours of the fairway and the green itself, as well as the firmness of the ground and length of the grass.  My weapon of choice for such shots to green is a very old forged 8 iron with a steel shaft.  I'll play it back or close the face more to lower the trajectory.  That's the only kind of shot I use this club for.  My irons for regular shots are cast with regular graphite shafts.  The ground approach also gives me another alternative, or more, and makes then game more fun for me.  There's more to think about.  I play two U.S. parkland courses regularly.  For the most part both have open fronts to the greens which look inviting to a ground shot.  However, one of the courses is so very soft (soggy, even) most of the time that a ground game won't work.  The other course is maintained firm and fast, and the ground game is a great way to play it.  On three of the par fours the greens open at an angle to the fairway and I cannot drive far enough to hit a high second shot consistently enough to put it on the green and hold it there.  On these holes my strategy is to punch a low 6 iron on the ground to a point 30 yards or so in front of the opening to the green.  Then I'll hit a low running shot onto the green with my old 8.  Assuming an unforeseen disaster has not struck somewhere along, I've usually got a good chance at a one put par and at least a boggy.  The trick on the approaches is to hit just about the right spot on the banks in front of the green to get a good bounce and then roll in the right direction.  I can't always pull it off, but it's my best scoring option.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2009, 04:45:37 PM »
Why is the myth of a ground game at Sand Hills so perpetuated?

Does that qualify me?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2009, 04:53:56 PM »
Bill,

I am staying on #2 at Dornoch.  The hole plays 167 yards.  Two very deep bunkers guard the left and right sides of the green.  If you miss left or right, at the middle of the green, the putting surface is about 9 ft above the ball, nearly vertical.  They say here that the hardest shot at Dornoch is the second at the second.  Part of what makes it so difficult is the number of options the player has.  If it was all sand, it would be far easier.  You just wedge it.

I was watching some scratch players at the Carnegie Shield last week.  One of them laid up with a wedge, then put a sand wedge in the bunker, then failed to get his first shot out of the bunker and made 6. 

It begs the question?  Is the short shot hard because there are so many options?  I think for optimal success, the player must be absolutely committed to the chosen shot, whatever it is (Rotella rant).  Tiger is quite good at this.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2009, 05:03:49 PM »
I played the course three times last summer (June 2008).  I did okay on #2, #6 and #13, but #10 ate my lunch.  The set up was brutal, very short, tight turf at the bottom of the slopes but thick rough on the slopes.  You couldn't try to finesse a putt up from the flat, but had to nip a wedge off that turf.  I made two 5s and a 6.  By contrast I parred #6 and #13 every time and made a par and two bogies at #2.

Dornoch is a great little town.  We really enjoyed staying in David Tepper's flat.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Who Among You Is Qualified To Evaulate The "Ground Game"?
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2009, 05:49:57 PM »
I have wondered why so many golfers talk about the contours, the bumps and mounds. The last time I flew the plane went through some turbulence but I never noticed the contours, the bumps or mounds – so much for my aerial game.

If you want a fast un-interesting round with not feeling or contentment of facing the hazards then I expect one reverts to this aerial Game, but being a sucker for fun and enjoyment, I love the ground game more.

I expect its not Scottish, American or Australian golf, but its what the individual golfer want and expects from his game that actually counts. I and most on my friends want a challenge, we want to have fun whilst we test our poor skill
against the hazards and design of the course. We know when we are enjoying ourselves, we don’t need artificial stimulation (i.e. booze) on the course, we get enough from our game if we are having fun.

The game starts on an old links, on a sunny but windy day and boy is the game then a foot. The fun kicks in on the 1st Tee and ends when the wife pours me into bed later the next morning.

Melvyn

PS Evaluate that.