[Phil_the_Author]

As today's game has evolved into becoming one played almost entirely through the air how, as a modern architect, does one design the ground game back in? How can you create holes where using the ground becomes an actual, realistic option that not only can, but will be chosen by the smart, modern player?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Philip

Unless you can control the weather (wind) then alas the only design options must be with the R&A to control technology for the good of the game. I suppose that starts with the humble golf ball and then reaches out to the modern golf clubs.

The ground game is becoming a lost art, the younger professionals seem to have forgotten this part of the game as so well displayed the year before last at The Open by Greg Norman mastering the weather conditions.

The Ground Game is still alive in GB&I although you may have to look hard for it. The secret is to work with the weather and enjoy the gusting wind conditions we experience at many of our Links courses.

Good luck but like the ‘Holy Grail’ I fear that unless you get some help from upon high (no, not that high, I mean the R&A), your search will be found to be fruitless.

Although I for one hope you find a way

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Philip

Good Topic but it seems that many do not understand the enjoyment or skill of the ground game preferring to just hit hell out of their ball from the tee as perhaps being seen as the manly thing to do when playing golf.

One day some will learn that golf is not about brute force and energy although perhaps not, as on a windy day when their scrotum gets blown up into their face obscuring the course ahead, but that's the penalty of walking around with a dick for brains.

Alternatively and I expect most probable its because I have venture a comment, if that is the case then I am sorry to have stopped your tread before it could get started.

Melvyn

[Rob Bice]

I think you bring up a great question and would appreciate hearing responses that address it from the perspective of architecture.  It seems that the more modern courses (especially in the US) largely defend themselves at the green.  This defense is commonly through elevation, excessive bunkering, water hazards, etc.  Maybe this is because a lot of courses are built in areas that don't typically have natural variables (wind and rain) and the architect believes he must explicitly create the challenge for the approach shot.  Maybe it has to do with cost.  Is it cheaper to build a bunker than to build and maintain a complicated green complex with significant undulation - one that might warrant more of a ground game?  Maybe courses are still being built with the ground game in mind but the option doesn't enter our thought process.

[Terry Lavin]

It seems to me that golf course architecture here in the States is in the process of a decided pendulum shift toward accenting the ground game.  To me, that's a good thing because forced carries, whether over bunkers or water hazards are not only somewhat monotonous, they're unduly punitive.  The ground game allows/compels a player to develop different shots with different lofts and varying technique.  That's fun.

[Brent Hutto]

The architecture pendulum can swing any way it wants but all that really matters is how firm the putting surface and the 20-30 yards of turf in front of it are maintained. I don't travel around a whole lot but as yet have failed to note any swing away from having approach aprons that squish when I walk on them.

[Bill_Yates]

Brent, I agree completely.  I think it's more about moisture in the approach areas than design. 

Many U.S. courses have openings to the greens and have approach areas that would allow for, or even encourage, a run-up shot.  The problem is that the minute a player trys it and the ball gets stuck short and doesn't bounce forward, that will be the last ground game attempt anyone in the foursome will make.  The bottom line is that few courses are firm enough, that close to the green, to allow us to play running shots, even when the design allows it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When they advertise golf balls that "fly lower!" and "spin less!" I think the ground game will come back in vogue.

Rob and Terry,

I would challenge the notion of elevated greens surrounded by bunkers being the "norm" of golf courses in the last 30 years of gca in the USA.   I tend to notice such things when I play, and frankly, while those things may have been typical of RTJ in the 50-60's, they are far from typical from all other gca's, including all the mom and pop courses out there.  I am just not sure that is a valid stereotype and would love to have some golf oriented grad student quantify that kind of thing so we know for sure......

I do agree its the wetness in the approach area. I wrote a column on that in GCI, about how all the part to part sprinklers inadvertantly cause excess moisture in the approach. It seems that most irrigation consultants and then supers tend to set them at perfect 90 degree angles, thus giving not just two sprinklers covering the approach, but four, and all of them with a little extra stop time where then reverse direction, resulting in a wet area in front of the green.  I think gca's could also help by directing more surface drainage off the sides of the green, rather than out the front.  At least, I notice a difference in my courses where there is a lot of water draining out the front......

[Terry Lavin]

When they advertise golf balls that "fly lower!" and "spin less!" I think the ground game will come back in vogue.

Rob and Terry,

I would challenge the notion of elevated greens surrounded by bunkers being the "norm" of golf courses in the last 30 years of gca in the USA.   I tend to notice such things when I play, and frankly, while those things may have been typical of RTJ in the 50-60's, they are far from typical from all other gca's, including all the mom and pop courses out there.  I am just not sure that is a valid stereotype and would love to have some golf oriented grad student quantify that kind of thing so we know for sure......

I do agree its the wetness in the approach area. I wrote a column on that in GCI, about how all the part to part sprinklers inadvertantly cause excess moisture in the approach. It seems that most irrigation consultants and then supers tend to set them at perfect 90 degree angles, thus giving not just two sprinklers covering the approach, but four, and all of them with a little extra stop time where then reverse direction, resulting in a wet area in front of the green.  I think gca's could also help by directing more surface drainage off the sides of the green, rather than out the front.  At least, I notice a difference in my courses where there is a lot of water draining out the front......

Jeff,

If you remove misstatement and overstatement from my repertoire, I'm done.

[Rick Shefchik]

Even a few feet of elevation from the fairway to the green can discourage certain types of ground shots. At my home course (the first nine holes were opened in 1924, the other nine in 1959), there are a number of push-up greens that are open in front but reject any shot that lands a couple of feet short -- but will accept shots that come in low and hot, bouncing along from farther out, even when the course is wet.

Of course, those are the kind of ground shots that are hardest to judge, but most fun to play if you manage to pull them off. And you can play shots like that with high-flying, high-spin balls. The most important element of the ground game is to keep the fronts of the green open.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick,

that is a great observation.  I have seen seniors have trouble getting their hybrid or 3 wood shots up a slope of even 10%, because they lack the velocity to do so at the end of their 170 yard journey, while a cold top runs right up almost any slope!  At the same time, a short iron for a good player will also stop on almost any upslope it lands just short of the green.

In a way, a slightly elevated green with a frontal upslope DOES encourage the ground game, if there is a fw opening.  At the least, a frontal slope is as good a hazard as a bunker in protecting the green front, and a lot less penal.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Rob

Penal is the movement to get the ground game working IMHO. Hazards that force the player to shorten his Tees shots for fear of a penal trap (exit is only viable via the rear unless you feel your skill is up to it). These traps also need to be pepper across the fairway, not just on the edge of the fairway/rough. 

We need to kick start the thought process in the golfers, proving the long shots are not the option unless the top skill levels are there, then it still must only be 50/50 viable. Golf is a test, its not meant to be easy, playing a more natural course without man made structures to shape the course may also help, after all its was once all about playing over the natural untouched land using your skill and eye to navigate through all the obstacles, sometimes when I see a super manicured course it appears that we have forgotten the true roots of the game.

However a golf course today is no longer that long term venture which is invested in the local people, its all about flash and fast, fiscal, financial returns for the clients. The golfers in the end get what they deserve - an expensive burden hanging over the community which will find it hard to achieve a break even let alone see a profit.

Fun, exciting courses attract other to come and play, they encourage the local community to participate, but if all the average guys see are the long hitters with low scores you will scare them and their families away. A Challenging or penal course for the average player is not a problem, it should only affect the better player who if good and loves the game for its challenges and skill will also utilise the course. Thus allowing a good mix in the club house after a round, which I feel is also essential for a successful course and club.

Anyway the ground game is great fun and if playing our links you will have to get use to it – God help some of you when you play Askernish and the Atlantic is throwing ups some wind. You will start on the First 9 at Askernish then some how you may find yourself playing the back 9 on the Machrie course on Islay

The ground game can make a great game and may allow a less skilled player to push a good player who does not know his ground game that well. 

Melvyn

[Tim Nugent]

The ground game fell victim to automatic irrigation on clay-loam soils, balls and clubs that went farther - allowing for higher trajectory approaches and an apparent dislike for the rub of the green.  The aerial "Drop and Stop" game is more predicable.  The fixation on longer and loner courses could be said to be an attempt to retain the ground game/ bump and run but there is just too much headwind.  Also, golfers have become "entitled".  They feel entitled to have a ball hit in the fairway, stay in the fairway, hit on the green, stay on the green, and have a level lie in the fairway (especially in the Landing Area).

Of course, now we are seeing double and triple sprinklers around the greens to attempt to get drier/firmer appraoches but @ $1,000/head and an average of 5/green, that's an additional $90k for doubles and $36k more for triples on the approaches.  Plus add in sand topdressing approaches and you can effectively double your TD budget.

In the end, it all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.  Another factor is the tighter greens cut.  The bump and run on some courses with flatter greens and side break-offs won't hold enough shots to make it a viable option - especially for the average player.  So, are you going to spend a lot of money on a romantic notion of yester-year?  It will be interesting to see how many put this in practice at the Midwest Mashie.  Afterall, if you don't do it at a course not only setup for it but also built upon the perfect material for it, being played by some of the most idiolistic players on the planet....is there really any hope?

[Sean_A]

The question shouldn't be either a ground game or an aerial game, but a combination of both as options depending on well the previous shot was placed.  

There is still far too small a percentage of courses that really rely on angles because courses are often too narrow to allow the concept to properly shine.  It is a true rarity when I see width, angles, recovery in combo with f&f conditions.  Its often spoken of lovingly on this site, but it is nonetheless a rare siting.    

Ciao

[Mike Policano]

Phil,

Take a trip out to Ballyneal and you will see a modern course that screams out "ground game".

One can bump and run and putt from the fairway on holes 1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,16,17 and 18. As a result, it is great to play hickories at BN because the turf is so hard and firm the ball will run forever. Given the often windy conditions and with not one tree on the property, you can hit the ball on the ground all day long.

Cheers, Mike

[Rob Bice]

Jeff-
You might be correct, my premise might be flawed but I can only go with what I have seen and I would probably include RTJ's courses from the 50's and 60's in my observations.  Almost all of the Nicklaus designed courses that I have played (and can remember) fall into this category as well.  The comments about the sponginess in front of greens is a good one.  This is probably the result of another trend where the color green is king.  Anything remotely brown is considered burned out.  Or many courses now use different grass types for green complexes and run up areas versus the fairways.  While fairways might be fast and firm the greens and run-up areas tend to be over-watered so they are green.
Regards,
Rob

[Mark McKeever]

I have to agree that having firm greens is a great way of forcing people to use run up shots.  If you have firm greens and a good breeze, you almost have to hit something low and on the ground to hold the green.

Mark

[Mike Nuzzo]

"Rarely have I seen a golf course that offers such a wide range of options on every shot, and, in particular, never outside the UK have I seen a course that is so attuned to the running approach. You could approach Wolf Point with a modern, aerial game strategy, but to do so would demand incredible precision and control – and, at least as far as I’m concerned, remove much of the fun."

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Wolf-Point-Club/1465/Default.aspx

[Niall C]

When they advertise golf balls that "fly lower!" and "spin less!" I think the ground game will come back in vogue.

Astute observation. Have you ever tried to buy a fairway wood that doesn't have a high launch angle ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

If you have a windy locale (Texas, Scotland, Bandon, coastal), you've got a chance.

If you have a superintendent who understands firm and fast, you've got an even better chance.

Without one or the other, it's pretty difficult.  I've tried many things over the years, including fallaway greens, or severe contours inside the green (where the player is afraid his 9-iron will land on a downslope and get away from him).  But if it's overwatered, it will still reward the player who just lands his ball near the flag, because the bad bounce won't be much of a bounce at all.  The only way to reward a running shot is to sometimes have conditions where there is NO WAY an aerial shot will stop close to the hole ... and that's exactly when good players scream that the hole is UNFAIR.

The Old course at Stonewall has some approaches that are built on downslopes and sideslopes.  I like that because the player has to decide what he's trying to do ... if he is trying to fly it to the green he has to aim for the flag, but if he wants to bounce it in he has to aim on the high side of the approach.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Maybe Watson's 9 iron skittering over the green will help restore the ground option as safer!

Those fall away greens are an interesting study.  I have tried them, but if the approach shot is short enough, most players still prefer to hit an even higher spin wedge to hold the reverse slope.  That leaves a long par 4 or reachable par 5 as the best candidate for a reverse slope green to be used in figuring how to roll one on, which might work out okay if the average guy was hitting a short enough iron for a third shot.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

How can a hole in golf be called unfair. what sort of golfers are we producing today, does it always have to be easy so they do not go running of home to Mum crying they made me lose, the course is unfair because I do not have the balls or is it the skill to play it.

Unfair, what's unfair is that golf is being ruined because of these Mummy’s Boys. Or Tom am I being unfair?

Melvyn

[Bill_Yates]

"The left half of the green is a lower plateau. The
left side can be attacked directly or the green
contours used to feed a right-to-left ball from the
centre down toward left side pins. Although the
fronting bunker is detached from the green, a
running shot is more advisable for right side pins.
There is ample fairway to support this tactic"

Describing how to play the Par 3 eighth hole, as taken from the Kingsbarns website.

One of the best shots I ever played was a "chip shot" off of the eighth tee to a right front hole location on the eighth hole at Kingsbarns.  Watching it roll down the grade and then onto the green was more thrilling than making the putt that gave me a birdie.

No question about it, playing the ground game at the right time on turf that is properly prepared to accomodate that game to me is "pure golf" and therefore, pure enjoyment. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

I have tried them, but if the approach shot is short enough, most players still prefer to hit an even higher spin wedge to hold the reverse slope. 

Isn't that penalty enough?
Hitting it harder, to impart higher spin, adds error.
Yes they will usually hit it close - but now with greater risk - having to hit it even more precisely.
The short knocker, chop, who bunts one, can get it just as close.

Which is what Tom says the better player complains most loudly about...

[Carl Rogers]

Does grass variety and sub-soil composition count in the ability have a good ground game?  How much sand?

The 3 rounds at Beechtree (RIP NLE) were the firmest and fastest course I ever played.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()