[TEPaul]

For an interesting example of the characterstics and interrelationships of design, setup and the maintenance meld, Bay Hill this week is an interesting example.

The design style I would call sort of a transition or cross between a modern aerial game style with some classic ground game style vestiges. That to me was what Dick Wilson's style was all about (although this course has been altered to some degree).

The tournament setup this week (which has everything to do with the "maintenance meld") for Bay Hill's particular design style is very much out of whack and the players are certainly noticing it and responding to it and those responsible for the course have also admitted there are problems with the setup and maintenance meld.

What are the problems? On the back nine holes #14, 16 and 17 seem to be the most out of whack with the proper setup and "maintenance meld".

First of all it should be said that the greens have been reworked and recontoured and seem actually POTENTIALLY very interesting and demanding for the tour player both in approaching them and putting them. And it should also be said that these tour pros really are amazingly accurate and aware of what they have to do as far as their best option or design and setup demand requirements.

But take first #14. It appeared yesterday for a long par 3 there was a small area in the front of the green defined by two low ridges forming a triangle that was basically the ONLY place on the entire hole that the ball could be landed and kept anywhere near the pin. The remainder of that green either due to the green's internal contours or the green surface super firmness  was not holding the ball at all.

But the thing to notice most was the approach opening (Wilson's classic design vestige for the ground game option), although quite narrow was not bouncing and releasing and so the "bounce in" ground game option was not avaidable to the players at all. This is basically poor tournament setup and also an upside down "maintenance meld" for options and choices.

The same is true of the design of #17! The rather narrow "bounce in" approach opening option for the ground game wasn't working either. This fact combined with the super firmnesss of the green surface and the new internal green contours and the particular pin position made for what seemed like almost an impossible situation to figure out what option or shot to hit to even try to get the ball close.

And of course #16 as basically an aerial designed hole (fronted almost entirely with water and bunkering) had such a firm green surface that even well executed shots to that particular pin weren't working either. The very small bounce in area on this hole was soft and wasn't working either.

The ideal tournament setup and maintenance meld would  have been to really encourage the bounce in option by really firming the approaches if the greens were going to be that firm. Or else if the approaches were really known to be that soft the greens should have been kept more receptive to make the aerial game more effective.

I'm just using this as an example of design, setup and ideal maintenance meld! I'm not complaining about the way the course was setup exactly for the pros because although the setup and maintenance meld seems to be wrong, confusing and sort of upside down, the pros are so good they can figure out how to get around it.

The best example of how good they are was evidenced by a couple of holes, #13 was one example, and the other hole I forget where a significant upslope or ridge just behind both pins was being used by almost all the pros as the only option to spin the ball back off of towards the pin. So that shows  how precise, accurate and good these guys really are that they were all doing it.

But maybe the most telling thing about Bay Hill's design, setup and "maintenance meld" seems to me to be how almost every single pro was playing every hole in almost the exact same way or trying to.

That doesn't seem to me to be a good sign in any of those areas!

[Dan Kelly]

Tom I --

You write: "Maybe the most telling thing about Bay Hill's design, setup and 'maintenance meld' seems to me to be how almost every single pro was playing every hole in almost the exact same way or trying to. That doesn't seem to me to be a good sign in any of those areas!"

Without doubting any of your previous observations in that post -- because I think you got it all right, from what I saw on TV yesterday -- I wonder about this last one.

I agree that it's not a good sign -- but I wouldn't necessarily lay the blame on the design, setup or maintenance meld.

I think that these guys are SO USED to playing the aerial game, and so unused to encountering ground-game conditions,  that most of them would continue to fly it in even if the conditions dictated otherwise.

I'll never forget watching a bunch of groups coming up to No. 11 at Hazeltine (three-shot par-5; false-front green) at the 1991 Open. Everything was rock-hard: the fairway, the approach, the green. I don't remember exactly where the pin was (just over the middle ridge, I think), but it was clear to me that the only way to get near it was via the ground. Balls that flew to the back half of the green bounced over, into deep rough; balls that flew into the false front sucked back off the green. These guys kept watching each other bounce over or suck back off -- and they never learned the lesson! I don't think I saw a single guy get it right.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Maybe they wer all just trying to hit the middle?  

TEPaul,
Once they saw that balls hit short were stopping and balls carrying the green were bounding out, there really weren't too many choices left. Many tried shots at higher than their  normal trajectory. This seemed to work OK and I think that once the players found what worked, they mostly went that way. I don't think it's really much different anywhere on Tour or for you and I, for that matter. Once we find the best way to play a hole, we try and stick to it.
Having the perfect maintenance meld at BH would allow for more types of shots, as you say, but what other choice did they have, given the current conditions? I don't see it as "telling" us anything other than having a good meld is extremely important in all golf.
I'm happy to hear people talking about maintenance meld on TV.      

[Dan Kelly]

Jim Kennedy --

Maybe I didn't clearly make my point -- about Hazeltine '91 and Bay Hill '02:

You wrote: "Once they saw that balls hit short were stopping and balls carrying the green were bounding out, there really weren't too many choices left. Many tried shots at higher than their  normal trajectory."

My point was that there WAS -- and IS -- one other choice, which they generally don't seem to consider: a LOWER THAN NORMAL TRAJECTORY, with more club hit softer. I think that would have worked, for example, at Bay Hill 17 yesterday. It would have worked, for sure, at Hazeltine 11 in 1991.

[Mark_Fine]

I recently posted a topic called "It's all in the approach".  There are many good examples at Bay Hill this week why that statement is very true.  Firm approaches are the key to increased shot options (whether the greens are firm or soft).  If the approaches are kept soft, there are limited options into the greens regardless of their design.  

[Richard_Goodale]

My take on this is that for the pros, almost regardless of course setup, the aerial shot is the higher percentage one than the run-up.  For us hackers, the run-up is more often the higher percentage shot in these situations, but that's because we are trying to hit the green, not go for the pin.  If we want to go at the pin, we too have to try the aerial shot.  (BTW, I had more than a couple of these situations playing a firm and fast course yesterday).  Also, if we miss whatever shot we take we make bogey, or worse.  The pros get up and down, a very high percentage of the time, from wherever they happen to put their approach shot.

IMO, the only way to force the ground game is to take away the aerial game completely, and the only time I can remember this happening was at The Old course in the 2000 open, which forced Tiger to stinger-putter the course to death.  I personally found it fascinating as a study of how a great athlete can play any game he wants to, but ultimately boring in terms of the golf.  I can take just so many 60 yard putts to fast and firm greens with pin the placed where it is virtually impossible to get the ball close, no matter what sort of shot you hit.  Others probably disagree......

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Yes, that's the point--combining approach firmness with the degree of firmness of the greens to try to up potential choices even for touring pros. No matter what kind of approach firmness off the green you give touring pros if you give them soft or receptive greens too they'll use the aerial option 100% of the time. So it's not just giving them firm approaches it's giving them greens that are firm enough so they start to not trust their bread and butter aerial shot! At that very point is what I would call the "ideal maintenance meld"!

This is sort of Pete Dye's career theme which revolves around really good players like tour players. Obviously if you can do something to take away their bread and butter shot and get them thinking there really are some other options because their standard shot might not work you get them thinking about more things than they're used to and you just might get them in a quandry which is what Pete always wanted to put them in!

To say "it's all in the approach" would probably be more applicable to the everyday golfer though since these American touring pros particularly, are the world's best aerial specialists.

So it's not really "all in the approach" for them but if you give them super firm greens where they will struggle to hold the aerial ball on them even the touring pros will start to look for the approach ground option but I suppose at Bay Hill it's just not reacting the way they think it will.

Dan Kelly probably has a point that if they tried a lower trajectory it might work but I'm really not sure about even that at Bay Hill this week. If those approaches really are soft even a lower trajectory shot might not work the way they want it to or the way they think it will.

Also, it appears that although Dick Wilson may have been a bit of a classic/modern transition type designer in his basic style, it seems he was probably more aerial oriented, at Bay Hill anyway, as the approach ground options are through some fairly narrow approach front openings.

As for this "put them in a quandry" thing of Pete Dye's, that would seem to have real downside too judging from the quandry of Garcia, who must have taken about ten full minutes to decide what to do on #16 thereby stacking up at least 2-3 groups behind him.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

The idea isn't to take the aerial game away completely! The ideal idea (ideal maintenance meld) is to try to create enough of a BALANCE between the ground option and the aerial option (IN THE MIND OF THE TOURING PRO--or anyone else) that they're likely to try either at any time! That would be  increasing the options in fact, not just shifting the entire strategy from the aerial game to the ground game as TOC did!

[Peter Galea]

I worked at Bay Hill in 1979. My first golf course job. I remember the "tongues" as being meticulously groomed, like greens. The roll up on 14 seemed to be wider at the time and flanked by a number of bunkers with fingers. I rarely saw players play full bump shots into the greens, rather there were many who used putters, or players short that ran the ball up the throat. The bunkers at the time had BIG faces. How do I remember that? Each day during summer it would rain in the afternoon. I was on the bunker crew, sent out with shovels to rebuild the faces. Throwing sand each morning in the heat and humidity builds character. I think.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I know extremely well what you mean by "maintenance meld," having viewed and played--up close and personal--the good, bad and ugly of the genre at one of the finest laboratories in the world for this concept for over 20 years.  I am a strong supporter, but I'm just trying to be realistic in terms of how the pros play the game, and recognise that you will never be able to make them play the same game that we mere mortals must, due to our limitations and their tremendous skills.......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm not sure I understand your last post. I hope you don't think I mean the ideal "maintenance meld" should be synonymous with only the ground game. And I certainly wasn't intimating that the rest of us play the game like the touring pros, not at all! But basically there are only two ways to play the game--in the air or on the ground.

Touring pros will play the aerial game if it's conducive to them getting the best results and if it isn't they will play the ground game if they think that will get them the best results. All I'm talking about is creating an "ideal balance" between the ground game and the aerial game where they might tend to use both depending on which of the two they feel will result in the best result or which of the two they feel will result in worse result at any particular time.

This doesn't have to be theoretical, they can and will use both if the proper balance is there for them. Probably the best example I've seen recently for the tour pros playing many shots of both the ground game and the aerial game on a single course in a single round might be Coore and Crenshaw's Kapalua!  The golf course is designed to readily accomodate both and the setup and maintenance of the course (firmness) was there to create an "ideal maintenance meld" which is a good balance between the ground game and aerial game and the touring pros used both options throughout a round there.

That's all I'm talking about--a good balance between both so they use both---the "ideal maintenance meld'--increasing the options at any particular time!

[Lynn Shackelford]

Briefly I heard Stewart Cink on the golf channel respond to a question by Mark Lye about the firm greens.  He said he liked the idea of firm greens but felt the fairways should also be firm and at Bay Hill the rest of the course is not as firm as the greens.  He also said he was not opposed to a pull back of the golf ball.  Sometimes I think he almost "gets it!"
Tom
I agree, with most here, the players will use the aerial game only until the maintenance meld is dry and firm everywhere.  Then the best players will use the ground on occasion.  Bay Hill is in the middle at present.  Figures, Arnie understands the need for the firm greens, but doesn't understand the need for the rest of the course to "meld."

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

My basic point is that when there is the option of aerial/ground game, the best players will almost always go through the air.  The only time they will play the ground game is when it is the only real option, i.e. TOC in 2000 and Kapalua--unless you carry your 3-wood 300+yards you ain't going to be playing the aerial game on the 18th on the Plantation Course!

From your last post I'm a bit confused as to what you actually mean by "maintenance meld."  Sounds like forpalua you are referring more to what I would call "routing."  To me, the two are different.

Cheers

Rich

[JohnV]

Yesterday Arnold admitted that they had made a mistake by not rebuilding the approaches at when they did the greens and that it would be fixed by next year.   Definitely gave the players little or no options.  #17 was ridiculous and the tour staff didn't do the players any favors by tucking the hole where they did today.  When only something like 8 out of 74 pros can hit and hold the green on a par 3, there is something wrong.  If this wasn't Arnold's tournament I bet there would have been even more screaming.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I don't think you do understand what I mean by "maintenance meld" or an "ideal" one. Maybe I've just been explaining it very poorly but how you can think it's a "routing" is beyond me.

Basically, to me an "ideal maintenance meld" are those maintenance practices that make the design intent of ANY golf course function the way it's supposed to function "ideally".

Some golf courses offer designs that almost exclusively  accomodate shots through the air (onto greens for instance). Other courses are designed to accomodate shots both through the air (onto greens) and also accomodate shots that can bounce well before the greens (and filter and bounce onto the greens).

When a golf course's maintenance practices start to create a "balance" between those options and which of those basic options works the best is what I might call an "ideal maintenance meld", (and that certainly presupposes the golf course is DESIGNED for both options).

Of course I agree with you that touring pros are far more  familiar with the aerial approach onto a green because basically that's what most of the courses they play are designed to accomodate and the maintenance practices are usually there to make that option work well for them (receptive greens to the aerial approach).

But if you give them a course that has options that are designed for both the aerial or ground approach they are going to go with the one that will work best for them despite what their "bread and butter" shot is or despite the fact they play the aerial shot most of the time. To start to make the ground game option an attractive choice for a tour pro you have to start dialing down the attractiveness of the aerial approach in his mind to the extent that a "balance" between  which choice might be the best one starts to exsist for him!

You can't forget that they are very good, they do know how to control both their distance and trajectory if they HAVE TO or NEED TO  and if they feel the ground game might have a better chance of success than an aerial shot they will defintely hit the ground shot.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. You seem to be under the impression that all touring pros will hit the same shot even in conditions that might have an "ideal BALANCE" between an aerial and ground game option. I don't think so. I don't think that's giving the tour pros enough credit or even understanding that there is and always has been a spectrum of playing styles out there particularly when  you give them some BALANCED OPTIONS between the ground and the air (something they have been given far too little of BTW), which is part of my point.

If you think that Corey Pavin is inclined to hit the same shot and make the same choices as Phil Mickelson or if you think that Lee Trevino was inclined to make the same choices and hit the same shots as say Nicklaus or Watson given "balanced options" I would say you're wrong.

On a course like Kapalua the design is there and the maintenance practices were there too offer the pros holes where some might try the ground game option and some might try to fly the ball to the green. Or at the very least some holes might have been played by them mostly with the ground game options while other holes were played by them mostly with the aerial approach option. But at least the golf course did offer them both options and they used both!

That's the point of an "ideal maintenance meld" to me.

Now just imagine for a moment that hole #17 at Bay Hill was designed with some kind of reasonable ground game approach option and that option was firm enough to offer the bounce into the green (which it wasn't) and the green was slightly less firm than that one was yesterday (as JohnV mentioned less than 10 out of 73 golfers were able to hold that green through the air). Would you seriously tell me that every touring pros yesterday would still have chosen the aerial option?

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I was imprecise when I used the word "routing."  I really meant "design" in the broadest sense (including both individual shots/holes and the sequencing of each).

Are you saying that at Kapalua (which I have not played--have you?) there is/should be different maintenance practices for those holes which demand the ground game vs.those which require the aerial game?  Are you also saying that a course like Pine Valley which (you and others have told me on this forum) does not, in general, allow the "ground game" should be maintained differently than Merion, which does?  If so, how?  Should it be softer and slower or firmer and faster, or some combination of the two?

Sorry for getting into a Tom MacW rhetorical questioning mode.  It's early in the morning......

My take on all of this is that there are two issues which are being discussed.  One is "firm and fast."  We all love it here in GCA-land.  The other is "ground game/aerial game options."  We love this too.

The answer to the first one is a given.  Soft and Slow is BAD!  I know I posed a hypothetical on this several months ago, but on reflection I can't think of a situation where I (or many people on this site) would advocate mushiness on any spot on any hole on any course we know and/or love.  The answer to the second one is also a given.  Both is better than just one.

This is the rub, really, isn't it?  How can you make a course (or even a hole) that offers both options, while simultaneously being maintained "fast and firm?"  If you, or anybody, thinks you can do it at a hole like Bay Hill #17, you are pissing into the wind, IMHO.  That hole needs mushy.  Because of that, it is a less than great hole.  Or (I'm thinking on my feet again!), maybe it SHOULD be mushy.  Maybe the super at Bay Hill should be maintaining every hole differently, based on their design characteristics.  Or even different parts of different holes should be maintained differently, for the same reasons.

Wouldn't this be the ideal expression of "maintenance meld?"

Humbly

Rich

[kilfara]

All I know is that if Bay Hill is the future of PGA Tour golf, I might actually wind up watching it on a regular basis again. I get your point, Tom, about "maintenance meld", and hopefully the landing areas in front of greens will be hardened a bit for next year, but I personally have no problem in making the best players in the world play courses like Bay Hill was set up this weekend. Rather than lengthen every golf course in creation to cope with increasing length, why not just toughen up all of the greens so that lob wedges react like 8-irons, 8-irons react like 5-irons, and so on? Seems like one logical response to the distance issue, anyway.

I didn't have a problem with no. 17. First of all, what were the stats for hitting/missing the green on the first three days? If less than 10 players hit and held the green on Sunday, sounds like there could have been some poor course management at work. Given the same shot at no. 16 at Oakmont under US Open conditions, don't you think more pros would have been willing to accept a spot on the left edge of the green, rather than in a normal Tour event? (I assume that the conditions weren't much different on Sunday than they were on the first three days - I didn't watch much of the first three days.) Perhaps you could argue that the tees could have been moved forward another 10 yards, to give the players a little bit more loft into the green, but I personally don't see what's wrong in rewarding players who can hit excellent shots into the green *or* can get up-and-down from a bunker or a "miss" location of their own choosing. Basically, no. 17 was an old-style par 4-and-a-half in a par 3's clothing - pars yesterday being the effective equivalent of birdies on a medium-length par 5. (No. 14 was similar in effect, without the water and with the increased odds of finding at least the back of the green.)

As for no. 16...what a great gut-check of a modern par 5! To try and reach the green in two, you absolutely had to put the ball in the fairway. If you went for the green in two, sure, it took a perfect shot to stay on the green, but finding the back bunker gave you a perfectly reasonable chance of making birdie. If you laid up, your lay up had to be *really* good to maximize your chances of holding the approach and giving yourself a realistic birdie putt. Mickelson being panicked into going for the green in two was a great tribute to the hole, I thought. Note that no. 16 is one of many modern golf holes with no run-up avenue of approach; it was nice to see the green made firm anyway, though, and the results were what I personally would have hoped for - a very real premium was placed on both execution and strategy.

I would not advocate *any* of this for regular golf as most of us know it, but the best players in the world can and should be tested with the odd "unfair" approach (i.e. an approach shot which spoiled tour pros might whine about even if there's only a borderline case to be made), just to test their mental prowess. It certainly made for more interesting television than I've come to expect from the PGA Tour these days. The argument has been made before (not by me, mind you) that great golf courses are more likely to produce great champions; I still don't buy it, but one could certainly point to yesterday's leaderboard as evidence that a great "test of golf" (which is very different from a great course, of course) for the modern professional may produce great champions.

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

Darren:

I have no problem whatsoever with what you said about the way Bay Hill was setup for the touring pros this week. It was an intense setup that asked them all to somehow survive certain "playabilities" on holes and as always the lowest score wins regardless of what that may be.

If in fact that's what the tournament was trying to acheive (what you saw yesterday) then that became the "ideal maintenance meld" for what they wanted to do and how they wanted to test those players. What I saw was not really an example of good or even very good shots being rewarded (particularly on a hole like #17); what I saw were players figuring out the lesser of evils--the least destructive play in other words! Even really good shots like Mickelson's on #14 were not rewarded--penalized in fact.

But if that's what the tournament and its setup (maintenance meld) was trying to acheive then they accomplished that but that is not what they were trying to acheive or accomplish as the tournament host--Palmer clearly said. It is highly unlikely that the tournament wanted to create a situation where about 5 out of 73 balls held #17--and probably the same with #14 and #16. You can talk about rewarding the great shot but I saw countless shots actually played very "defensively" to the left of that pin and still not hold the green. There was absolutely no way any of those world class players could hold the green at that flag, which would have been the option for the really great shot!! But if that's what they were trying to do they did it but I really don't think that was the tournament's intention.

Dick Wilson's courses do have a few quite small ground game option approach areas that are designed to bounce the ball onto the green with what seemed like a demand for real accuracy to do it but even those were not available to the players this week becuase they were much too soft to function they way they were designed to function.

[A_Clay_Man]

I personally enjoyed seeing the BOYs act like us mere mortals. To me the perfect meld would be soft in some spots hard in others. Now the strategy behind which is where is something that could take years to figure out.

With all the talk of changing or holding back techno improvements. I think it was refreshing seeing only nine guys hit the green on 17. It shows that the techno revolution aint caca if the challenge (not distance) is increased.

[Rick Shefchik]

Shivas,

Good point about the Bay Hill leaderboard. Unlike turkey-shoots like the Hope and Las Vegas, Bay Hill presented the year's best field to date with a strategy problem that could only be solved with supreme skill and patience -- and the leaderboard reflected that.

I tend to agree with Darren that it's fun to watch the pros try to work through a problem like this: rock hard greens, soft approach areas and tucked pins. The evidence would suggest that Tiger's the only guy who really figured it out -- or had the game to execute it. But he also won because he stopped hitting his tee shots into the trees on the back nine Sunday, while Mickelson began doing that at about the same time.

In any even, Palmer clearly has no appetite for repeating what a lot of us thought was an entertaining setup. In his interview with Jimmy Roberts, he appologized to the pros for the softness of the approach areas. That was disappointing. I'm not saying all courses should be set up the way Bay Hill was this week -- and I'm definitely not saying I could handle it, or enjoy it all that much -- but there's so much sameness from week to week on the PGA tour, and Arnie finally gave the pros something to think about. I wish he'd done it on purpose.  

[Dan Kelly]

I'm with Darren on this one. I LOVED the way Bay Hill 17 played yesterday. 16, too. (Can't say anything about 14, because I didn't catch any of the play on the earlier holes -- though I do have it on tape, should a couple free hours emerge.)

Who cares if only a handful of players were able to put it on the 17th green? Is that evidence of improper setup? NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Someone, please tell Arnie not to listen to the bellyachers! Firm up the approaches -- but don't soften the greens!

The handful of players who put their tee shots on the 17th green proved that it WAS POSSIBLE to put the ball on the green ... and that's enough evidence for me to say that the setup was acceptable.

Someone, tell me: Why is it a bad thing that, to get near that pin yesterday, one would have had to flirt very closely (within a couple of feet, I suppose) with the water and/or the bunker? Isn't that exactly what golf design is all about? Offering rewards commensurate with risks (and  commensurate with the players' ability)? Offering penalties commensurate with the failure of one's execution or one's nerve? (SPECULATION: All of those who ended up in that back-left bunker -- and on top of the back-left grandstand! -- finished there because they took enough club to get to the hole if they had hit the fades they wanted to hit... but they didn't have the cojones, or whatever it takes, to carry through with those fades, knowing that any over-fade would be wet and severely penalized. So they ended up in the bunker -- which is exactly where they should be, for their failure to resist the temptation to bail out.)

Yes, the 17th was difficult, but not even close to unplayable! Len Mattiace, for example, hit a fine high faded (I think) tee shot that DIDN'T flirt with the water and/or the bunker, and it filtered right back to the rear-right fringe for a putt. Beautiful!

The other way the pros could have played the hole, of course (and put it on the green, in the process), is the way you and I would likely play it if we were playing prudently: Forget about the pin; take enough club to put the tee shot on the front left, but not enough club to reach the back bunker; aim center-left, and make sure not to block it right. Take a two-putt par, and walk to 18.

Why not ask the pros to think that way once in a while, between US Opens?

Is it necessary that the pros be able to put it CLOSE to every hole without taking a substantial risk? I don't think it should be -- and I, like Darren, would watch a good deal more PGA Tour golf if more of the courses were set up Bay Hill-tough.

(Modified, because I forgot the ending I'd planned:

In the immortal words of CuriousJJ: Bring It On Bitch!)

[Matt Kardash]

i just think it's funny that you didn't hear much criticism about some of those greens. We all know it's becuase it's Arnie's tournament and adopted golf course. I mean Pete Dye has had to eat a lot more for far more fair golf courses and conditions. If  that was Pete's course everyone and their grandmother would have said the course was unfair and is typical dye. Haha i was proud of Johnny Miller for a least acknowledging that 17 was totally over the top. There was no possible way to hit 17. I think even if the fairway was firm in front you'd still have to land it 20 yards short. I like to see the pro's punished more than anyone becuase i do think the courses they play are way to easy, but one has to wonder if only 9 professional golfers in the field are able to hit a huge green.heeh they probbaly should have layed up on 17, they might have had a better chance.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You're asking the right questions anyway. Like many people you seem to be looking at ground game/aerial game options in very much of an "either/or" situation! That's not the way to look at it, in my opinion! You have to look at them in a "both" situation!

You use TOC as an example of the fact that the pros won't even consider the ground game option UNLESS the aerial game option DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL! That's not the way to look at it and that's not the way to set the course up either. That's not the "ideal maintenance meld". That's not increasing options and offering players both options, that's taking one away from them so they only will or can play the other!

The "ideal maintenance meld" for a course like TOC is to set it up so that both options exist--so that both options are functional, so the players have a choice.

But once again, as you say, the tour pros tend to play the aerial game far more than the ground game today. Some say they even rely on it and that may be true, but one should follow up that apparent fact by asking why they rely on the aerial game option?  

Do they rely on it only because that's the only shot they feel comfortable hitting or or can hit, or would it have something to do with the way courses are generally designed and set up for them? Of course it would have to do with the way courses are designed and set up for them--and that would clearly include the modern age aerial game oriented design style that effectively does not offer the ground game option much design-wise in its architecture!

Even courses that have the ground game option architecturally either don't maintain it to function as it should (firm and fast) or the aerial game option is the far more reasonable option for them only because it does function so effectively for them due to the extremely receptive greens to the aerial shot!

So you have to figure out a way of inducing them to consider the ground game option without taking the aerial game option away from them completely! How can you do that? By firming up the greens to the correct extent that there will be a question in their minds how effectively the aerial option will work for them--but only a question in their minds! Again you don't want to remove the aerial option from their consideration completely by making it impossible or undoable!

They know if the ground approach option is maintained firm and fast (as it should be) that they MIGHT be able to bounce the ball into the green if they chose that option and hit the correct trajectory shot to the correct spot that bounces and rolls to the green or pin! They also know that if they hit a great aerial shot with all the requiste spin, trajectory, accuracy and distance control (basically the definition of a great shot) that that MIGHT work too!!

So on courses that have ground and aerial game options archtiecturally you're creating a situation where there is a "balance" or some kind of equilibrium in their minds AS TO WHAT THE BEST SHOT IS, the one most likely to succeed or the most unlikely to fail. If you can do that you're creating a bit of a quandry as to which to choose, don't you think?

So please don't just come back and tell me that they'll choose the aerial game option every time, because that clearly shows you're not understanding this reasonable explanation of balance or you're not appreciating what I really mean when I say it's a "balance" where THEY really DON"T KNOW which will succeed best despite the fact they may be aerial game reliant specialists!! That particular "balance" I would call the "ideal maintenance meld" because the choice of which option to select is not clear to the player. This is simply increasing reasonable and functional options--always a good thing in design and maintenace, I think!

As for Pine Valley and Merion, each course actually has about an equal distribution of design that includes both aerial and ground game options and aerial and ground game demands! And where the ground game option does not exist on either course is very interesting to consider and discuss as both courses are quite similar in this respect!

But the point is that where the ground game option exists architecturally it should function as it was intended to (firm and fast) and where they exist together (the aerial option is everywhere obviously) the aerial option and the firmness of the green should be such that the aerial option might NOT be selected automatically!

So it's not a question of "mushy" greens vs firm approaches or vice versa; it's a question of the firmness of the greens RELATIVE to the firmness of the approaches (always depending on the design style of a course) to create a "balance" in the mind of the player about which option to select.

You also asked if this means that green surfaces would have to maintained inconsistently from hole to hole (different degrees of firmness) depending on the type of hole.

NEVER! That is only design, not maintenance, and only involves the type of shot the hole is designed to accomodate or demand. Holes with no ground game option are generally the shorter holes requiring the higher lofted club, in other words--at least on most classically designed courses.  

Back to Bay Hill. That seems to be a DESIGN STYLE that relies more on the aerial option and only somewhat on the ground game option. Clearly what ground game option there is there was not maintained this week to function properly! That only left the players with the aerial game option and that wasn't functioning properly either--or at least not the way the pros are accustomed to it functioning.

But again, as Darren alluded to, if the tournament wanted to create a setup or "maintenance meld" (that I thought was anything but ideal) that had low options and incredibly intense shot values for the only reasonable option that was left, then that's just what they got!

I agree with Darren to a degree--I really don't care what those players shoot because ultimately the best player will probably win since the best is generally not only the best executor of shots but also the toughest mentally. If that's what the tournament, public and players wanted then fine by me.

I can empathize with the players too though when they give the only option available to them their best shot and still get screwed. Then things might just start to boil down to luck.

Maybe even that's not so bad because it's pretty clear that Tiger Woods is not only the best golfer in the world but he's also the luckiest---for some reason!?!

[TEPaul]

I'm not too sure exactly how much I would agree with you guys who liked what you saw yesterday on #17 Bay Hill. That hole clearly took the heroic really well executed shot's "reward" away from those players yesterday as it was impossible to get a ball near the pin! I don't think I would disagree with you much either though.

You're actually in great company with none other than Pete Dye. Pete obviously just lived to design stuff that would frustrate and confuse those guys!

When you consider the tour pros GIR average is probably well over 50% and the average GIR yesterday on that hole was about 6-7% then I guess Pete is probably at his drawing board right now figuring how he can design some of that 6-7% Tour pro GIR stuff!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Hmmm...I wonder...do ya think they could have held a few more of those greens if they were playing a 90 compression balata? Say what you want about the modern ball, but a top rock with a soft cover just aint the same. And BTW, if 14 was so hard, how did Mattice hit it to 10 feet? Seems he might have taken a little more club and hit it a little lower, thus less spin, and bounced it on to the green. I loved it, Tiger won because he played smart and didn't mess with pins that were impossible, while everyone else kept trying to hit the impossible shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()