[APBernstein]

Shivas:

Great point.  I hadn't actually thought about it on that level.  I guess when I think strategy, I relate it to how I play a hole and how those of relatively the same ability plot their course.

The only exception I want to make is that why they are so many times better or more accurate, it is still the same game.  I realize we have had this discussion before, but I can't stress my view-point on it enough.

I like the example given earlier in this thread about Peter Lonard's shot to the 18th at Doral on Sunday.  What a beauty.  The funny thing is, that given the same circumstances, I would have hit the same exact shot.  A big, looping draw that works its way closer to the hole.  You are right about watching the strategy come out when the professionals are in trouble.  I think it is a mix between that and resourcefullness, something I pride myself on in my game.  I hit it in the trees enough to have that huge punch hook down perfect.

Throughout that whole grouping of random thoughts, I had hoped to make a point.  I'm not sure if I succeeded, but I will try to summarize.

There are different strategies for the pro game is there is between 30 and 5 handicappers.  It may not be what "I" call strategy, because I rarely have to think along those lines.  I also never have to think how I am going to carry a bunker 150 yards from the tee of a par 4, but then again, some do.  I guess, to all his own?  Maybe.

[Richard_Goodale]

Jim K

I shouldn't really speak for my golfing buddies, but I have never played with any golfer who doesn't have a bit of "hit and hope" in his or her game.  The hopes of the better ones--or even us lesser mortals, when we are on our games --tend to be more often fulfilled.  That is all.

Mike O'N

I think it was before square grooves (even those questionable ones Watson used in the early 80's!).

All

The more I think about this issue, I think we are really talking about tactics rather than strategy.  And, in the heat of battle, it is important to be flexible in your tactics (i.e. if you bring a big sweeping hook to the course on the day, don't try to fight it).  And, this flexibility is far more important to moderately low handicap players who have a much more deadly mixture of potential and inconsistency than do the Wee Brian's or Tiger's of the world.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy Glenn:

You've got a good post there from March 3, particularly the last paragraph or two.

I couldn't agree more that the firmness of the ground can really dictate strategic considerations for these touring pros. I certainly have seen that on some of the Australian courses I've seen them play in the last few years and it seemed to be the major consideration when Woods won at TOC. Even Tiger who I believe won by a dozen said he was always thinking about where to miss his shots--he mentioned generally miss it long--on the approaches!

Andrew (and some of the others) have good points when they wonder what the strategic considerations really are for these touring pros today. Because they can hit their approaches so high today putting things like fronting bunkers on greens really doesn't seem to concern them much as to the angle they come in from. So we wonder what they think about when it comes to strategy.

I think what they think about is trajectory more than anything, when it comes to strategy. So in that way it's probably not angle of approach which it might be to most of us but how far they need to hit their drives to set up the kind of club selection they want for the trajectory of approach they want.

You don't hear them talk about it much any more but most of those pros must have preplanned game plans (strategies) and they probably don't vary from them much unless there's some dramatic change in the elements or something!

Tom Doak has also mentioned that the tour pros are too conservative! I'm not really sure why he said that. I'm not real certain why he thinks they need to be more aggressive. To me certainly with par 5s they are plenty aggressive but that could certainly be a function of something quite simple like bunkering is anything but penal on most courses they play today. He might be mistaking what he thinks of as aggressive with what they think of as extremely high risk shots that are unnecessary as it seems these pros are concerned  (for probably a good 63 holes of a tournament) with just avoiding mistakes!

This is obviously why we hear them talk about "patience" all the time today! They seem to mention that and their single goal of "putting themselves in position to win"! Presumably this means within a few shots of the lead with about nine holes remaining in the tournament!

But another application of strategy for the tour pros today might be like something we all saw at the Masters about 5-6 years ago! The greens were unusually firm that year and most of them seemed incapable of holding the ball on a lot of those greens! I thought it odd that after a while they weren't even appearing particularly concerned about it! So the whole idea for them "strategically" had probably gotten down to not just the perfect shot(s) but very much where to miss the shot, which to our way of looking at them, they seemed to be doing a lot of in that tournament--because the greens were so firm!

But I agree with you Jeremy, that if they really firmed things up with the Tour pros, particularly the greens we probably would see a lot more strategy out of them.

Another thing about the tour pros today is most all of them pretty much hit the ball the same way these days. Some a little longer than others but they seem to pretty much hit it the same way--some might favor a bit of a draw or a fade but I don't seen anyone out there today like a Corey Pavin--or even a Lee Trevino--those guys had some very different shots and some different strategies too--I think!

[Mike O'Neill]

shivas is correct. In the same way that a major league pitcher hits the corner of the plate (while confronting a big league hitter) compared to the throw and hope of the little leaguer, the pros incorporate a different level of strategy. Plus, they are always strategizing about how to go low to stay in the hunt. It isn't as simple as hitting it down the middle and calling a two putt good. They really do have to be on the low side of the hole on the right side of the break, etc, etc. if they are going to be in a position to win. No?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Andrew, Jeremy,

Who, when playing for incredible sums of money,
is going to risk the vicissitudes of the random bounce,
to the certainty of the aerial shot.

Precision is better served off the ground.

The Touring Pros incorporate strategy in their games,
it's just on another plane from the rest of the golfing world.

[Bill_Spellman]

Strategy is there in the tour pro's game, only different from ours.
T.E. Paul- absolutely right! After hanging around GCA, I have realized the importance of firm and fast. That is the only thing that seems to force them to alter the aerial game.

If our military had to find a way to shoot missles and artillery shels along the ground to stop and explode at a certain location, look at the difficulty presented. I know this might be an extreme example, but the point is made. The aerial game is the culprit. It is much harder to hit a shot high from hard fairways. Give them firm/fast conditions with "flyer high" rough and listen to the squealing.  

[TEPaul]

Pat and Bill Spellman:

I don't think it's really a question of the vicissitudes of random bounces on the ground vs the precision of the aerial game we're talking about here that can dictate increased strategies for the touring pro. At the moment that surely is the precision they enjoy with the aerial game.

The point here is if you start removing some of that precision they enjoy with the aerial game they're going to start looking for other alternatives, other choices and other strategies to some degree. And the way to start removing the precision they enjoy with the aerial game is to start firming things up both "through the green" and particularly "on the green"!

This to me is again the ideal "maintenance meld" that plays into the design intents of various architecture! The idea is to offer even touring pros the options of choosing either the aerial or ground game options by creating a maintenance or course set-up that does not seem to favor one over the other! In other words if both choices (aerial and ground options) are there in apparently equal and in doable degrees you should see them grapple with some interesting and anything but clear-cut choices and strategies!

In this way some interesting strategies can be increased, possibly even doubled, as you see them looking for ways to  be both aggressive and also to avoid mistakes! If the precision of the aerial game is not there as much as it has been they will very readily pick up on reasonable alternatives and that would be the ground game and bounce and roll to control distance!

[Bill_Spellman]

T.E. Paul
My memory fogs thinking about Huntington Valley- Is this an ideal course fitting the description of aerial and ground games giving players options? It has been a while since I was there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the firmer you make the greens, the more the aerial game comes into play.

Who is going to risk the luck of the random bounces to an aerial shot with about 1500 rpms on the ball

I think you're all deluding yourselves on the viability of the ground game  

Even ANGC, when it's fast and firm will be played in the air rather than on the ground by the best players in the world.

But, that's just my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Bill Spellman:

Yes, I would say that Huntingdon Valley in ideal "maintenance meld" is very much the way I would describe a condition that sort of equalizes even a very good player's choices of playing the ground game or the aerial game (onto the green surface).

Pat:

How can I be deluding myself when I have seen the aerial game equalized with the viabliltiy of the ground game? Haven't you noticed some of those recent tournaments in Australia, at TOC, and probably that Masters a few years ago? I don't care how many rpms you think those aerial shots are spinning, it they aren't going to hold a green the way those pros are used to greens holding the ball they are going to start looking for another alternative and obviously the only other possible one is to bounce the ball in!

Just imagine the way Seminole's greens have been this fall and winter and how that could put some serious pressure on touring pros to hold those greens the way they're used to and want to! Enough pressure in my opinion where some of the time they are going to be looking for other choices like bouncing the ball in!

Really firm greens, as I'm envisioning them, are a delicate balancing act for sure, I realize. I can see very firm greens dictacting strategies all the way back to tees for sure too, making those guys take greater chances with distance off the tees to get a much shorter club in their hands to try as best they can to spin it. But they would realize in some cases that may not even be the thing to do!

I'm just talking trying to equalize the "playability" of the air versus the ground to get those guys to not automatically go with one or the other, but really weigh all their options. But if you think the high traj/high rpm shots of the pros are going to stop as intended on each and every green regardless of its firmness you just could not have been watching some tournments in the last few years.

Even Southern Hills was interesting in this way. The pros using the aerial shots into some of those green were having to hit the absolute correct contour on the those greens or even the high rpm spinning aerial shots were getting over those greens and in trouble!

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about! Take the automatic green holding aerial shot away from them to some degree (enough to make them consider the bounce and roll ground approach) and you're going to start to have something very interesting strategically!!

[Bill_Spellman]

There are two ways to stop a ball on firmer greens.
1. Height which usually comes in with less spin

2. With spin which usually comes in with less height.

Most of the "spinningiest shots" hit are on a line versus an arc as you would invision it. This can be a difficult choice evidenced by Wood's efforts to learn to hit short iron shots that won't come back at him aka: the 17th at Vallderama in the Ryder Cup a few years ago. If that isn't a strategic decision, I don't know of any.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Hard greens encircled with bunkers will never encourage anything but an aerial game.  In addition, you can't have hard, fast and firm greens and softer approaches and fairways,
so the dilema is twofold, one a design element the other a maintainance element.

Even if you altered the maintainance element such that the course was conducive to a ground game, without a reconfiguration or redesign of the bunkers, Tour Players aren't going to go to the ground, there is too much uncertainty.

Lastly, many foreign courses, like those in Scotland, England and Ireland are hard by the sea, and benefit from strong winds, which can hamper the aerial game.  Few locations on the Pro Tour equal those.

A perfect example is Doral, which is fortunate enough to enjoy some pretty brisk winds, but.... just look at the Ray Floyd redesign of Wilson's work and ask yourself, from a design and conditioning perspective, if you could ever play a ground game on that golf course ?

Now, Newport, one of my all time favorites, is a perfect blend of both games.

But, what golf course today, is going to cease utilizing their fairway irrigation system for starters ?

Perhaps, and I'm hoping to get up some Aerials, this group should study, and the rest of the golf world should give more credit and respect to Newport.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill Spellman,
....although in Tiger's case the trajectory is as high for either shot but the one with less spin is "cut-off" whereas the one with more spin uses full hands through impact.

[SPDB]

Pat - i agree with you. newport is the single closest course we have to the linkslands of scot/ire. i would have to like to have been interested in this topic when the amateur took place there. does anybody remember if this aerial/ground mix affected the players shots/routes of play?

i haven't played it since highschool, when it was our home course, but i do remember having to be fairly creative with shots.

Perhaps a better tournament to look at, since people seem to be worried about the length possessed by the next generation, would be the Adams Cup collegiate tourney that is played at Newport (and Pt. Judith).

coincidentally, Golfweek wrote an article about Newport, and Ron Forse's "restoration" of the place, since it has moved up so strongly in the rankings this year. I, for one, am very pleased to see this move.

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2002/features/architecture/26754.asp

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I respectfully am going to have to disagree with your assessment in your last post!

When one considers the ideal "maintenance meld" for a golf course one should consider how the course was designed for the maintenance conditions of both the ground and aerial game at the time the golf course was designed!

In this way a particular "maintenance meld" should conform to the type of design the course has, and naturally would definitely not be the same for every type of course and every type of design and architecture.

That is basically my point by coming up with a phrase  like "maintenance meld" in the first place. The primary purpose of the phrase is to make a distinction between the type of design intent a golf course has and what kind of maintenance practices it would take to maximize all the available options its architecture offers and was designed to offer. The primary purpose of the phrase "ideal maintenance meld" is also intended to make a clear distinction with the phrase "good condition" which is too general and too often leads too many people to think of overwatered and extremely green!!

You mention a course like Doral. That to me is a "modern age" golf course that was designed primarily to accomodate or even demand the use of the aerial game!! The aerial game had become the prevalent choice of good golfers at the time the golf course was built for a whole variety of reasons!

Therefore the "ideal maintenance meld" for a course like Doral would be quite different than a course like Huntingdon Valley, NGLA or practically every other "Golden Age" course that was designed to accomodate the ground game!

Haven't you ever noticed that most "Golden Age" or classically designed golf holes generally have some way to bounce the ball into greens for almost all holes other than short par 3s, 4s and 5s?

So obviously the "ideal maintenance meld" for a classically designed golf course would not be to maintain the course with rock hard greens and soft approaches, as you mentioned in your post!! That would actually be the complete reverse of the best way to maintain it. Basically that would create a situation of almost no options or fairly impossible ones!

On the other hand, it would be very dumb to conceive of an "ideal maintenance meld" on a "Modern Age" style course that was designed for the aerial game with rock hard green surfaces that wouldn't hold aerial shots on the greens either. Again, that would create a reduced option situation and basically unfair conditions for that particular style.

My point is with an "ideal maintenance meld" on a classically designed course (many more open fronts for the ground approach than a "modern age" course) the best of all worlds for a membership would be to offer the opportunity for either the ground game or the aerial game!

But my point is also on a classic course or classic design style an interesting and multi optional way to set the course up for touring pros would be to firm up the greens far more than for a general membership and therefore make their automatic aerial game choice much less of an automatic choice--thereby encouraging the alternative or choice of the ground game for even them! I'm not advocating always, just make it an available choice made more apparent to them by the intensity of the firm green surfaces!! I'm sure you understand what I'm saying here--it's sort of an "ideal maintenance balance" to encourage available options!!

Basically this is the way a course like Seminole is apt to set up their course for a tournament like the Coleman. It forces a good player to think twice about what his best option may be instead of automatically selecting an aerial option!

Obviously, again, that may not be possible on each and every hole on a classically designed course because some of their holes may be front bunkered but again that was generally considered in the original design intent of those shorter holes like Merion's #8 or #13, for instance.

If you think about most classic holes there is real commonsense to most of their designs that took the ground game option into consideration even for the very good player!

But don't cite the "Modern Age" design style in the same breath for the same "maintenance meld" with the "golden age" classic design style because they're very different in architectural style and what kind of shots and options they call for!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I wouldn't be posting if you didn't disagree with me.

The fallacy in your position lies in the lack of survivability amongst golden age golf courses.

While they may still exist on the map, most have been substantially altered, starting with their irrigation systems.
That one factor almost renders the ground game obsolete.

I played Seminole the other day.  The greens were fast and firm, but sadly, the fairways and approaches were lush, to the point that balls hit short of the greens stayed there or backed up.

As you know, I love Seminole, but even that great golf course, that marvelous architectual design, hard by the ocean, is compromised by their irrigation system and its use.

Theory and lab work quickly go by the wayside in the face of field experience.

The culture of the club, its membership, is the single force that determines playability, aerial versus ground, and otherwise.

Newport has that wonderful combination.

GCGC is considering that wonderful combination with a great deal of trepidation.  There are grave concerns that if the club returns to maintainance practices that will produce the original and ultimate fast and firm conditions, NO LIVING EMPLOYEE will survive that transition, nor will the green committee, and possibly the board.

However, all is not lost.

I do believe we have an ally.

Mother Nature...... and drought conditions.

I believe water will become an expensive and depleted commodity.  I am lobbying at my clubs, to begin to wean the golf courses off their current water programs, substituting a watering program that will allow the golf course to survive into the future if water restrictions become onerous.  And.....
even if they don't, the golf course, cost of operation and the members will benefit from the altered conditions.

Short of droughts, I don't see the transition to the ground game, especially when the "NEW" golfer likes lush green views and conditions, sprinkled with nice little flower beds.

But, that's just my opinion, you could be wrong  

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I can't quite get behind your use of Doral in your ongoing joust with Pat Mucci. The course has 9 greens that are wide open in front. Not counting the par 3s, this leaves only 5 greens inaccessible to the ground game and two of those have very narrow ramps in front.
I also thought the course played fairly firm, at least on Sunday. Getting shots to stick was not the easiest task for the players and many balls ended up to the rear of the greens.  

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I'm sure you're right about Doral. I watched the tournament the other day but I really wasn't paying much attention to the green fronts. I mentioned Doral because Pat Mucci mentioned in his post that it was not the type of course where a pro would bounce the ball into the green. I'm supposing he said that partly because he believes there might be a good deal of bunkering in front of many of the greens, otherwise I'm not sure what he meant when he mentioned  Doral's 'design'.

Pat:

"The fallacy of your position lies in the lack of survivability amongst golden age courses."

Fallacy of my position?? Lack of survivability amongst golden age courses??

What are you talking about? Obviously I realize that many of the golden age courses have been overwatered for many decades--right through almost the entire "over-irrigated" "Modern Age" era, in fact! That's evidenced primarily by what many of us have been calling the "Augusta Syndrome" for many years!! That over-watering definitely includes over-irrigated and soft approaches as well!

I'm not discussing on here what is and what has been--My God, we can all see that! I'm trying to discuss what could be and should be!! This is a very pertinent example of the "ideal maintenance meld" which very definitely includes firm approaches so a golfer has the option of bouncing a ball onto an open-fronted green. And, additionally, I'm trying to make the point that if you also give a tour pro very firm greens that are not as apt to hold his aerial shots as he would like them to, he may start to look for other options like using the approach ground to bounce the ball onto the green!

If you happen to think that it will take the idea of impending drought conditions and the eventual lack of water to convince your club that conditions on golf courses ("through the green", on the green, whatever) should begin to be firmed up substanatially, then great--if you think that's what it'll take to convince them. But that's certainly not all that should convince them--you should definitely try to explain to them about the design intent of the golf course, as I plan to, which very much includes the ground game option--and that takes firmer ground conditions resulting from less watering!!

Actually, we've planned for a few months to use the same argument with my club (drought conditions and the need to basically conserve water in this country!)--armed by some very good material to that effect, BTW!

But my point is there is no reason not to also explain to them that the ground game option happens to be an important option involved in the way the damn golf course was designed in the first place!!

What's wrong with explaining that to them? That's called the design intent of the golf course. And the "ideal maintenance meld" happens to be the proper maintenance practices to highlight the design intent of a particular golf course.

We all know how things have gotten to be during the Modern Age with over-irrigation--SOFT! I'm not saying they haven't gotten that way! I'm trying to make a point about how and why to get them back to the way they SHOULD BE--FIRMER and FASTER!

If alarming memberships with impending drought conditions and lack of water gets them to pay attention to the true design intent of a classic golf course which very much includes firm conditions and the bounce and roll of the golf ball through approaches onto greens, again, great, but one should also tell them that they have the choice at any time too of just dialing down the goddamn irrigation water on the golf course!!!

The problem with some of these clubs is if they happen to buy into this idea they might think they can just turn the irrigation water off. Well, it's just not that simple--since their agronomy has obviously become conditioned to over-watering for years and it needs to become conditioned to less water slowly--the irrigation needs to be dialed down properly--grass is a living thing and it needs to become conditioned to a new (and probably healthier) maintenance procedure--including less irrigation water! Conditioning agronomy to less water is actually far healthier for it anyway--you should tell your membership that too--I certainly plan to! Less irrigation water is simply going to make the plant root go deeper and consequently it will be HEALTHIER! Of course we all need to do the proper and necessary research on our individual golf courses to determine that subsoil conditions are conducive to less water and greater root penetration!!

We can also tell these membership that they don't necessarily have to expect browning out (although that may happen to some degree and they should not be afraid of that as it's a good playing condition!). We can tell them that the ideal "look" or "color" of a classic course may actually be a "light green sheen" or a "dull green sheen" (as I call it).

That's the ideal ground condition to encourage both firm and fast play, the bounce and roll of the ball and another option to the aerial game of flying the ball onto the green surface!

So I don't see what the fallacy is in my point. I'm not just talking about what is (as you seem to be), I'm talking about what should be--and that's what I call the "ideal maintenance meld" into the true design intent of a classic golf course!

I look forward to seeing and hearing how you're going to disagree with this!

[JohnH]

TEPaul:

I would just like to add that if I followed your prescription for informing my board and membership why their poa annua golf course (which has a root depth of a toothpick in summer) is brownish in tint because it plays better that way and it's the way the course was originally designed, then I think i'd be looking for another job.  Or, I believe you would inform them of intent before the act.  Unfortunately the times have bred people to believe green is "good" and brown is "bad."  I believe I was taught that at MSU also.

What color exactly is "dull green sheen"??  

[JohnH]

Sorry Andrew, that had absolutely nothing to do with your original post.

JD

[TEPaul]

JohnH:

Well, if your membership loves the playability and the color on their toothpick deep rooted poa annua golf course and that's the way you were taught at MSU then I guess that's the way it's going to be!

As for the color of "dull green sheen". That does sound like an oxymoron, doesn't it? I suppose it is but that's what pops into my mind when I see it. Instead of me trying to describe the color to you, it might be better for you to see Shinnecock in June, Oakmont in October or Royal County Down in September because that's where I saw that same color.

But seriously, it's a very light green color that seems to have a dull shine or sheen to it. It looks great and you actually don't even have to hit a shot or even bounce a ball on it--you just know it plays firm, fast and fun by looking at it! But I did play them and they played just like I thought they would and just like they looked like they would--the best!

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

I have seen bluegrass, when the blades begin to suffer for lack of moisture, turn a dull blue-green, with a kind of sheen or shine to it. That's about the time to water it. If you allow cart traffic on it in that state, you might end up with brown tire tracks all over the place. But it does play firm and fast.

[JohnH]

TEPaul,

My MSU comment was directed at the fact that they preached green is good and brown is bad.  I think any super will tell you that.

I had priveledge of attending the Senior TPC in Dearborn, MI last July and fully realized the lengths the USGA will go to firm up courses.  The fairways and approaches were curling as each passing moment.  I was told they only allowed a syringe cycle on practically the whole course.  And as anyone in Michigan will know last June and July were hot and dry.  The fairways looked terrible.  The maintenance crew was hand watering the damn fairways after the final group went by.

This really doesn't pertain to your "classical" maintenance meld,  but my point is back to Andrew's strategy point -- the length of the drive isn't the point, but how can it be disregarded when a player gets 30-40 yards of roll or more because the fairways are fried?  I think there would be more strategy if courses had lush and soft fairways and firm, fast approaches and greens.....

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Pat,

Obviously, if a golfer had the choice between going through the air or bumping it along the ground, he'd choose the aerial route.  As you say, it's alot easier to control and is alot more predictable.

As long as you can stop quickly,

But if a ball that lands on the green wont "hold", the ground game is forced back into play.  This is what I'm talking about.  Tight, firm lies and hard, fast grounds cry out for the ground game.

It's not as if you necessarily WANT to bump in through swales and rises.  It's that you know that the ball is going bounce and roll when it lands, so you need to land it so-many yards short of your target and let it roll the rest of the way.  Even when you WANT to hit it high and land it soft, the lie makes it very difficult to nip the ball just right to make it soar.  

In essence, every approach becomes like a long chip shot.

Tha'ts the way I found it to be in Scotland, anyway.  I really noticed how the architecture of the course was brought back into play because you were forced to play through it rather than arrogantly over it.

[Mike_Cirba]

John H;

I understand your predicament, but wouldn't you admit that it's sort of a sad situation when the root system is so shallow from overwatering that you inherently know it isn't the best long term strategy for good turf, yet feel compelled to do so just to keep your job?

Is there a better argument for education of the membership??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()