[JNC Lyon]

Playing at Morgan Hill for the first time today, I came up with a different take on short-game options. 

Whenever I've thought about short-game options, they usually involve some sort of wedge recovery.  Most golf holes in the Northeast strongly favor a wedge recovery for those who miss the green.  This leads to very one-dimensional recovery shots.  When a hole favors a wedge approach, it severely limits other options and favors any player who can hit a simple, mindless wedge shot.

At Morgan Hill, there were multiple holes that, because of the ground contours, strongly discouraged a wedge approach or recovery.  The 11th hole at MH was one particular example of this.  The hole's extreme downhill nature and subtle short grass contours mean that any shot into the green from inside 100 yards will be very difficult with a wedge.  Instead of being able to hit a simple wedge onto the green, the golfer has to play a shot that utilizes the ground contours with considerable feel.  The golfer does not have a viable wedge option, but he has several other options to get the ball close.  By eliminating the obvious wedge option, the hole leaves the golfer to rely on creativity and feel to get the ball close.

I remember several courses in the UK, particularly Deal, having this same sort of feel.  The turf is too tight for wedge recoveries, meaning the golfer has to decide between several ground game options to get the ball close.  The lack of the default wedge option made the short game much more interesting.

Does the wedge game limit options?  Do holes that discourage or eliminate the wedge recovery put a greater emphasis on options and creativity?

[Kyle Harris]

John:

We should pay heed to the fact that a wedge shot ultimately flies over much of the topography that the ground game would utilize. "Tight" turf makes for difficult, but not impossible execution.

I think maybe what you and I discussed yesterday may be more about the "frame" of the fairway cut and what features are presented as short turf. The natural tendency is to fly the ball over longer turf.

[Carl Rogers]

I think it is a function of turf conditions, the sidehill and / or down hill nature of the lie.  flying the ball over wild contours with multiple breaks and speeds simplifies the shot.

[JNC Lyon]

John:

We should pay heed to the fact that a wedge shot ultimately flies over much of the topography that the ground game would utilize. "Tight" turf makes for difficult, but not impossible execution.

I think maybe what you and I discussed yesterday may be more about the "frame" of the fairway cut and what features are presented as short turf. The natural tendency is to fly the ball over longer turf.

Kyle,

The fairway grass at Morgan Hill was fairly long yesterday, but we were both compelled to hit ground game shots on 11 because of the terrain.  At any reasonably low mowing height, that green sets up for a low approach into the green.  This tells me that this is not just a question of turf, but a question of contour and hazard placement as well.  The turf at those English courses is tight, but so is the turf around the greens on many US courses.  Yet, something about the design of those UK greens compels you to use a ground attack rather than an aerial attack.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JNC,
Although somewhat daunting, it doesn't seem to me that a wedge shot is any less of an option than trying to play a shot that's dependent on using the terrain. I'd bet that the photos don't do the best job of conveying the dilemma, and it probably an instance where "You had to be there to understand", but that type of wedge shot is fairly common in NE.  
 

[JNC Lyon]

Jim,

Photos flatten out terrain, and that is no more the case than here.  From 100 yards out, the fairway drops dramatically to that green, meaning that a wedge shot will be starkly exposed to the wind and the elevation drop.  This makes judging a wedge approach difficult, and with the falloff behind the green a wedge approach becomes fearsome.

I'm not if the feature is natural or KBM-created, but there is a runway onto the green that is very conducive to a running approach shot and indicates that the ground game, not the aerial game, was the preferred option here.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I'm not if the feature is natural or KBM-created, but there is a runway onto the green that is very conducive to a running approach shot and indicates that the ground game, not the aerial game, was the preferred option here.

I'm just happy to see holes where it is an option.

[Mark Saltzman]

JNC,

I'm having a bit of trouble following this one.  In the game of golf, isn't hitting a wedge one of many options?  So wouldn't a hole that discourages hitting a wedge just be another example of a hole that limits your options?

I would certainly argue that a pin that is cut just over a bunker or water hazard limits the player to hitting some kind of high wedge shot.  But can't a hole still have many options even if it does not encourage some sort of use of ground contours?  Take the hole you described in your most recent post, one with a sharp falloff behind the green, a substantial elevation drop and wind.  What if we (for whatever reason) say that  the option to run the ball on to the green is taken away.  Could one still not have many options wedge options?  Couldn't hit a full, high wedge shot and try to guess the wind right.  Or couldn't I hit some kind of half pitching wedge?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm just saying the times where there is no opportunity to hit a wedge are few and far between (especially in North America).  I would almost argue that there is always an opportunity to hit a wedge, but it just might not be the smartest play.

Really, I guess I am agreeing with Jim in that it is nice to play holes where there is an option to use the ground game, but I wouldn't say that just because there is an opportunity to hit a wedge that options are limited.

I Hope this made sense.

Mark

[Tim Martin]

Seems like quite a stretch to say that most Northeast golf courses favor a wedge for short game recovery shots. It would seem that each hole has its own set of hazards and green surrounds which dictate the most effective play. I played today and guys in our group employed a variety of different clubs from 100 yards and in to maneuver tight turf, wind and different fairway cants. A players options are limited by their lack of creativity and skill level.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JNC,
I was looking at photos from the course's website and it seems (never been there) to me that the alternate options exist because of KBM's judicious use of the overall terrain. There seems to be guite a few places where a hole runs along a side slope, or in conjunction with a sloping greensite that follows what looks like the natural slope. That affords a lower or running shot the chance to ease itself onto the green. The surrounds also seem to be cut close in places which is another prerequisite for using any thing other than a wedge.

It seems that (and once again, just an opinon from the photos) KBM wasn't necessarily forgetting the wedge, he was just adding the strong possibility of using something else.  

Tim,
I wouldn't say most, but we have our fair share of golf holes in NE where a wedge is the best option when missing the green, i.e. lots of rough length blue grass surrounding them.  

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Thanks for posting the pics of the 11th at MH.

The thing I don't like about the hole is the way the houses cut too close to the right side -- would have been a bit better if their imposition was a bit further removed.

JNC:

Let's be a bit more forthcoming -- golf in the earliest days of April will automatically mean that turf quality and the wherewithal to play anything close to a ground option will be extremely limiting because of the VERY soft turf following a very LONG winter.

I've played the hole you mention several times -- if people (you included) believe the ground game is the preferred route I'll be happy to handle your wagers versus that of the simply flip pitch with a very short iron. Although listed at 421 yards from the tips the hole is much shorter should one take on the bunkers down the right side. Strong players can have as little as 75 yards into the target.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim:

Thanks for posting the pics of the 11th at MH.

The thing I don't like about the hole is the way the houses cut too close to the right side -- would have been a bit better if their imposition was a bit further removed.

JNC:

Let's be a bit more forthcoming -- golf in the earliest days of April will automatically mean that turf quality and the wherewithal to play anything close to a ground option will be extremely limiting because of the VERY soft turf following a very LONG winter.

I've played the hole you mention several times -- if people (you included) believe the ground game is the preferred route I'll be happy to handle your wagers versus that of the simply flip pitch with a very short iron. Although listed at 421 yards from the tips the hole is much shorter should one take on the bunkers down the right side. Strong players can have as little as 75 yards into the target.

Matt:

I was a bit upset a number of spruce trees were planted near the tees to basically force play to the left. The back tee box is now useless.

Jim Kennedy:

I think we're on the same page here with the judicious use of terrain idea. My personal tactical decision would be to employ the ground game. Six in one, half dozen in the other.

[Matt_Ward]

Kyle:

The small trees that were planted is a major mistake (sort of like a miniature version of the Lon Hinkle spruce tree aka at Inverness in the '79 US Open) -- the bigger mistake was cramping in houses that close down the right side. Given the proximity of the OB stakes most players will have to bailout considerably further to the left.

One other thing -- MH is rarely THAT firm -- such holes which plunge would be ideal if the turf were really firm and fast -- then a lot of different things would clearly be in play -- including people hitting too far straight ahead and running our of fairway.

Frankly, I think the 11th and 12th are two of the weaker holes at MH -- KBM used them to get to the better terrain starting with the superlative par-5 13th and then the stellar uphill par-3 14th.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC,

I'm having a bit of trouble following this one.  In the game of golf, isn't hitting a wedge one of many options?  So wouldn't a hole that discourages hitting a wedge just be another example of a hole that limits your options?

I would certainly argue that a pin that is cut just over a bunker or water hazard limits the player to hitting some kind of high wedge shot.  But can't a hole still have many options even if it does not encourage some sort of use of ground contours?  Take the hole you described in your most recent post, one with a sharp falloff behind the green, a substantial elevation drop and wind.  What if we (for whatever reason) say that  the option to run the ball on to the green is taken away.  Could one still not have many options wedge options?  Couldn't hit a full, high wedge shot and try to guess the wind right.  Or couldn't I hit some kind of half pitching wedge?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm just saying the times where there is no opportunity to hit a wedge are few and far between (especially in North America).  I would almost argue that there is always an opportunity to hit a wedge, but it just might not be the smartest play.

Really, I guess I am agreeing with Jim in that it is nice to play holes where there is an option to use the ground game, but I wouldn't say that just because there is an opportunity to hit a wedge that options are limited.

I Hope this made sense.

Mark

Mark,

When a golfer is present with soft turf, an elevated green, or some other feature that encourages wedge play, wedge is the default option.  A high wedge shot is often a much easier option than a running shot for a player with skill.  A running shot requires the golfer to negotiate ground contours and places a much greater emphasis on feel and creativity.  This makes it much harder to play than a high wedge shot and thus makes the wedge the preferred option in all cases.  There is a choice there, but it is really no choice at all.

When a hole, for whatever reason, eliminates the wedge option and makes the ground game the preferred option, it forces the golfer to rely on feel and creativity rather than rote wedge play.  By eliminating the easy default option, the golfer suddenly needs to choose between several ground game options, which can vary greatly depending on the contours.  In my Morgan Hill example, the wedge play seemed to be a very poor option, but the golfer could have played any variety of shots along the ground.  To execute these shots, the golfer would have to pay attention to the ground contours and firmness of the turf rather than hitting a "coarse and vulgar pitch" that Mackenzie described.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Morgan Hill pics and copy:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35181.0.html

..and parts of a review from 2004:

Bring your clubs to The Club at Morgan Hill. You're going to need them -- all of them. And plenty of imagination.
Go ahead, hit those 3-irons and 5-irons from the par-3 tee boxes and the par-4 fairways. But you'll need them in the collection areas around the greens, too, for bump-and-run over the humps and hills that protect the cup. If your short-game shot selection has been like Ben Affleck's career -- flop, flop, flop -- better start looking at your clubs in a new way.
Hit that 7-iron from 160 yards, but you'll need it from 100 yards, too, to keep the ball out of the stiff breezes that tickle the holes on the upper part of the course. Ever pitch that 8-iron out of the rough and run the ball to the hole? You will here.
Every shot is like a multiple-choice quiz.
And shine that putter for the large greens with tiering and tricky undulations that could make a Titleist seasick.
"This course makes you think," Morgan Hill pro Jeff Bebbino said. "On every shot, there are several options, and none of them is wrong. It's just the way you want to play the shot. On too many courses, you hit your driver off the tee, figure out your distance to the flag and yank an iron out of your bag. It's automatic. It's boring. Nothing is boring here."
That's because course designer Kelly Blake Moran has used his imagination, too. The layout is full of blind shots, sloping fairways and 300 feet of elevation changes -- but really without gimmickry. Landing areas have been flattened, and Moran -- thankfully bucking current design trends -- has cut down on the sand traps. Instead, the greens are guarded by contouring.
From the tee boxes, there are options, too.
Split fairways will taunt players with gambling instincts. For instance, on No. 10, a downhill, 370-yard par-4, golfers can hit driver down the left side, hoping to leave a short iron or wedge into the green. But the tee shot will flirt with a pond. Feeling timid? Okay, hit the 4-iron down the right side, well short of the pond. But the second shot will require an 8-iron over the water. It's sort of the Dirty Harry approach to golf: "Do you feel lucky today, punk? Well, do you?"

JNC,
As it says in the review: "....it's a multiple choice quiz", and as the Pro said: "...there are several options, and none of them is wrong. It's just the way you want to play the shot."

I'd say that it sounds like a course where KBM has given the player options, i.e wedge is practical if it's soft or mildly blowing, there's room to bump it or knock it on if isn't, or, it's feasible to use some combination of approaches at anytime.  That's like the best of all worlds. 

[JNC Lyon]

Jim,

The misquote of Dirty Harry is egregious, but the rest of the review is pretty spot on.  There were plenty of holes out there where driver wasn't a great option (Kyle didn't hit driver from holes 7-12; I'm more of a gunslinger myself), but these holes never felt limiting.  In fact, the par fours in that stretch contained plenty of options off the tee--not just tactical decisions.

Is there ever a time in modern golf where a wedge recovery is a viable option but not the best option for the better player?  I guess that's one of things I'm getting at with this thread.

[Matt_Ward]

JNC:

The hole you mentioned #11 and the dropshot that follows are more "transition" holes -- KBM needed to have them to take the golfer to the best part of the property which follows when you land on #13 tee.

The idea that the ground game is alive and well at MH -- is a stretch because of the general soft turf conditions. No doubt things firm up when the heat builds up but really fast and firm conditions have never been a real day-to-day option in the several rounds I have played there -- if you ever played Wine Valley in Walla Walla, WA - you would then see what real fast and firm conditions can do to shotmaking choices.

[John Shimony]

Is there ever a time in modern golf where a wedge recovery is a viable option but not the best option for the better player?  I guess that's one of things I'm getting at with this thread.

If you are good at de-lofting the wedge then you could really get some roll out of those shots but decreasing loft and spin with a wedge are skills I do not possess on command.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC:

The hole you mentioned #11 and the dropshot that follows are more "transition" holes -- KBM needed to have them to take the golfer to the best part of the property which follows when you land on #13 tee.

The idea that the ground game is alive and well at MH -- is a stretch because of the general soft turf conditions. No doubt things firm up when the heat builds up but really fast and firm conditions have never been a real day-to-day option in the several rounds I have played there -- if you ever played Wine Valley in Walla Walla, WA - you would then see what real fast and firm conditions can do to shotmaking choices.

Matt,

My question on this thread is not specifically about Morgan Hill.  It simply came up during my round at Morgan Hill.  Your last sentence touches on my question more directly--do firm and fast conditions create options by cutting down the emphasis on the wedge game?  I have not played Wine Valley (I'd like to sometime), but I have plenty of firm and fast courses in England and Scotland.  My experience with those courses is one basis for this thread.  At courses like Deal, Sandwich, and Woking, I played in firm conditions that de-emphasized the wedge game but led to significantly more short game options than I see on most US courses.  Do these types of courses provide more options by eliminating the simple wedge option?

[Matthew Petersen]

I feel like the original question is a bit mis-formed. The "wedge game" isn't limiting anything, it's one of the options. The issue is that course conditions (whether very conditions or lots of long grass) tend to discourage all other options except hitting lofted wedges. On a firm downhill hole such as the one pictured hitting wedge is still an option, just perhaps a more difficult one considering that a bump and run is possible.

[JNC Lyon]

I feel like the original question is a bit mis-formed. The "wedge game" isn't limiting anything, it's one of the options. The issue is that course conditions (whether very conditions or lots of long grass) tend to discourage all other options except hitting lofted wedges. On a firm downhill hole such as the one pictured hitting wedge is still an option, just perhaps a more difficult one considering that a bump and run is possible.

Matthew,

How often do holes present a wedge option and ground options as equally strong choices?  If a wedge option is viable, it seems to be the easier choice and therefore the best choice.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"At courses like Deal, Sandwich, and Woking, I played in firm conditions that de-emphasized the wedge game but led to significantly more short game options than I see on most US courses.  Do these types of courses provide more options by eliminating the simple wedge option?"

JNC,
That's one of the reasons I like March in central Florida. There are a few places where the turf is tight, the sandy ground is firm, the greens 'dent' minimally (if at all), and the wind is up.

The dilemma of more choices = more indecision is fun to experience, although using one of my 3 wedges is always my first thought.

[JNC Lyon]

Jim,

I had that same experience at Yeamans Hall, which is one of the reasons Yeamans is one of my very favorite courses on this side of the pond.

Do you think the choice between 3 wedges that modern game gives us is really no choice at all?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JNC,
Not really.

[Mark Saltzman]

How can a choice between wedges be no choice at all?  From PW to XW I have a gap of 17 degrees of loft.  That's about the same gap as the change in loft between a PW and a 5 iron.  Why would one use 4 different wedges around the green if they all serve virtually the same purpose?

And as I wrote before, I don't think it is about limiting the wedge game to provide options.  I believe the key is to allow options other than just a high, spinning wedge shot.  Take the hole I have posted below (from my home course in Florida, CC at Mirasol).  The green is open in front, but there is a mound right in front of the middle of the green.  Any shot missing short has the option of using some sort of non-wedge and having to deal with that mound, but not risking going over the green and down the run-off over the back.  On the other hand, a wedge can be used to fly it on to the green but be careful not to go long.  Also, any shot over the green has several options, everything from putter to XW.  The option to use a wedge does not limit choices.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()