[Patrick_Mucci]

NO

Pine Tree is primarily an aerial course with very little available in the way of ground game approaches

Pat, would you characterise Pine Tree as great? Just wondering as I know very little / nothing about the course - perhaps it should be more on my radar...

Brian,

At one time it was # 27 on Golf Digest's top 100 courses.
More recently, it drifts in and out of the top 100, so, yes, I'd say it's a great golf course.

Ben Hogan labeled it the best flat course in America.
That's a pretty good endorsement.

Mike Young,

I think conditions, soil and weather play the major part in determining if a ground game will work, irrespective of the caliber of the golfer.

In rainy seasons, or in the spring in the NorthEast, it's impossible to employ.

It's really location dependent.

[Mike_Young]

Brian,
I would classify Pine Tree as great.  And one of the best test of golf in Florida.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes it is essential – but not on every hole.

GREAT golf course architecture is not necessarily only for the pros - which is the crux of my argument –it should also be playable for all golfers – including the ones that need a long iron to roll the ball onto the green as opposed the big hitter that can loft it in.

Or the less long players that need to “up and down”  from 30 yards out.
Rather than needing a wedge to loft it over a bunker on a “blocked out” green they have the opportunity to play their  trusted “bump and run” to an open entrance.

That assumes that the green isn't angled and canted.
Open fronts only serve their value if the "bump and run" ball remains on the green, vis a vis the architecture.

To take it further, a GREAT golf course architecture should really be trying to get excellent turf conditions, which in my book means close cut fairways giving “tight” lies and a lot of roll.

That's so weather and soil dependent.
You can't get that in South Florida in the Summer, or the Northeast in the Spring.
GCGC is open on just about every hole, but, in the Spring, if you played the "bump and run" you'd be eaten alive.

To take the GREAT  theme even further -  GREAT golf course architecture will strive to have the course maintained with hard greens – not soft – making the need to “roll”  rather than “bounce” a further ESSENTIAL consideration for GREAT golf course architecture.


But, that's so weather and soil dependent.

Just try getting your greens hard in the south or even the east in August when temperatures and humidity is sky high.

With these pre-conditions the axiom for the golf course architect is to create entrances to greens to allow a rolling ball to find it’s way in.
Particularly down-hill, down-wind greens and preferably with a choice of “feeds” and a variety of lines for the ball to roll along.
If that's the nature of the course, it would inherently lack the challenge of a forced carry into a green.
Is that the mark of a great course ?

Well I’m glad I got that off my chest – I feel a lot better !!!

In theory, everything you say is valid.
The problem is that golf courses are sited differently.
And with those different sites, comes different problems, problems that impede the "hard" or 'firm' conditions necessary for the ground game to be a viable option.

[Tom_Doak]

I wish Ran would chime in on this thread.  A friend of mine came back from Pinehurst last week and told me that at both Pinehurst #2 and The Dormie Club, you could land your approach shots 30 yards short of the green, and anything which flew to the green was long gone out the back.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Well Patrick I appreciate your arguments – but I still like the title of your thread and believe the premise is valid – for great golf course architecture it is essential to design for the ground game.

Even if  you say at certain time’s of the year the ground game isn’t an option - what about the rest of the year when it is?

And isn’t that the whole point of the premise - the green should NOT be too canted and angled so that it CAN accept a ground shot.

Here’s a question which tracks some of your arguments against designing for the ground game. Can you have a great golf course with Kikuyu fairways?

[Tim Gavrich]

I had tons of fun playing a bunch of shots along the ground during the week my father and I spent in Scotland.  But before and since, I've played golf courses that I would consider "great" where I didn't feel especially compelled to land a single approach shot short of the green.  So no, I wouldn't say it's essential either.

Also--for what it's worth--just because you CAN play a shot along the ground doesn't mean you SHOULD.

To those who are especially fond of/addicted to the "ground game": what makes such shots inherently more fun or superior to aerial shots?

[Ulrich Mayring]

I don't think it has everything to do with the soil - sure, firm is always better, but as you say, on any given site it is what it is.

The real question is whether the green is open in front or not. Average hitters will have fairway woods or long irons into many greens and, soil conditions being what they are, they can live with being held up in the fringe and having to chip. But if you are taking the fairway wood out of their hands by creating severe hazards around the green, then firm soil conditions won't do you any good either. The question for the architect is whether he designs for low trajectory shots from far away. If he doesn't, he forces the average hitter to lay up and pitch - tough to make this strategy interesting.

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,

If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.

The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Tim,

Noone is saying a ground shut is a superior shot – it is an ALTERNATIVE shot and can often be the safer per centage shot off a tight fairway rather than trying to  judge a soft wedge off a tight lie.

Even if you prefer the aerial it doesn’t mean the ground shot isn’t valid to another player.

The point being made is the designer should be offering the choices and not shutting down the options of the ground game

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich,

If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.

The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.

Patrick:

I disagree with this.

You're too good a player to understand, but there are a lot of senior golfers for whom even a 300-yard hole requires a wooden club approach shot.  And there is no reason to make those fellows play from in front of the ladies' tees in order to enjoy the course.  Your home club, Garden City is perhaps the classic example of how it should be.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I'm probably like most golfers in that I play average courses most of the time, which have two tees: one for men and one for ladies. If there are additional tees, then they are back tees and only used in certain competitions, so for the most part there is no choice in which set of tees to play from.

Other factors are that you are playing with your buddies and for social reasons want to find a common tee. Those few courses that actually have a number of different tees are often visually appalling in that half of the entire hole consists of tees. There is nothing natural about that.

I may be an outlier in that, but I don't think a proliferation of tees is the mark of a good course.

Ulrich

[Andy Troeger]

Its not essential in the sense that its 100% required for greatness, but its also not coincidence that so many of the greats have some kind of ground game option. As Patrick said, the component of designs allowing for the ground game must also be in collaboration with the maintenance, which is still subject to soil, season, and the weather.

Patrick,
I agree with almost everything you've said except the bit about average hitters playing the wrong tees. I went on a recent trip to Pinehurst with a friend that's an very good player but that no longer hits the ball very far. He's very consistent, but has a hard time making long carries. He's moved up tees in recent years, but his approaches tend to be well struck but low. Courses like #2 and Dormie gave him far more options than Tobacco Road for example, which has significant forced carries (especially given a lot of rain the night before).

[William_G]

The weakness of "frisbee golf" is that there is no bounce.

You still have hook and slice, high and low with "frisbee".

The art and essence of GCA and golf is with the ground game and how the ball reacts once it hits the ground and rolls.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,

If average hitters are hitting fairway woods or long irons into many greens, as you suggest, then they're probably playing from the wrong tees.

The answer isn't to open up the fronts of the greens, rather, to get them to play from the appropriate tees.

Patrick:

I disagree with this.

You're too good a player to understand, but there are a lot of senior golfers for whom even a 300-yard hole requires a wooden club approach shot.  And there is no reason to make those fellows play from in front of the ladies' tees in order to enjoy the course.  Your home club, Garden City is perhaps the classic example of how it should be.

Tom,

I understand your point, but Ulrich referenced average hitters, hitting fairway woods and long irons and that seemed to indicate that they were playing too far back.

While there's diversity in the play of golfers with the same handicap, a 12, 18 or 24 handicap shouldn't be hitting many, if any greens in regulation.

I think the PGA tour stats for 2011 show GIR's in the 50 % to 65 % range, so, I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute a 10 % number to 12 handicaps, and a 5 % or lower number to 18 and 24 handicaps.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

IMHO worshiping at the High Alter of the Aerial Game goes to show just how weak a player’s game has become. The problem does not stop there. To play with the Angels one these days has to keep pace with technology, suggesting that one’s normal game without assistance leaves a lot to be desired. It’s the shirking of responsibility, of taking the easy way out or the simple fact on not willing to face ones failures head on.

Play enough links courses and you understand why the game is so enjoyable, perhaps that why GB attracts so many overseas visitors, it allows others to experience raw golf as it was in fact IMHO at its best. Playing TOC 18th Hole with Hickory clubs and one suddenly understands The Valley of Sin, while this Holes in nowhere the best finishing Hole in the world, it is one of the most enjoyable once we forget the history of the place, yet the aerial game just kills this Hole.

IMHO the game has not evolved, but it has been attacked by various body changing viruses that have eaten away at the real structure of the game leaving nothing in their wake except many massive voids. The simple ability to walk and navigate a modern course, to see the bounce, experience distances and judge which club to use by a quick look, to experience Nature and her undulations, bumps and dells, to feel the turf, and watch the hazards doing their thing. Much of which has been replaced, not by skill or improved skills but by using technology to advance our game. A shameful practise that has penetrated right through to the core of our game worst still infected our Governing Body.

Just like religion today, we pray for help and forgiveness, feel smug and satisfied that Gold is on our side so we go out and continue to commit unspeakable horrors in the belief that forgiveness is all it takes, when in fact it’s Commitment to one’s belief.

I am fortunate I have my game, its courses and many a golfer in GB and many part of the world who believe in the true faith. Will you not join us in helping to stop this rot to the game and its courses we so enjoy.

Melvyn

[Mike Policano]

Somewhat ironically, I have played my hickories at Pine Tree.  First, it is generally a windy site. Second, it has very fast and firm fairways. Third, it doesn't have carries over water with one exception on a par 3. Because of the generally aerial approaches I have to carefully position my approaches. I also have the opportunity to perfect my niblick shots.

Of course, it isn't as hickory friendly as Mountain Lake, but then what is in Florida? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

IMHO worshiping at the High Alter of the Aerial Game goes to show just how weak a player’s game has become.

That's a unique perspective regarding the game of the PGA Tour Pros.


The problem does not stop there. To play with the Angels one these days has to keep pace with technology, suggesting that one’s normal game without assistance leaves a lot to be desired. It’s the shirking of responsibility, of taking the easy way out or the simple fact on not willing to face ones failures head on.

Onlyl if you don't understand the relevance of wanted to hit the best shot, the shot with the greatest chances of being successful.

Play enough links courses and you understand why the game is so enjoyable, perhaps that why GB attracts so many overseas visitors, it allows others to experience raw golf as it was in fact IMHO at its best. Playing TOC 18th Hole with Hickory clubs and one suddenly understands The Valley of Sin, while this Holes in nowhere the best finishing Hole in the world, it is one of the most enjoyable once we forget the history of the place, yet the aerial game just kills this Hole.

Melvyn, you can't teleport the entire golfing population to TOC.
They have to play where they live, not where they dream about.

IMHO the game has not evolved, but it has been attacked by various body changing viruses that have eaten away at the real structure of the game leaving nothing in their wake except many massive voids. The simple ability to walk and navigate a modern course, to see the bounce, experience distances and judge which club to use by a quick look, to experience Nature and her undulations, bumps and dells, to feel the turf, and watch the hazards doing their thing. Much of which has been replaced, not by skill or improved skills but by using technology to advance our game. A shameful practise that has penetrated right through to the core of our game worst still infected our Governing Body.

I certainly agree that aspects of technology have had a negative impact on the game.
But, even in the 40's, 50, 60's and 70's. before modern technology made such an enormous impact, the game was aerial.

Just like religion today, we pray for help and forgiveness, feel smug and satisfied that Gold is on our side so we go out and continue to commit unspeakable horrors in the belief that forgiveness is all it takes, when in fact it’s Commitment to one’s belief.

I think you're getting a little carried away.
Are you suggesting that a 13 year old lad, just taking up the game, should employ hickories, while his friends use present day equipment ?

I am fortunate I have my game, its courses and many a golfer in GB and many part of the world who believe in the true faith. Will you not join us in helping to stop this rot to the game and its courses we so enjoy.

Your attitude is simply a product of geographic location.
If you lived in South Florida, you wouldn't be championing the "ground" game.
If you lived in the Northeast in the spring you wouldn't be championing the "ground" game.
You just happen to live in a region where it's conducive to play.

You can't force your method of play upon golfers who don't enjoy those playing conditions on their courses.

[John Kirk]

I'll enter the fray by answering the original question.

No, the ground game is not an essential element, but a very desirable one.  A round of golf tests skills, and some courses offer a more comprehensive test.

I played Pine Tree once, several years ago.  Great course, perhaps too flat to test certain abilities, but there's much to recommend in terms of a fun, broad test of a player's skills.  Without remembering the holes well, it seems like a mid-handicap, low ball hitter would enjoy himself just fine there.

One thing I remember well about Pine Tree.  The greens allow the flags to be tucked into corners.  For an advanced player, directional strategy (playing to one side of fairway) and curving approach shots is a valuable asset.

[Mark Pearce]

To those who are especially fond of/addicted to the "ground game": what makes such shots inherently more fun or superior to aerial shots?

The demands it places on your control of trajectory and the imagination it requires.

As you have experienced a properly firm and fast links course doesn't offer the ground game as an option, it demands it.  This year was a wet one in the North East, so I saw little of real F&F but, in October played at a local links called Newbiggin.  At the first I hit a good drive in still conditions and left 70 yards to a front flag.  I hit a high, well struck lob wedge (my 70 yard club) right at the flag.  It pitched within 3 feet and ended up 20 yards through the back of a 30 yard deep green.  On a course in condition like that (and all real links courses can be conditioned like that in a dry spell) the aerial game simply doesn't work.  Each shot requires a decision about where you want to land the ball and how you want to land it (what it's landing trajectory will be).  So much more interesting, demanding and fun than getting a yardage and just hitting whatever club carries that far.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I have no problem whatsoever with Pine Valley or other great courses that are based on the aerial game. There can be a number of such courses to be enjoyed by better golfers, but I don't think that this style works for the majority of our courses. As such I would answer "no" to the original question, the ground game is not essential to greatness for any given course. But it is an essential element of the game at large.

Ulrich

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - you responded to Tom's post, in one sense, but I think left the bigger point off the table, i.e. that Garden City does it right...and has for close to a hundred years. 

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - you responded to Tom's post, in one sense, but I think left the bigger point off the table, i.e. that Garden City does it right...and has for close to a hundred years. 

Peter,

Surprisingly, that's not true.

Clubs, even great clubs with great courses go through their ups and downs.

There was a time when the ground game was non-existant at GCGC because the course was soaking wet.

I distinctly remember hitting what I thought were great shots into # 10 and # 13 when the hole was cut up front and I landed my ball 5-10 yards short of the green, only to have it jump back, full of mud because the approaches were so wet.

Fortunately, those conditions are a thing of the past and the Superintendent understands the value of the ground game at GCGC and GCGC and all who play it are all the better for his efforts.

[Bart Bradley]

I am in the camp that would argue that no single formula makes for great golf architecture.  The ground game is great and I am thrilled when I have that option but certainly it is not an "essential" element.  Brancaster is old, old, old.  It is great.  It has lots of forced carries. 

Bart

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Bogie, I think it is in how the question was asked. I do not think it is an essential element. However it is one I find desirable.

[JWL]

I would be interested in hearing what the definition of the ground game is that everyone is commenting on.
Is it, as TD remarks, just a matter of landing the ball short of a green and calculating the amount of bounce or run up after flying a shot a distance short of the green rather than on a green's surface?
or is it truly not hitting the ball in the air on a green approach?

I asked Jack once how he played the British Open courses differently than American courses.   His simple reply was the greens were so often dried out and firm that there was not choice but to land the ball short of the green and bounc it up.    He said he just hit his normal shot downwind, and sometimes a lower trajectory shot into the wind, but always a calculated distance short of the green allowing the desired amount of release.

I agree with whoever said that on windy sites where spin is uncontrollable because the wind takes imparted spin off of the shot or exacggerates it, than open greens are much more of a necessity in design.   I remember the 7th at Shinnecock at the Open...a Redan par 3 that the only shot was on the green dowwind and the players just waved at their 8 irons landing on and all releasing to the same spot over the green and almost all just chipped back up the hill for par.    They hated it.   Only one birdie, as I recall, a holeout out of the front bunker... and, I think of Watson's shot into the 18th green at Turnberry, and he hit a perfect 8 or 9 iron downwind, and even though he landed it on the front of the green with as much spin as that shot could have been hit with, it still released over the back of the green.    The proper shot to get in the middle of the green was to land it short and hope he didn't bounce off the side of the littel mounds in the fairway and go sideways.    This is the thing that competitive players hate about that style of golf.   When the bounces are good, they love it, when they go the other way...not so much.

Sorry for the verbosity...just some thoughts on the subject.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()