[RDecker]

Here in New England mother nature has made firm and fast our only option and it occured to me while
playing in a men's league last evening that the firm conditions and the need to use the ground game and
run up type shots that firm and fast may bring Luck and chance more into the equation.  What say Ye?

[David Harshbarger]

At our course seems only those who paid there dues early are seeing it.

[Adam Clayman]

Nay! It brings awareness, shot-making and skill back into the sport.

Just because the modern game defines "skill" as those who can repeat their over analyzed swing, on command, doesn't make that the only skill for this multi faceted sport. 

[Carl Johnson]

Only to the extent that the member's experience let's him (or her) know how the bounces will go.  Simple example.  My home course normally allows a lot of ground game, which I use extensively.  I can be off the green 60 yds. or so, and based on my knowledge of the land, I know where to run up the ball to get it close to the pin.  The average first-timer is not going to be able to look at the land and figure it out (again, "average" -- not the professional or highly-skilled amateur).

[jeffwarne]

Nay! It brings awareness, shot-making and skill back into the sport.

Just because the modern game defines "skill" as those who can repeat their over analyzed swing, on command, doesn't make that the only skill for this multi faceted sport. 

+1
It takes far more skill to judge a bouncing, running shot---especially through uneven, somewhat inconsistent ground

[Carl Nichols]

Only to the extent that the member's experience let's him (or her) know how the bounces will go.  Simple example.  My home course normally allows a lot of ground game, which I use extensively.  I can be off the green 60 yds. or so, and based on my knowledge of the land, I know where to run up the ball to get it close to the pin.  The average first-timer is not going to be able to look at the land and figure it out (again, "average" -- not the professional or highly-skilled amateur).

This is how I would describe my host at Cal Club -- extremely adept at knowing how/when to play 20-50 yard running shots....

[Evan Louden]

It takes far more skill to judge a bouncing, running shot---especially through uneven, somewhat inconsistent ground

I disagree... I think there is a much larger margin of error on a bouncing, running shot for the average golfer than a lofted shot. But that's the point.

I think fast and firm favors allows the knowledgeable golfer to play a higher percentage shot.

I wonder if you were able to have the same set of average golfers play the same course under fast/firm and wet/soft would there be a significant scoring difference?

[Adam Clayman]

On soft and wet courses, most average golfers can't reach the par 4's in reg. So, yes there's a huge difference in not only scoring, but enjoyment of the sport.

[Greg Chambers]

It takes far more skill to judge a bouncing, running shot---especially through uneven, somewhat inconsistent ground

I disagree... I think there is a much larger margin of error on a bouncing, running shot for the average golfer than a lofted shot. But that's the point.

I think fast and firm favors allows the knowledgeable golfer to play a higher percentage shot.

I wonder if you were able to have the same set of average golfers play the same course under fast/firm and wet/soft would there be a significant scoring difference?

I'll disagree with your disagreement.  The average golfer isn't as adept at hitting their yardages correctly, and more times than not coming up short...allowing the ball to bounce and run up toward or onto the green under fast and firm conditions.  Where the better golfer is much more precise in their ability to control their distances, so they would naturally prefer softer conditions so the shot will hit and stop, rather than taking the odd bounce or bounding long.  Why do you think scores are so much lower at the professional level when conditions are soft versus those conditions that allow the course to dry out and firm up?

[Dan King]

Greg Chambers writes:
Where the better golfer is much more precise in their ability to control their distances, so they would naturally prefer softer conditions so the shot will hit and stop, rather than taking the odd bounce or bounding long.

In the past the better golfer was someone who was successful at both the physical and mental tests of golf. Now we just think of better golfers that are physically strong.

A physically strong golfer will beat the physically weak golfer more often than not. But the weaker golfer who is stronger mentally does stand a chance against the strong physical golfer, because the physical golfer thinks his shot should always be rewarded. A lucky shot here and there by the opponent and the weak mental golfer will give away her advantage. This is good stuff and should never be removed from golf. Yes, firm and fast occasionally results in the member's bounce and that is what is wonderful about it, and clearly why weak mental players hate firm and fast.

Why do you think scores are so much lower at the professional level when conditions are soft versus those conditions that allow the course to dry out and firm up?

Because at the professional level the various governing bodies have decided to try to eliminate luck from the game. On soft conditions the pros rarely have to think. They just need the yardage and they can hit the shot. On firm and fast they are going to have to give some thought to the shot, and they just aren't all that good at thinking.

Cheers,
Dan King

Bobby Jones was the most genuinely modest person I have ever met. When one had talked with him a short time he gave you the feeling that the only difference between your game and his was that he had been much more lucky.
 --Raymond Oppenheimer

[Evan Louden]

Adam,
I think we are in agreement.

I think there is a much larger margin of error on a bouncing, running shot for the average golfer than a lofted shot.

To clarify, I meant that under firm/fast conditions an average golfer can mishit a shot and still have positive results.
Example: 50 yard approach. Chip a 5 iron or loft a wedge? Give an average golfer ten attempts each way and I'm guessing the chip 5 iron ends up with the more consistent results because it allows for imperfect contact.

Highly skilled golfers like soft because they are much more consistent than the average golfer and can take advantage of their ability to control distance.

And back to the original post, for every lucky/unlucky "member's" bounce firm/fast brings in it probably eliminates a chunked wedge. Isn't that why everybody hits it great off the mat at the range?

I don't understand why most golfers never try to run a shot up but will try to loft a wedge. And if you suggest a less lofted club with an easy swing they look at you like you're speaking a different language.

And... isn't that "member's" bounce sometimes simply getting 40 yards of run on a drive. Leaving you a wedge instead of mid-iron?

[Mark Pearce]

What a crock of sh1te.

The fastest and firmest conditions at a Major in recent years were at Hoylake.  Who won?  The most  highly skilled golfer in the world.  In fact, look at the results from Open years when F and F conditions were really seen and there'll be a high correlation with winners and "highly skilled golfers".  "Better players" who lack the ability to control trajectory as well as the most highly skilled golfers prefer soft conditions because F+Ff demands control of distance AND trajectory.

[RDecker]

So what you are saying is a shot hit in the air, aimed directly at the pin that lands, checks up and leaves a kick in is a less skilled shot than a ball that is chased on running along the turf for 60-70 yards bouncing which ever way and just happens to leave a kick in.

[Giles Payne]

I think that the issue here is that on a genuinely fast and firm course you need a greater variety of shots than hitting it in the air and seeing it stop on a soft green.

If you play with experienced links golfers you would be very surprised to see how many of their bump and runs end up very close, whereas, if you flew a ball all the way to the green the only thing that would happen is that you would have to play your recovery from behind the green. For these players it is not luck that makes their shot end up close to the hole!

If you look at the golfers who win the tournaments when the ground is hard you will find players who can hit and controls great variety of shots.

[Mark Pearce]

So what you are saying is a shot hit in the air, aimed directly at the pin that lands, checks up and leaves a kick in is a less skilled shot than a ball that is chased on running along the turf for 60-70 yards bouncing which ever way and just happens to leave a kick in.

Yes, basically.  One shot requires control only of carry distance and direction.  The other requires control of those AND control of trajectory.  There's a lot of crap talked about random bounces.  There's no such thing, just complex contouring.  A skilful player can read most breaks and can avoid particularly contoured parts where a few feet of inaccuracies can lead to the greatest miss.

[jeffwarne]

So what you are saying is a shot hit in the air, aimed directly at the pin that lands, checks up and leaves a kick in is a less skilled shot than a ball that is chased on running along the turf for 60-70 yards bouncing which ever way and just happens to leave a kick in.

yes

[Ken Moum]

So what you are saying is a shot hit in the air, aimed directly at the pin that lands, checks up and leaves a kick in is a less skilled shot than a ball that is chased on running along the turf for 60-70 yards bouncing which ever way and just happens to leave a kick in.

I also agree with that.

So did Dr. MacKenzie I suspect:

"Today nearly everyone plays a coarse and vulgar pitch which punches a hole in the green. With the exception of the Old Course at St. Andrews and few similar courses, there is rarely any necessity to play any other kind of shot. Golfers are losing the joy of playing the variety of approach shots that were so necessary in the old days. -- Alister Mackenzie"

[Phil McDade]

What a crock of sh1te.

The fastest and firmest conditions at a Major in recent years were at Hoylake.  Who won?  The most  highly skilled golfer in the world.  In fact, look at the results from Open years when F and F conditions were really seen and there'll be a high correlation with winners and "highly skilled golfers".  "Better players" who lack the ability to control trajectory as well as the most highly skilled golfers prefer soft conditions because F+Ff demands control of distance AND trajectory.

True, but Sandwich was just as burned out in 2003, and the world's 396th-ranked player won that championship.

[RDecker]

My point wasn't that one shot or the other required more skill as such but simply that the ground shot would be more of a roll of the dice at times.  If you took some sort of "iron byron" type machine and hit 10 shots in the air to a fixed target from a fixed spot you'd get very little dispersion, same scenario with a run-up type shot and I would be willing to bet that the dispersion would increase.

[Mark Pearce]

My point wasn't that one shot or the other required more skill as such but simply that the ground shot would be more of a roll of the dice at times.  If you took some sort of "iron byron" type machine and hit 10 shots in the air to a fixed target from a fixed spot you'd get very little dispersion, same scenario with a run-up type shot and I would be willing to bet that the dispersion would increase.

true, but that's because the hard, fast conditions amplify errors.  Miss the right spot by a yard on soft, receptive greens and you miss by a yard.  Miss the right landing spot by a yard on a fast, firm approach and your end result might be a twenty yard miss.  Again, the fast, firm conditions are a more severe test of skill.

[Sven Nilsen]

"The older you are, the more comfortable you get with those uncertainties."  Tom Watson discussing playing the Open.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()