Is the concept of ground game though of too narrowly, in terms of approaches only?
I like this question, and I'm disappointed it didn't seem to get the attention it deserves. I could swear I posted something about it in the thread, but must not have.
I think most people's idea of the ground game is indeed far too narrow. It seems most think it means you should be able to top it around the course, or get around with a putter. To me, I think of the ground game as anything that requires more thought than "What's my drop and stop yardage?"
That's the opposite approach of Greg's question - it uses a definition too broad - but I think the ground game has a certain negative connotation among better golfers, as they simply view it as a means of appeasing lesser golfers (like me).
Certainly there will be occasions when the best option - maybe even the only option - is a high spinning shot. I just think it should be minimized, and there should be a distinct emphasis on allowing players to get around in almost any way possible. Yet the exact opposite seems to be preferred by most, on here and elsewhere.
To me, the essence of golf - and golf course architecture - is: Here is the tee. There is the hole. Get it in the hole in as few strokes as possible.
In a weird way, I think that's the most unheeded lesson of TOC (guessing here, haven't had the pleasure myself). There seems to have been a move somewhere along the way toward the architect decided the path to the hole, and the manner in which said path is approached. I don't know when it happened, but the shift was rather complete, as I see very few holes that evoke the spirit I desire.
That theory also explains why I never win the armchair architect contests...