[Jason Thurman]

Must you also be able to "work" the ball?

Everyone I know who uses the ground effectively does so with a low ball flight that they can draw or fade as appropriate. My most satisfying shots that use the ground game follow the same pattern. It's not enough just to hit the slope or mound to get the right kick from the ball, I also have to hit it with the appropriate shot shape.

Does the fact that it's become harder to curve the ball make the ground game a more difficult play as well? Or is the diminishment of the ground game all about the fact that it's easier to hit high shots with plenty of spin than ever before?

[Mike Hendren]

Absolutely not.  From personal experience, the key to the ground game is an understanding of how to tack your ball to the hole, with a commitment that begins with the tee shot.  Example: The key to the Road Hole at St. Andrews is being in the right half of the fairway, or even the right hand rough off the tee.   Too far left off the tee and no amount of draw (for the right hander) will successfully access virtually any hole location on that green.  Another example, a true U. S. style redan benefits the straight ball hitter more than the player who can hit the draw.

Arguably with today's ball and clubs, any player who can work the ball doesn't need the ground game and probably wouldn't know how to use it as has become the default option of the less talented.

Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

Fair enough, Michael.

I think Lawsonia stands out among courses I've played for its presentation of ground game options. Yet, most of the greens are offset to the line of play at an angle. For a player who can only draw the ball, I imagine they'd have a hard time with the approach to the third hole (or the 8th, 14th, or 16th).



While a player who can't hit a draw won't be able to properly take advantage of the slopes at the 18th (or the 1st, 2nd, or 17th).



How can players who aren't able to work the ball fully utilize the ground game? In the Golden Age, was it more common for even average players to be able to turn the ball both ways?

*Images pilfered from Ran's photo review.

[Mark Pearce]

Jason,

I don'y agree with Bogey.  Whilst players who cannot shape the ball can and do use and appreciate the ground game I think I agree with the premise that to fully appreciate the ground game, you would need to be able to shape the ball both ways and I think your examples at Lawsonia help illustrate why.

[Richard Choi]

How can players who aren't able to work the ball fully utilize the ground game? In the Golden Age, was it more common for even average players to be able to turn the ball both ways?

By placing their tee shot on the correct side of the fairway so that you have the correct angle to use the ground game.

[George Pazin]

How can players who aren't able to work the ball fully utilize the ground game? In the Golden Age, was it more common for even average players to be able to turn the ball both ways?

Might I inquire as to how old you are? I've played with plenty of older golfers who bounce the ball all over the place, and it stays so low that it never has much of a chance to work in any direction other than forward.

I think many - maybe even most - misunderstand the term 'ground game'. For me, it simply means anything other than aerial drop and stop golf. Some on here seem to think it means lesser golfers are looking to be able to top their way around the course; I think this completely misses how a bogey golfer plays the game, so much so that I feel like folks who think this way must have either been born a low handicapper, or completely blocked out the time they spent as a bogey golfer.

A golfer who shoots 90 is taking one extra stroke a hole. Frequently that simply means a missed green and a chip and 2 putt. The attitude shown by many on here seems to be that when a lesser golfer laments the lack of a ground game option, he's looking for excuses to not be able to make a competent swing, when all he is really looking for is simply the availability to allow his ball to run a little, as opposed to using the high lob/high spin approach.

That's why my tagline by the wise Pat Brockwell has remained for 8 years now - it illustrates a simple insight into the game that most lack.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

Your use of Ran's photos demonstrate the down-side of one-dimensional photography.

What you don't see in that first picture of the 3rd green at Lawsonia is that the fairway width allows plenty of room for the player to come in straight-on to that green. It lengthens the hole, yes, but such is the nature and genius of Langford's design -- the shorter route, well-executed via taking on the dogleg (and the looming deep bunker at the corner of the dogleg), is rewarded with a shorter approach. But it's still one fraught with some danger, with that deep right-side bunker. The player unwilling to take on the dogleg has plenty of room on the left side of the fairway, and his approach can utilize the ground-game option there via the open front. But it will be a longer approach. That's pretty good design work, in my book.

The 18th is one of the great tacking par 5s I've played, for a hole in which the green is on a straight line back to the tee (check out an aerial of the course). The player going for the green in two on this relatively short par 5 certainly will have a better shot at it if he can hit a controlled draw. But those playing it in three shots are again left with an open greenfront for a correctly placed layup 2nd shot. And, again, the fairway offers plenty of width to allow that golfer the opportunity for such an approach from the tee.

Of all the good courses I've played or seen, Lawsonia may be the least one-dimensional of them all.

[Mike Hendren]

Nobody, and I mean nobody in their right mind, regardless of talent would intentionally approach the 3rd green at Lawsonia Links via the ground game - at least not on purpose.  Argument B, if you can't bend the second shot, simply play well left off the tee.  On 18 if you favor the right side you can play a straight shot to the green at a more accomodating angle than the one depicted in the photograph. Again, the ground game starts with the tee shot.  

Also, having looked at the aerial again I have to reluctantly disagree with Phil McDade that the 4th at Lawsonia Links is a redan. The right bunker would need to be filled in to green level or slightly higher and the fairway extended through the right side of the green for that to be a legitimate play.

Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

Rich, if you've seen the third hole at Lawsonia, you know that there is no "correct side of the fairway." The green virtually opens from the rear compared to the tee. The only way to get a clean angle of approach is to drive it 330+ yards, and no one who hits it that far is playing the running approach shot that Ran references in his Lawsonia writeup.

George, I'm 28, but I've played plenty of golf with older players and women. My mother doesn't hit it high, but she successfully shapes her low shots. I started this topic because I've observed some of what you're getting at. There are plenty of players who lack distance and must play the ground game, but still have refined other ballstriking skills like their ability to shape shots in order to really maximize what they get out of the ground-oriented game they play. It's not just single-digit players who can work the ball, and in fact, that's probably one of the easiest skills a low-ball hitting player can learn to improve ballstriking, though it's admittedly more difficult to do in 2012 than it was in 1965.

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

"J'accuse!"

-- I've never equated the 3rd green at Lawsonia as a Redan. I don't think it comes close to being one.

-- Perhaps you are thinking of my previous views on the 4th at Lawsonia, which I have repeatedly called "Redan-esque" or "Redan-like," or even "near-Redan," because I think it shares several of the qualities of a Redan. But I've always agreed that it is not a true Redan, as the green lacks the requisite tilt to truly capture that hole's qualities. See: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35169.0.html

-- With a hard wind (often found in the fall) out of the north, I've actually employed the ground game at the 3rd at Lawsonia. It's particularly useful if the pin is tucked into the front half of the green. Remember that's a green that tilts away on the backside with a steep falloff -- not the place to go long!

[Jason Thurman]

Nobody, and I mean nobody in their right mind, regardless of talent would intentionally approach the 3rd green at Lawsonia Links via the ground game - at least not on purpose.

You'll have to talk to Ran about that, as he mentions a low-running approach tracking to a back right hole location in his writeup.

Phil, I don't see how the ground game player gets to approach the 18th green from straight on unless he carries the right fairway bunker on his second shot, which seems like a big hit. A lot of shorter hitters are still hitting a wood from 150+ out, particularly seniors and women. It's hard for me to see how a player like that can get into position for a straight approach from the final 70 yards or so of that fairway, unless it takes them 4 or 5 "tacking" shots to get there. To reach that green in regulation, they'll have to hit it from around 130 at a minimum, and from that yardage a draw helps a lot.

My question isn't whether a player CAN play the ground game without shaping shots. It's whether they can get THE MOST out of it without shaping shots. I don't see how a player who can't shape the ball can still put an approach into the middle or left side of the green if they're playing a running shot from 150 on the 18th at Lawsonia.

[Mike Hendren]

Jason, that was probably Ran's third to the third.

Phil, I meant to reference the 4th hole and have changed my previous post accordingly. 

I'll be in Madison in a couple of weeks and can't believe I didn't schedule another day for a trip to Green Lake.  Lawsonia Links is sublime.

Maybe I'm a Cheesehead at heart as I wouldn't mind living in Green Lake provided I had a close friend who was a member at Blue Mound!

Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

Michael, I'll also be in Madison shortly, toward the end of September. Still trying to see if I'll have time to head up to Green Lake myself.

[Phil McDade]

Rich, if you've seen the third hole at Lawsonia, you know that there is no "correct side of the fairway." The green virtually opens from the rear compared to the tee. The only way to get a clean angle of approach is to drive it 330+ yards, and no one who hits it that far is playing the running approach shot that Ran references in his Lawsonia writeup.

Jason:

Perhaps you play a different game than I.

But let's characterize this hole and its length correctly. The 3rd hole at Lawsonia plays 386 from the tips, and 360-365 from the white/gold tees (which is where I play). A tee shot of 200-210 yards (my game) to the left side of the fairway there puts me adjacent to the right bunker, and if I've placed it correctly (and I never worry about going too far left at that hole -- there's nothing over there; there is all kinds of trouble right -- bunker, OB), I've got 150 yards or so straight on to the green that's far more open than if I'm hugging the right side of the fairway. For me, there is no question that there is a "correct side" of the fairway at the 3rd, and it's never on the right! And, as mentioned earlier, I disagree with Bogey that the ground game isn't an option there; in some circumstances, it may be the prudent play (I may not play a running 4-iron from 150 yards out, but I have deliberately bounced one on to the green there, which I would equate as utilization of the ground game).

On to the 18th, which plays 490 yards from the white tees (again, my tees of choice). My goal on the tee there is to place my tee shot on the left side of the fairway, making sure to avoid the first fairway bunker right (which, I can usually avoid since I'm short off the tee anyway.) Again, there is less trouble left off the tee than right (there is a big mound left, a grassed-in bunker of sorts, but I'd rather be near that than in a Lawsonia trap any day). Correctly played off the tee, I then tack right -- if I've really caught my drive, or the course is running fast, I may try to carry that farther-on-down fairway bunker right. But, usually, I play at it, but short of it. That will leave me 150 yards, give or take 10 yards, into a green that's open generally, but moreso if coming in from the right. In some conditions, I can see running the ball onto the green there.

Can I shape shots? Intentionally? Sometimes. I can't imagine that the skill of being able to shape the ball doesn't help most players who do so most of the time. But, I'd disagree with your central premise that being able to do so is the only way one can appreciate and utilize the ground game.

[David Davis]

While both of the holes at Lawsonia shown above look interesting, neither is appropriate for usage of the ground game as we use it on links courses in my opinion. These greens are meant to be approached in the air and I'm only judging by the photos. Nobody plays a hard running hook or a hard running fade/slice into greens like these unless they are trying to pull of a shot around trees or some other obstacle. A sligh fade or draw might allow for a safe approach to a sucker pin placement.

The ground game becomes a percentage option when standing some place on the course and noticing there are many way to play a certain hole of which the ground may well be the best and easiest, usually because the green allows for some kind of run up shot, the weather conditions call for it and allow you to control the shot better on the ground and/or the greens are so hard that stopping it with a high flighing approach is all but impossible. This lends itself to links golf courses, sure there are exceptions and anyone can argue that they might approach any hole on the ground but that does not mean the percentage change of doing it well and succeeding will be high. There is also a difference between hard and fast conditions calling for you to land the ball just short of the green and roll it on and utilizing the ground game and approaching with a low roller in my opinion. For example, if you can easily hit a bump and run 8 iron or even a putter inside of 100 yds then most likely the course lends itself well to the ground game.

I'm not saying these are the only circumstances where you can utilize it in my opinion, just saying these would be some of the most common ones. Those that disagree please by all means explain why.

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, I agree that the ideal side of the fairway at the third is the left side, but it still doesn't give an open approach. A straight shot from 150+ out from the left side of the fairway that looks to run on is going to feed off the runup to the green to the left and miss, I'm convinced. Your strategy for 18, on the other hand, sounds like it would work well. I just didn't think of it myself because I almost never layup without a fight (which is a drag considering I can't drive it over 270 anymore, as I usually redefine the word "futility" when playing golf lately).

Keep in mind that my premise isn't that you can't appreciate the ground game without shaping the ball. It's that you can't FULLY appreciate the options there without shaping it. I've always loved the fourth, for instance, because I can hit a slinging hook that feeds up the apron and onto the green. If I could only hit a straight ball or a fade, I'd probably hate that hole for giving me no chance at getting toward a left flag.

The point, to me, is that we often say "Course X doesn't really offer the ground game" when in fact we just don't notice because we either only use the ground game theoretically (hitting aerial approaches with our modern equipment while trying to imagine what we'd do if we wanted to bounce one on) or because we don't have the game to utlize the ground options (can't hit a draw to a green that opens from the right).

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

You should continue to let your game deterioate so that you can appreciate the ground game in ways mine does.

You can bounce one onto the 3rd green; I've done it. The thing about that approach is it's slightly downhill; I think I've hit a punch 6-iron into that green and utilized the area fronting the green to run it on up.

I can't hit a draw to save my life, and the 4th is a favorite of mine. But that probably comes from not having a scorer's mentality. I like that Langford provides varying ways to accomplish the task at hand there.

[Carl Johnson]

Must you also be able to "work" the ball?

Everyone I know who uses the ground effectively does so with a low ball flight that they can draw or fade as appropriate. My most satisfying shots that use the ground game follow the same pattern. It's not enough just to hit the slope or mound to get the right kick from the ball, I also have to hit it with the appropriate shot shape.

Does the fact that it's become harder to curve the ball make the ground game a more difficult play as well? Or is the diminishment of the ground game all about the fact that it's easier to hit high shots with plenty of spin than ever before?

No.  But I guess it depends on how you define the "ground game."  Sometimes I try to "work the ball."  Mostly, that doesn't "work."  However, there are normally plenty of opportunities to use the ground game on a firm course without being able to "work the ball."  At my home club, from 100 yds. or so on in, I can effectively use the ground game without "working the ball" on many holes.  On a fewer number, I can use it from even further out without "working it."  So, I'd agree that being able to work the ball can help the ground game, just as it can the aerial game.  But that's not the end of the story.

[Mike_Cocking]

To fully appreciate the ground game...go and try using some hickories.  You start to get an idea of how the game was played and how difficult it is to approach the green if your out of position.  Not having the high spinning 9 iron shot in your bag you will start to see things you'd never noticed before.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()