[Sean_A]

I'm struggling to see the point of this thread, particularly from an architect. Why are you so confused and who are these ground game experts to whom you refer? You've introduced two fairly massive caveats here that makes it seem as if you're constructing a straw man to tear down.  

Of course if greens are receptive _and_ we're talking about top level professionals, the ground game will not be a factor. That's fairly obvious isn't it? I don't see anyone here suggesting that it is or should be an approach adopted by pros in those conditions. I do hear people lamenting the fact that more tournaments aren't played on courses that _demand_ ground game and require more creativity than just re-executing their stock shots over and over again. Granted, in America, there are only a handful of courses that are like this in their current state but on this side of the pond it is horrible to see the likes of a Carton House get the Irish open over a Royal County Down or Portmarnock.

You say: Now I understand that some on here may have fun hitting shots and watching how the intricacies of firm undulating ground approaches maneuver the ball but that has nothing to do with playing the game for a score. Again, of course it doesn't if greens are receptive, but that's hardly the ideal. The whole point is receptive greens and soft conditions generally rob us of this highly enjoyable aspect of the game. Golf becomes repetitive and far less fun in those circumstances. And if a 40 yard pitch is preferable to a 40 yard bump and run on a firm course, then that's because the design is not clever enough to badly punish an only averagely executed aerial pitch (as opposed to a superb one). The Old course is rightly lauded as one of the best courses in the world cos even the pros have to adjust there - even the pros know that the old pitch, skip and check shot is too high tariff on many of those greens (because of the firmness but also their DESIGN) so a different and more innovative approach is adopted.

There just isn't enough variety in most modern courses because they are watered to within an inch of their lives (in the pursuit of perfect conditions) and there is no room for the tilt Jeff refers to and why do you think we see so few front to back greens on courses generally?

..and the reason guys like us constantly seek out dry winter golf.  I am in perfect agreement Sheehy.  It is terribly disappointing to watch balls splutter and splat thus demanding one style of play.  As you say, TOC is the only course I can think where pros and ams alike need to find lanes for approaching or be forced to conjure up shots.  I know its one of the easiest venues for the pros, but at least the spectator gets to see real golf played rather than glorified range shots.

As a connected aside, what is the ground game?  For how many yards must a ball roll before its called "ground game"?  I played with a guy yesterday and his style of play was either a hooked running shot or when forced to do so, a higher wedge like shot.  I could see the consternation on his face when challeneged by the fairway being blocked by sand and/or earth works.  He is definitely the extreme end of the scale, but I would say he is a ground gamer in the truest sense of the phrase.  In his case, its a needs must deal.  In my case, I prefer to put the ball on the ground when I can and when I earn the angle, though I want some strictly aerial shots as well.  But unless I am close to the green, its a pitch and roll shot, rather than a bump and run.  Anyway, its interesting to watch guys true ground gamers and think about how they have to envision a hole compared to guys who carry the ball.  


Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Brian,

Great post.  I agree with every word.

Of course tour pros who play all their golf on soft courses don't learn the ground game.  Of course tour pros who don't learn the ground game don't use it on courses it doesn't suit when playing for a living. 

These guys get caught short when conditions do reward the skilled ground game player.  Dorsal was one example, perhaps, but not nearly as good an example as Hoylake in 2006.  Then the best player in the world, adapted to alien conditions and used his control of trajectory to give a master class.  Lesser players could not adapt and were blown away.  Great players are able to use the ground game when conditions demand.  The automatons who form so much of the PGA Tour (and, sadly, the European Tour) don't have that string to their bow.

[Mark Chaplin]

Jim - once they've turned pro European Tour players play as much links golf as US tour players.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mike,

I know what you're getting at yet I agree with everything Brian says.

I'll just add a couple of things. There are occasions when the same basic ground game shots are used by the top pros when the greens are receptive - and that is when there is a big wind. Clearly downwind shots mean the greens hold less but big crosswinds and headwinds often call for either a low punch or even a bump and run - over many years at The Open, I've witnessed the greatest players master these kind of shots - from Greg Norman taking a 5-iron from 115 yards in to the wind (i.e. holding green) to Darren Clarke round St Georges.

However, I will point out that for even a medium to good amateur golfer, a ground game course really only needs about 15 yards of run-in available at the front. Because I play with dirty grooves and don't spin the ball much, I find myself using the bounce in shot all the time when scoring. But I very rarely - as much as I enjoy it for fun - play right along the ground from over about 50 yards out.

So even when building multiple significantly raised greens (which I've recent experience of), my priority would be to get some element of open run-in at close to the same elevation, even if it is just 10-15 yards.

Incidentally - a bit of home bias perhaps - I think Portmarnock is the greatest strategic test in Ireland primarily because it does the basic things well. Through firm conditioning, bunkering placed on the best approach side and open, fairway level greens (from that side only)  that don't tilt towards the approach, the ground game is needed more than at any other course in the country just to score, regardless of the fun aspect that you so rightly highlighted.  

[Wade Whitehead]

So, everyone, what's the best "half shot" you've ever seen?

WW

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, By all means, you should be designing for the elite, or, pro player. Lord knows they pay the bills.  

The exclusively aerial assault game has turned a multi faceted sport into a boring game. However, I will admit that having the best amateur players, make only one par at last years Walker cup, on the Redan, might prove how truly exciting, NOT having trajectory control, or options, could be.

Might I suggest you ring your next 18 greens with some tall Georgia pines? I bet the commissions will flood in, after that.  

[Niall C]

At the last Open at St Andrews I watched Sandy Lyle, a man who was likely steeped in the ground game during his amateur and early pro days, play a pitch on to a downslope from 20 yards. One bounce and then the check kicked in and the ball rolled gently down the incline another 10 feet to lie 4 feet from the hole. I doubt that all but a handful on this Discussion Group could have got as good or better a result playing the same type of shot. Lyle played it because he was good enough to play it with confidence and degree of certainty of the result. The rest of us would be mad to try it, and I think thats what the ground game is about. We play to our abilities and given the ground conditions are required to allow for an element of roll.

Until they start watering the greens at St Andrews on a regular basis to make them nice and lush, people will be playing the ground game IMO.

Niall

[Jim Nugent]

Jim - once they've turned pro European Tour players play as much links golf as US tour players.

Then where does that creativity come from that allows them to win so many Ryder Cups?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think Mike is full of BS.....at least not this time. (insert smiley)  Brian S mentions courses that "demand" the ground game.  Years ago, I introduced a thread asking what it would take to force you to use the ground game.  I don't recall any real responses other than it would be a nice idea if it was available. My memory could be off. 

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that forces a ground shot is me being under trees off the side of the fairway, but wait....the "intelligentsia" here would also say trees by the side of the fairway are verboten.

But, I will ask again here...."What features in architecture "force" the ground game?" (I will accept "strongly encourage it")

Since golf began, golf balls and clubs have been improved, all with the idea that the ball should fly higher and further, with more spin.  As an architect, I do allow for a run up shot on most greens, because lord knows, seniors and women need it and use it.  However, until I see advertisements for clubs and balls that "fly lower!" and "have less spin!"  I doubt I will change my design approach too much.  I see "ground game" as a bit of nostalgia, like art deco buildings, maybe.

And again, I do understand the lower running recovery shots as opposed to flip wedges all the time, but maybe from 20-30 yards off the green, 50-60 yards tops, as per my conversation with Player and others.  Funny story, while playing golf in China recently, the female caddy automatically handed me the wedge on every recovery shot and seemed insulted that I handed it back in favor of a 6 or 7 iron.....so I do understand how ingrained the wedge shot is in the minds of most golfers, when it really shouldn't be, either. 

But another funny thing is, I got a new appreciation for the low approach from the Pelz short game school, but when I mentioned that, some here poo pooed that, saying they would prefer golfers play with "feel."  What I think Mike doesn't get, is how many here think the object of the game is to hit creative shots, and any attempt to standardize the golf swing is bad.  However, most golf instructors (including Pelz) will tell you standardization leads to lower scores, which of course, is the point of golf, always and forever.  I get that standardized architecture that gets as repetitive as the golf swing should be is usually the response, and eventually gets tired.  I just think that the basic structure ought to be designed for how golf is played now, and variety instilled with a range of features based mostly on that. 

Or, reintroducing, as most have, old features like the Redan and Biarritz (although not many play it like CBM intended).  Funny, but most here blanched at the US Open at Shinny when the pros figures cutting a shot into the Redan was the best way to play it, as if they should cow tow to our demands to play the wrong shot, because some guy thought it should be played the other way a century ago....As we all know, nostalgia is the LAST thing on any players mind when in an important match.  Have we ever hears a pro say "I won't try to shoot a 63 to respect the design heritage of XX famous dead guy course?"

[Mike_Young]

I'm not disagreeing with anyone's post here...I agree with Brian-S.  Actually he proves my point when he says:
Of course if greens are receptive _and_ we're talking about top level professionals, the ground game will not be a factor. That's fairly obvious isn't it? I don't see anyone here suggesting that it is or should be an approach adopted by pros in those conditions. I do hear people lamenting the fact that more tournaments aren't played on courses that _demand_ ground game and require more creativity than just re-executing their stock shots over and over again. Granted, in America, there are only a handful of courses that are like this in their current state but on this side of the pond it is horrible to see the likes of a Carton House get the Irish open over a Royal County Down or Portmarnock.
In other words if one is to be a top player in golf today he does not play the ground game except in wind or in very firm conditions.  That's not to say it's not fun to play for the rest of us or that I would not consider it in a design because I do.  Niall mentions Sandy Lyle in a post and how he uses a pitch that most of us cannot hit...that's realistic for those guys.  I saw a very good player once throw a ball onto the front of #4 at Spyglass to a front pin and stop it while playing downwind.  That's when I knew there was not much one could do for the ground game.  It's equipment and ball as much as player.
IMHO the modern ground game is only an issue for the very good players from the tee ball or the second shot into par 5's.  You can mess with their minds there.  
But Brian ask what is my point of this thread.  In my mind discussing the ground game when it comes to playing golf is like discussing teeball with college baseball.  It is basically a fun option to be used as one develops golfing skills and a fun element to use as one loses golfing skills.  That's great but it is not a critical factor in determining the best players in the game which is the measuring stick for competitive golf.  

[Niall C]

Jeff

Generally speaking I use two clubs for the short game. A 7 iron for around the greens ie, anywhere within say 5 or 10 yards of the putting surface. I'm not a fan of putting from off the green and will almost always use the 7. The 7 is easier to control and if you hit a fat or thin you won't be too far away. You don't get that with a wedge.

The other club I use is my sandwedge which is used when the 7 iron isn't applicable. Its a Mizuno with a sharp leading edge and little bounce. I use it for going over bunkers and ground undulations but almost never use it for a full out hit, only for around the greens therefore I am always allowing for run.

From further out I'm always allowing for run. The only exceptions are when the greens (and surrounds) are wet and soft which thankfully isn't too often, and even when it is like that it's down to the weather rather than design. So my whole short game is based on the conditions. The point about fast and firm is that for your average golfer it makes these types of shots the best option and not just another option that happens to be more fun.

Niall

[Niall C]

Mike

The point I was trying and probably failing to make with the Sandy Lyle reference, and indeed the post above, was that your average golfer couldn't pull that shot off on a hard and fast links the way Sandy managed. If you took a golfer who was used to soft receptive greens and gave him the same shot to play he might try to do what Sandy did but I bet after a period of trying, and failing, he would adapt his game and start hitting low shots with allowance for run.

If you build courses fast and firm the average golfer will play that way (eventually) irrespective of what the professional does. So the question is, who are you building courses for, the pro or the average hacker ?

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, the other factor here is everyone talking about "building" a course that is firm and fast.  Really, the architect can't control that, its a maintenance issue.  I doubt any of us purposely under irrigate a course, because you couldn't grow it in, but once those heads are there, its not up to us how often they get used later.

As to good golfers, but less than tour level, I played with the club pro in a grand opening on a course where I built a reverse slope green, and explained the concept to him.  Instead of bouncing in on the front, he simply hit even more spin and held the green quite easily. I took comfort in the fact that I hit the green just as well by landing just over the cross bunkers and rolling it up.  But, for him, there was still more certainty in him hitting more spin.

[Sean_A]

Jeff & Mike

It seems as if you are judging the merit of ground golf by the play of top notch golfers.  I still find it odd that archies worry about those guys.  A terrible set-up sorts that "problem" out.  Its like you lot are tryng to design a car that goes 250 mph yet can still haul a trailer as well as a pickup.  Again, why worry about creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?

Ciao 

[Mike_Young]

Mike

The point I was trying and probably failing to make with the Sandy Lyle reference, and indeed the post above, was that your average golfer couldn't pull that shot off on a hard and fast links the way Sandy managed. If you took a golfer who was used to soft receptive greens and gave him the same shot to play he might try to do what Sandy did but I bet after a period of trying, and failing, he would adapt his game and start hitting low shots with allowance for run.

If you build courses fast and firm the average golfer will play that way (eventually) irrespective of what the professional does. So the question is, who are you building courses for, the pro or the average hacker ?

Niall

I understand exactly what you were saying.....have I one time mentioned "building courses for the pro?"   I build for the so-called ground game....BUT I also understand that it will not be used by the good player including many top ams....

Sean,
Have I said I worry about the top players?  Nope....And when you say " you lot" does that mean " we don't get it like the chosen?"  I judge all sports by the best players.  If passing game took over football and you love the running game and wish to continue using the wishbone or the T formation then great...I don't care but you will not be one of the best players or coaches....I understand all the points that have ben made from using a 7 iron to even using the hybrids (which are often better now).  I'm just saying guys on here need to "wake -up" and understand the top of the game including many ams don't care what was designed between take-off and landing of the golf ball.  We could all take our imaginary friends and set the basketball goals at 7 feet high and we would be bad asses but then when we went to play real basketball with real players we would have an awakening.  As long as we were having fun with our imaginary friends at 7 feet then that is great but it has nothing to do with basketball, it's just fun....
I love the ground game especially when it comes to second shots into par fives and use it when I can incorporate it but I am also a realist.  I understand firm, soft, high, low and everything that has been mentioned and it's fun but people don't pay to watch the guys that play it...

[Charlie Gallagher]

While Seve was a maestro with a wedge, he sure was amazing running the ball on links turf. I think Tom Watson fits in that category as well, equally good with both approaches.
If the PGA tour visited Ballyneal, Sand Hills, Cabot, or Dismal would we see any adjustment? I got to play a couple of those courses with a very solid player last year who is right around scratch, he used the aerial approach often, but when he had to recover, there was more variety in his approach and he sent it in on the ground a bunch.

[Mike_Young]

While Seve was a maestro with a wedge, he sure was amazing running the ball on links turf. I think Tom Watson fits in that category as well, equally good with both approaches.
If the PGA tour visited Ballyneal, Sand Hills, Cabot, or Dismal would we see any adjustment? I got to play a couple of those courses with a very solid player last year who is right around scratch, he used the aerial approach often, but when he had to recover, there was more variety in his approach and he sent it in on the ground a bunch.

Charlie,
I agree with all you say above...except I'm not talking about short game shots as ground game.  I just expect all good players to know when to putt, chip or pitch it and agree that most would adapt to such at those courses you mention.  The one thing that would happen if the PGA Tour were to visit those course is that half the field would skip the event.  They have no desire to adapt or mess with their routine for one week out of the year    
Again the ground game is fun to go out in the afternoon and play with but it becomes amusing when some one on here starts to pontificate about using his three wood to bump the ball into the green from 175 yards etc....that's just goofing off to see how the ball will roll...there is no consistency in that type of play...( not saying you do such )

[Sean_A]

Mike

The point I was trying and probably failing to make with the Sandy Lyle reference, and indeed the post above, was that your average golfer couldn't pull that shot off on a hard and fast links the way Sandy managed. If you took a golfer who was used to soft receptive greens and gave him the same shot to play he might try to do what Sandy did but I bet after a period of trying, and failing, he would adapt his game and start hitting low shots with allowance for run.

If you build courses fast and firm the average golfer will play that way (eventually) irrespective of what the professional does. So the question is, who are you building courses for, the pro or the average hacker ?

Niall

I understand exactly what you were saying.....have I one time mentioned "building courses for the pro?"   I build for the so-called ground game....BUT I also understand that it will not be used by the good player including many top ams....

Sean,
Have I said I worry about the top players?  Nope....And when you say " you lot" does that mean " we don't get it like the chosen?"  I judge all sports by the best players.  If passing game took over football and you love the running game and wish to continue using the wishbone or the T formation then great...I don't care but you will not be one of the best players or coaches....I understand all the points that have ben made from using a 7 iron to even using the hybrids (which are often better now).  I'm just saying guys on here need to "wake -up" and understand the top of the game including many ams don't care what was designed between take-off and landing of the golf ball.  We could all take our imaginary friends and set the basketball goals at 7 feet high and we would be bad asses but then when we went to play real basketball with real players we would have an awakening.  As long as we were having fun with our imaginary friends at 7 feet then that is great but it has nothing to do with basketball, it's just fun....
I love the ground game especially when it comes to second shots into par fives and use it when I can incorporate it but I am also a realist.  I understand firm, soft, high, low and everything that has been mentioned and it's fun but people don't pay to watch the guys that play it...

Mike

Not sure what is meant by "I judge all sports by the best players".  Strikes me as odd and irrelevant.  

I think everybody understands just fine that the best players hit shots which they trust to be most accurate.  In other words, most of the time, in the air.  The ground offers too many variables for certainty when a guy can hit 15 out of 20 8 irons on a blanket.  

As for imaginary friends, well, I think for the most part pro golfers may as well be imaginary because hardly anybody plays like that.  So it seems strange to use pr golf as measuring stick (but its done ALL THE TIME ON THIS SITE) where design is concerned.  To each is own though.  I still contend that what really matters is the right design balance for the property and the maintenance regime  Unfortunately, archies can have all the best intentions, but rarely can control the cohesion of the design and its maintenance regime.  

I am actually in favour of some aerial based courses.  Sometimes there is too much rain in areas to think about f&f or the climate can't support grasses which can play reasonably f&f.  In these cases, why not go with the flow and design for the climate?  Where at all possible though, I think it a mistake for archies to demand too much aerial golf.  What is too much?  Who can say, but I know when I see it - think Trump Aberdeen  

I still vividly recall trying to bang a little iron into the turf for the kick up at Tobacco Road's 13th.  I see that approach as a bouncer using the contours.  The guy I was playing with couldn't believe that would be my choice of shot.  Of course, the turf didn't (doesn't?) support bump and run golf.  Its always my biggest complaint about golf in the US - too wet, claggy and clingy to play shots which are sitting there waiting to be played. 

Ciao  

[Mike_Young]

Mike

The point I was trying and probably failing to make with the Sandy Lyle reference, and indeed the post above, was that your average golfer couldn't pull that shot off on a hard and fast links the way Sandy managed. If you took a golfer who was used to soft receptive greens and gave him the same shot to play he might try to do what Sandy did but I bet after a period of trying, and failing, he would adapt his game and start hitting low shots with allowance for run.

If you build courses fast and firm the average golfer will play that way (eventually) irrespective of what the professional does. So the question is, who are you building courses for, the pro or the average hacker ?

Niall

I understand exactly what you were saying.....have I one time mentioned "building courses for the pro?"   I build for the so-called ground game....BUT I also understand that it will not be used by the good player including many top ams....

Sean,
Have I said I worry about the top players?  Nope....And when you say " you lot" does that mean " we don't get it like the chosen?"  I judge all sports by the best players.  If passing game took over football and you love the running game and wish to continue using the wishbone or the T formation then great...I don't care but you will not be one of the best players or coaches....I understand all the points that have ben made from using a 7 iron to even using the hybrids (which are often better now).  I'm just saying guys on here need to "wake -up" and understand the top of the game including many ams don't care what was designed between take-off and landing of the golf ball.  We could all take our imaginary friends and set the basketball goals at 7 feet high and we would be bad asses but then when we went to play real basketball with real players we would have an awakening.  As long as we were having fun with our imaginary friends at 7 feet then that is great but it has nothing to do with basketball, it's just fun....
I love the ground game especially when it comes to second shots into par fives and use it when I can incorporate it but I am also a realist.  I understand firm, soft, high, low and everything that has been mentioned and it's fun but people don't pay to watch the guys that play it...

Mike

Not sure what is meant by "I judge all sports by the best players".  Strikes me as odd and irrelevant.  

I think everybody understands just fine that the best players hit shots which they trust to be most accurate.  In other words, most of the time, in the air.  The ground offers too many variables for certainty when a guy can hit 15 out of 20 8 irons on a blanket.  

As for imaginary friends, well, I think for the most part pro golfers may as well be imaginary because hardly anybody plays like that.  So it seems strange to use pr golf as measuring stick (but its done ALL THE TIME ON THIS SITE) where design is concerned.  To each is own though.  I still contend that what really matters is the right design balance for the property and the maintenance regime  Unfortunately, archies can have all the best intentions, but rarely can control the cohesion of the design and its maintenance regime.  

I am actually in favour of some aerial based courses.  Sometimes there is too much rain in areas to think about f&f or the climate can't support grasses which can play reasonably f&f.  In these cases, why not go with the flow and design for the climate?  Where at all possible though, I think it a mistake for archies to demand too much aerial golf.  What is too much?  Who can say, but I know when I see it - think Trump Aberdeen  

Ciao  

Sean,
What I mean is I like this:  I don't judge baseball by the best little league players.  I don't judge football by the best highschool players.  And I don't judge golf by the best 10 handicappers.  In any competitive endeavor there will only be a few at the top whether it be golf or business or anything.  We agree on that.  I don't think archies demand aerial golf as much as maintenance does...

[Sean_A]

Mike

The point I was trying and probably failing to make with the Sandy Lyle reference, and indeed the post above, was that your average golfer couldn't pull that shot off on a hard and fast links the way Sandy managed. If you took a golfer who was used to soft receptive greens and gave him the same shot to play he might try to do what Sandy did but I bet after a period of trying, and failing, he would adapt his game and start hitting low shots with allowance for run.

If you build courses fast and firm the average golfer will play that way (eventually) irrespective of what the professional does. So the question is, who are you building courses for, the pro or the average hacker ?

Niall

I understand exactly what you were saying.....have I one time mentioned "building courses for the pro?"   I build for the so-called ground game....BUT I also understand that it will not be used by the good player including many top ams....

Sean,
Have I said I worry about the top players?  Nope....And when you say " you lot" does that mean " we don't get it like the chosen?"  I judge all sports by the best players.  If passing game took over football and you love the running game and wish to continue using the wishbone or the T formation then great...I don't care but you will not be one of the best players or coaches....I understand all the points that have ben made from using a 7 iron to even using the hybrids (which are often better now).  I'm just saying guys on here need to "wake -up" and understand the top of the game including many ams don't care what was designed between take-off and landing of the golf ball.  We could all take our imaginary friends and set the basketball goals at 7 feet high and we would be bad asses but then when we went to play real basketball with real players we would have an awakening.  As long as we were having fun with our imaginary friends at 7 feet then that is great but it has nothing to do with basketball, it's just fun....
I love the ground game especially when it comes to second shots into par fives and use it when I can incorporate it but I am also a realist.  I understand firm, soft, high, low and everything that has been mentioned and it's fun but people don't pay to watch the guys that play it...

Mike

Not sure what is meant by "I judge all sports by the best players".  Strikes me as odd and irrelevant.  

I think everybody understands just fine that the best players hit shots which they trust to be most accurate.  In other words, most of the time, in the air.  The ground offers too many variables for certainty when a guy can hit 15 out of 20 8 irons on a blanket.  

As for imaginary friends, well, I think for the most part pro golfers may as well be imaginary because hardly anybody plays like that.  So it seems strange to use pr golf as measuring stick (but its done ALL THE TIME ON THIS SITE) where design is concerned.  To each is own though.  I still contend that what really matters is the right design balance for the property and the maintenance regime  Unfortunately, archies can have all the best intentions, but rarely can control the cohesion of the design and its maintenance regime.  

I am actually in favour of some aerial based courses.  Sometimes there is too much rain in areas to think about f&f or the climate can't support grasses which can play reasonably f&f.  In these cases, why not go with the flow and design for the climate?  Where at all possible though, I think it a mistake for archies to demand too much aerial golf.  What is too much?  Who can say, but I know when I see it - think Trump Aberdeen  

Ciao  

Sean,
What I mean is I like this:  I don't judge baseball by the best little league players.  I don't judge football by the best highschool players.  And I don't judge golf by the best 10 handicappers.  In any competitive endeavor there will only be a few at the top whether it be golf or business or anything.  We agree on that.  I don't think archies demand aerial golf as much as maintenance does...

Mike

I still don't get the judging aspect.  I think of sport as something one normally gets into because they play it.  The love of the game exists regardless if there better players or not - no? 

I agree with you, most of the time, maintenance/weather creates a high demand for aerial golf.  But then, I don't play a lot of modern courses.   

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I've gotta ask ...

Many good players pooh-pooh "the ground game" because to them it's a low-percentage play ... all well and good.  But why do they worry about how others play the hole?  If it is really a low-percentage play they will prevail the vast majority of the time.  Could it be that they aren't happy enough with the percentages, that they want courses set up so they win ALL the time?

You are a good player.

Discuss.

[jeffwarne]

Every 2 years when Europe kicks our ass in the Ryder Cup it seems like they are hitting half shots and manufacturing shots unlike our guys.

If so, why have U.S. players won 12 British Opens since 1990, while Euro players have won just 6? 

The Europeans must really play those shots better than the rest of the world, since the U.S. usually kicks its ass at the Presidents Cup.

Question: how often on links courses do pro's play ground-game shots into the greens? 

The US recent lack of success in the Ryder Cup has nothing to do with half shots or links golf, and everything to with the fact that we begin our choke the day the captain is picked, which is 1 year and 364 days too early.
We put so much emphasis on picking shirts, ping pong rooms and building team"cameraderie" in an individual sport,that we're already toast when it comes time to tee it up and simply play golf.

[Bill_McBride]

All I ask of golf design and maintenance is that there be OPTIONS.  I love to stand in the fairway and ponder which of several shots will work out best from 100 yards.  I also love backstops.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

I've gotta ask ...

Many good players pooh-pooh "the ground game" because to them it's a low-percentage play ... all well and good.  But why do they worry about how others play the hole?  If it is really a low-percentage play they will prevail the vast majority of the time.  Could it be that they aren't happy enough with the percentages, that they want courses set up so they win ALL the time?

You are a good player.

Discuss.

TD,
I love to play but don't know if I consider myself a good player or not.   Anyway I don't think I have ever worried about how another played the game.  And had never actually thought about that until now.  I've just looked at it like the really good courses always had the ground option if one chose it.  BUT equipment had made it the least favorable option over the last 30 years or more.  Asststed earlier I definitely think the ground game is still a big factor for tee balls and par 5 approaches.  I think once equipment was made that would allow an iron shot to drop straight out of the sky and not have a shallow angle of approach the ground game became the lesser percentage. 
I'm not condemning the ground game anymore than I condemn the running game in football.  I just don't think they are the chosen game of the really good players. 

[Thomas Dai]

BUT equipment had made it the least favorable option over the last 30 years or more.  

A fair point by Mike. But it's not just clubs and balls. It's also sprinkler systems, which have now appeared even on the fairways of courses where we'd normally expect the ground game to have some level of prominence particularly in the summer, ie UK links and heathland courses. Grass type too - a certain new seaside course in NE Scotland which folk had anticipated would be F&F has been reported herein as not suitable for the ground game due to the currently prevailing grass type - although perhaps this will change at some time in the future.

As Tom has said, % is key, I imagine particularly so if your playing golf for a living. If a player can get closer to the hole a higher % of the time through the air they'll go that way. But if a player can get closer to the hole a higher % of the time via the ground they'll go that way.

However, IMO the big leveller is always the wind, not only it's strength and direction in relation to the shot into the green but it's ability to dry out the ground fairly quickly.

It makes me chuckle when I see some big strong lad lash a short/mid iron against the wind to a front pin with loads of spin only to watch it come up short and drop like a stone into a surrounding bunker and the spin help the ball bury itself nice-n-deep in the soft sand. Whereas some old-timer will take two or three clubs more and hit a soft shot on a lower trajectory and leave themselves a nice wee putt for birdie.

It's the score that counts, not how you made it.

atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()