[Patrick_Mucci]

In a thread started by DMoriarty he brought up Seminole, and play on the golf course, and it caused me to wonder, has the game and the equipment changed the way a golf course was intended to be played ?

While some could build a case for playing Seminole along the ground, realistically, who does.

When I play Seminole, a golf course I love, swept by WIND most of the time, I rarely, if ever play shots on the ground.

There could be shot specific situations that might cause me to deviate from the aerial game, but they few and far between.

As I reflect on each and every hole, I don't see how one would choose to play on the ground versus aerially.

Can we therefore assume that the "GAME" has changed the way the architect intended for the course to play ?

What other courses have transitioned from ground to aerial endeavors ?

[Doug Siebert]

Hasn't everything changed now?  I play TOC aerially, at least until I get within spitting distance of the green.  Not to say having all the shots isn't helpful now and then, but it isn't like I gather it used to be where there were some places you just couldn't score without it.

You older guys are lucky, at least you got to see and learn to play that game.  By the time I had enough ability to hit it solidly enough to hit it nice and high it worked so well even then back in the 80s that I have never learned anything else.  I couldn't hit a Tiger-style stinger with a long iron that stays 20 feet off the ground if my life depended on it, the only way I can keep it that low is to put a half swing on it, with the requisite loss of distance that implies.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Accuracy, carry and then length."

— Flynn

Nothing much has changed in objective...has it?

[TEPaul]

Where've you been hiding for the last four or so decades Pat? What do you mean has the "GAME" changed courses to aerial play? Of course it has. It's changed some classic old aerial/ground game courses to courses that're almost exclusively played in the air and it even ushered in a style of architecture about four decades ago basically DESIGNED almost exclusively for the aerial game!

How does the "GAME" as you call it keep almost all courses almost exclusively aerial courses? By keeping green surfaces receptive to the aerial game of course! If they continue to do that aerial golfers will continue to use the aerial option all day long, all year long! Why would they even bother to try the ground game option or some compromise of it if green surfaces are completely receptive to aerial shots as they have been for so long?

I guess you haven't been following some of the finer points of the "ideal maintenance meld" for golf courses that have some real ground game architecture to them have you?

The whole point of a major component of the "ideal maintenance meld" for ground game designed courses is to dial down the reliability of the aerial shot to greens so that an aerial golfer will almost be forced to think twice about his aerial shot to the green and start to thing about some ground game shot or a compromise of the two.

Greens on almost all courses in America have been so receptive to the aerial game for so long that most American golfers, even good ones, as Doug Siebert just said don't even know how to play the ground game shot anymore.

Firm up those green surfaces on golf courses that do have ground game architecture and this total aerial reliance will begin to change just by necessity.

There's even an instant way to recognize the ideal firmness of greens to begin to bring back the ground game option. It's when the greens just very lightly dent to a well struck aerial shot. If greens pitch mark and show dirt that requires real fixing with a tee or pitch mark fixer most golfers will be playing the aerial game all day long with zero thought to the ground game. Why would they bother unless they thought they had to?

The only other possible thing that would make any aerial golfer think to play the ground game is extreme wind and even that choice is really rare amongst American golfers--again as evidenced by Doug's statement that most don't even know how to actually hit that shot anymore.

[ForkaB]

Pat

My feeling is that the great golf courss "changed" long ago.  The last time I saw the ground game used by top players was on some of those old Shell WWG matches from the 50's.  In the early 80's I saw a top player hit shots on a course that was faster and firmer than TE Paul could ever imagine and stop the ball on a dime, WITHOUT any visible ball marks.  What is different today is twofold:

1.  Equipment advances have allowed even the medicore amongst us (i.e. between +3 and -7 handicap) to play the aerial game on firm and fast greens (although at our peril).

2.  Maintenance practices, which cater to the average player (i.e. 18 handicap), make most of our courses, most of the time, vulnerable to aerial attack from almost anybody.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You may remember in the days of balata balls, when the  Beryllium ping irons scuffed the covers, and balls had a very limited shelf life due to the impact and tremendous spin put on the ball.

These balls could stop on concrete, let alone firm greens.

They made the run-up, bump and run, etc., etc., all but obsolete.

Firm, tight fairways accelerated the process of diminishing the ability for greens to defend themselves because greater spin can be achieved from short grass rather then long grass.

Even redans have had their strategy sidestepped.
I've seen player after player hit shorter irons, with high fades, a shot never considered with 2 and 3 irons.

Forrest Richardson,

Accuracy could be achieved along the ground.

But, with the emergence of medal play as the dominant form of play for the best players, the elimination of a random bounce made the aerial game, the game.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think it's more the maintenance that has changed it to aerial. How else do you take a course which isn't or wasn't designed for aerial exclusively, to only allow it to paly that way today?

I find it's that high rough within a few feet of the collar that limits my options to only aerial.

Courses like Stevenson ranch, where the use of fairgreens is dominate, I have the choice, the option on how far and with some humps and bumps, I decide what accurate is, not the pin setter.

Pat- Have you been to Wild Horse?

[Forrest Richardson]

Maintenance trends are a very temporary moment in the history of golf, and even this generation's time here on earth enjoying the game.

Architectural trends, however, last quite longer. The aftermath also lasts much longer.

It is when the architecture drives the maintenance in a particular direction that we see a change in maintenance. Sometimes for the better — and sometimes not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

You are too deep....

Pat,

My take on it is that the amount you can run the ball is less, due to lusher turf, which I suppose is a maintenance issue.

If you look at Ron Whitten's review of the Quarry, he notes that my design allows the use of contour in a variety of ways, but supposes that an approach will be played basically straight, and to a specific point that may or may not necessarily be the flag.  

The area of influencing contours is much tighter now.  The fairway banks that allow you you feed the ball to the hole may be 10 yards left or right.  Even with an open front green, the area of influence is not 50 yards in front of the green, as was was the case 100 years ago at St. Andrews.  You typically need to land just in front of a green to make ia runner work in most cases.

For tour pros, the influencing contours are as likely as not to be IN the putting surface, allowing them to feed the ball to the hole.

The running contours (turbo boost slots, etc.) are more likely and better used on tee shots, as they at least still have some run (in some cases).

Yes, that's different, but it is no less challenging or fun, IMHO.

Is it?

[A_Clay_Man]

Forrest- All other things being equal, the recent (50 yrs) proliferation of irrigation systems is not a temporary thing. It's a new technology which alters everything and makes historical comparisons moot.

Have you ever tried to design a course using only the fresh water supplied by mother nature? How different would it be? I'd guess, alot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

I've never been to Wild Horse.

But, I would agree, barring a severe water shortage, or dramatic increase in the cost of water, irrigation is here to stay.  Club after club are spending $ 500,000 to 1,000,000+ to upgrade or install new systems today.

Jeff Brauer,

Interesting points.

With respect to contours within the green, the requirement for faster green speeds would seem to conflict with your desire to put contours IN the greens for the tour pros.

It would seem to be a dilema.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

My thought is usually to keep the cupping areas (usually 12-15 feet from the edge of the green) at 2.5% or less, but flare up backboards or side boards that allow good players to overclub, with spin to get it back to the hole.  This is the traditional way to take a frontal bunker out of play if your angle presents that situation.....

In fact, I was surprised once to hear a tour player tell me the preferred angle was actually from the side of the fairway that had a green bunker to carry.  His thought was that he wasn't going to hit a grounder, and that playing from the same side as the bunker allowed him to aim further away from it, and let the wind, or a controlled fade, drift it back to a tight pin.  This is similar to teeing up on the same side as a fairway hazard to aim away to increase you margin for error.  

In that respect, the idea of the frontal opening being the advantage is basically gone for good players, but it is still essential for many average ones.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam,

We designed 1/3 of The Hideout to be irrigated naturally, whenever possible. Roughs.

We designed a project in central Arizona that was to be 100% natural, except greens. It has not moved forward, and so I'm not able to divulge more. Other than it will be a tremendous science experiment involving turfgrasses and water salvage.

Most irrigation does nothing more than bring golf to areas where it cannot exist sans artificial watering — e.g., New Mexico. Some degree of irrigation is needed in these locales.

Yes, modern irrigation practices have changed the game. But they are not long-lasting. They could easily be replaced in 20-30-40-100 years with something — or simply abandoned.

20, 30, 40 or 100 years is nothign to golf. Nothing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Water law (and rising cost) will be what changes irrigation.

For example, Colbert Hills has to pay for city water, and as a result, they water most areas - including L-93 greens about once every four days.  There is less disease, and the course is looking better than ever this year.

A great example of how superintendents can reduce watering, although I am sure there are others.....Of course, with Zoysiz fairways, there still isn't really the type of roll some would want for play conditions.....

[TEPaul]

Pat said:

"TEPaul,
You may remember in the days of balata balls, when the  Beryllium ping irons scuffed the covers, and balls had a very limited shelf life due to the impact and tremendous spin put on the ball.
These balls could stop on concrete, let alone firm greens.
They made the run-up, bump and run, etc., etc., all but obsolete.
Firm, tight fairways accelerated the process of diminishing the ability for greens to defend themselves because greater spin can be achieved from short grass rather then long grass."

And Rich said:

".  In the early 80's I saw a top player hit shots on a course that was faster and firmer than TE Paul could ever imagine and stop the ball on a dime, WITHOUT any visible ball marks.  What is different today is twofold:

1.  Equipment advances have allowed even the medicore amongst us (i.e. between +3 and -7 handicap) to play the aerial game on firm and fast greens (although at our peril)."

Rich and Pat:

There's a lot of the "wive's tale" and some BS in some of what you said. I really laugh, Rich, when you try to intimate that because I live over here or whatever I've never seen or played really firm greens. I've seen greens over here and elsewhere on which NO ball under any circumstances with ANY player can be contolled in an aerial shot--and that includes that player you saw in the 1980s.

There comes a point with green firmness (not necessarily to be confused with green SPEED which I'm fairly sure you're doing) where no ball is going to have any control on it and will simply run across an extremely FIRM green even if Phil or Tiger puts all the spin on it in their power.

That's just a given at some point in green firmness so no reason for you to try to debate or deny that. What that green FIRMNESS is exactly is open to determination.
My observations tells me that if a green doesn't even lightly "dent" to a really well struck aerial shot with a lofted iron, then at that point no ball is going to have any real control on that green from an aerial shot or otherwise.

Pat, the old Pings, beryllium or otherwise with their original sharp groove edges did not scuff golf balls they cut the paint on them enough to bring up those paint "hairs". That however was not the result of increased spin from the grooves it was just the result of the very sharp edges of the grooves cutting the paint. That's the very problem Karsten Solheim was trying to correct when he began radiusing his groove edges which took him afoul of the USGA and created the Ping/USGA lawsuit!

An authority such as Barney Adams will tell you that it's not the grooves anyway that put spin on the golf ball, it's the face of the club and how clean it is. Barney says the only  effect of grooves is as "garbage cans" to displace an amount of "garbage" (grass or moisture or both), (and a larger amount with square, U or boxed grooves) off the face of the club into the grooves so the clubface will impart better spin and control to the ball.

In all my tournament years I was about the only guy who actually always played a two piece ball--I played Slazenger two piece for years when everyone else (except Mike Rose--a good player from around here who also played Slazenger two piece) played higher spinning balls like balatas three piece.

I could do that though because the greens were almost always soft enough to use a two piece ball and almost every single aerial shot I ever hit I'd be fixing the pitch mark that PULLED UP DIRT! I guess most courses were like that so little old grandma's ball would sit down a bit easier when she hit or low spinning 5 wood into a green with an aerial shot.

Anyway, again, the key to bringing back the ground game option to some extent is to ratchet up the firmness of the course "through the green", particularly in the approaches so golfers can begin to RELY on the ground game shot actually working as planned and to also ratchet up the firmness of the green surfaces (again not necessarily greenSPEED but green FIRMNESS) to the point where they aren't completely sure that they can control their aerial shots as planned and so consequently they can't RELY on that aerial shot all day long.

That's when multi-optionalism, multiple strategies will begin to return to courses with a ground game component and COMPELETE reliance on the aerial game will start to minimize!

[BCrosby]

Jeff wrote above:

"In fact, I was surprised once to hear a tour player tell me the preferred angle was actually from the side of the fairway that had a green bunker to carry.  His thought was that he wasn't going to hit a grounder, and that playing from the same side as the bunker allowed him to aim further away from it, and let the wind, or a controlled fade, drift it back to a tight pin.  This is similar to teeing up on the same side as a fairway hazard to aim away to increase you margin for error."

Interesting, and probably true for many pros.

It would follow that pros are better off hitting drives into bail-out areas and hitting approaches directly into the teeth of greenside hazards.

Which means that a pro turns the usual strategic calculus upside down. His decision tree is not just different from the typical good player; it's the opposite.

So what's an architect to do?  I would assume you have to simply ignore the pro's game. Treat him as a wild outlier and design for the great unwashed.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

To be realistic, few if any golf courses would ever keep their greens super firm, or even very firm.  Only a rare membership would tolerate it.

With respect to the Beryllium Ping L-wedges, I can only tell you from many years of playing my home course, that those clubs dramatically increased the spin rates for me.  With my prior wedges I couldn't get the ball to stop nearly as well, and,
out of the rough, the ping wedges were incredibly fantastic, far exceeding the performance of my prior wedges.

I could hit line drives that had a zillion rpm's on them, that would stop on the second bounce, at will, something I couldn't do with my previous, McGregor and Toney Penna irons.

[DJames]

The aerial game may get you to the green, but Oakmont has demonstrated this week, that a challenging round of golf still requires skill on the ground.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

I'm proud that I make you laugh.  Laughter is good for all of us, even when discussing such life and death matters as golf.

BTW--I know "firm."  I grew up with firm.  Firm is a good firend of mine.  I'm talking about greens where even a balata will bounce up to your waist when dropped from your shoulder.  It is on such greens that I have seen elite players hit and stop iron shots in ways you still, apparently, cannot imagine.  Open your mind, Grasshopper, and you will begin to see the wonders of the world......

[MargaretC]

Gentlemen:

I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg...

Changes in equipment have enabled ME to increase the distance of my tee shots; however, ME and the average golfer do not have the control to get the accuracy of most pros.  A good non-high-level amateur golfer MUST develop many skills and I think most want to watch a variety of shots executed by pros.

I honestly have no idea what lead to the airport runway appearance of many golf courses -- if it's an individual, they should be administered cruel and unusual punishment.    

To ME, the design is #1 on the list, but it must be partnered with maintenance.  A wonderful design is severely impacted by inadequate maintenance.

It's hard for me to imagine that anyone would consider the essence of golf to be an aerial game.  If it were primarily an aerial game, then why bother with different types of grass providing a variety of texture and why be concerned with how it is cut?  Bunkers?

IMHO, the biggest damage to the game of golf isn't equipment (i.e., assuming that the equipment used is in compliance with USGA standards -- whatever they are and however they may change in the future), but the pervasive mindset and overuse of the word "fair."

From my perspective, golf was never intended to be "fair" to anyone who chooses to play the game.  Regardless of design, golf courses, even those horrid runway-types, present different challenges depending on the tee times on the same day.  Even if someone is capable of a 400 yard tee shot, that doesn't mean that every course and every hole has to accomodate that capability.  If that's what someone wants, then go to a driving range.

IMHO, golf is a strategic game that requires a variety of skills.  I also don't think that the average person truly wants to watch one dimensional pro golfers.  After being at Oakmont this week, I can't wait to see the US Open played there in 2007 (I can hear the whinning already   and I love it! ).

It was great to watch highly skilled golfers: land in rough that swallowed a golf ball like quicksand; land in non-symmetrical bunkers of various depths; land on greens and watch the golf ball roll off in various directions, among others.  Whomever wins the US Am this weekend, has much, much more than an aerial game and that is as it should be.

Life and golf are not "fair."  High-level golf should require strategic thinking, broad-based skills to execute a variety of shots, etc., plus a bit of well-timed "luck."  

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll betcha that the shepherds that were hitting rocks with crooked sticks enjoyed and appreciated rocks that went high into the air far more than they enjoyed rocks that just rolled along the ground.   Watching the ball fly, since we can't fly ourselves, is the greatest fun of the game, OTHER THAN a really low score!  The need for a low score brings the ground game in, and thus fully tests the skill of the golfer, but the joy of seeing the ball fly is a powerful drug, and to be prized.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You appear to be saying that it doesn't matter how firm a green surface is the tour pro caliber player is going to be able to spin and control his aerial shots on it at will, particularly if coming at the green from a clean lie in the fairway. You tell me you saw some guy do that in the 1980s so that proves it.

You've got to be joking Rich, and yes laughter is a wonderful thing. Apparently you must've missed the entire British Open telecast at Royal St. Geroge's this summer if you really believe that and want to continue to hang onto that "wive's tale" (or is it tail).

Basically 99% of the field of the best players in the world were not able to spin and control an aerial shot into those greens---definitely nothing like they're accustomed to. In that entire telecast which I watched almost all of in fascination, only one--ONE golfer actually landed his ball on one of those green surfaces, checked it and stopped it dead! That was Kenny Perry with a lofted iron one time--and after I saw that I said to myself what in hell is he using--some rejuvenated super high-spinning balata ball from the old days!

Shivas et al;

Pros will continue to disregard hazard features and such surrounding and guarding green surfaces and pin positions ONLY to the extent they realize they can control the ball on a green's surface. If a course dials up the firmness of those green surfaces to the extent that control can no longer be completely RELIED on they are going to very quickly start to look for alternative shots to hit in both setting up shots to greens and also their approach shots to greens.

Of course internal contours within greens help or hurt them in that effort--as we saw very nicely at Southern Hills! When the green surfaces are firm enough when total control of aerial shots becomes less RELIABLE they will really begin to take note of those internal green contours and particularly the hazard features surrounding greens and green-ends. At that point a pro such as the one Bob Crosby mentioned will no longer want to approach a green over a bunker as the room to stop the ball will be no longer benefical to him compared to the room to stop the ball from the side NOT guarded by that bunker. At this point the architecture (all of it) of golf courses even for the touring pro begins to regain its meaning and the functionality of design to them.

And how and why is it able to regain that meaning? One single, necessary facet--the FIRMNESS of the green surfaces! When those surfaces are of a firmness that he can no longer TOTALLY RELY on controlling his aerial shots into greens, he starts looking for compromises and alternatives that may even filter all the way back to tees--such as trying for more distance off the tees to get a shorter more controllable iron in his hands for his approach.

All the elements of architecture can be brought back into the equation even for the best players. And to a remarkable extent it all hinges on the degree of firmness of a course's green surfaces, in my opinion. Dial down the total reliability of control of aerial approaches and a wealth of architecture of the course begins to be highlighted and considered again!

Pat:

Green surface firmness is a factor that can be ratcheted up and down remarkably quickly depending on whose playing the course and that Nature cooperates of course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shivas,

I agree.   Look at my post and you'll see I said for the tour pro, the influencing contours are IN the green.

When confident, that's what tour pros look at.  When they aren't confidant, bunkers start coming into play for them, too.  For that matter, even when confidant, the bunkers or other hazards can come into play, if located on the generally low side of the green.  We all know from hearing endless commentator dribble, they don't want to miss it short side, even as they want to avoid a downhill putt, and gain an uphill one.

[A_Clay_Man]

MargretC- Couldn't agree more with your general position but as I was reading your post I (of course) took exception with the perception that golf and life are not fair.  I view golf, as well as life as fundementally fair. In golf, because it is that way that day for everyone. Everyone must deal with every situation as they see fit, based on experience. And it's how one gets thru those experiences that builds the character to succeed in both. Whinning about it, is in my view, a waste of a learning experience.There's No better example than conjoined twins who know nothing different and deal with the difficulties ahead. In Golf when the whinning is at it's highest pitch, is when the golf is the fairest.

Having too many situations, dictated by others, isn't the kind of life I want to live, or holes I'll want to golf, repeatedly.  

Everybodies in the same boat how can it be more fair than that?

[MargaretC]

"Clay"

Personal responsibility and personal accountability are hot buttons of mine, so you and I are probably on the same page.

I would absolutely agree that using "fair" to mean "by the rules," golf is certainly fair if played by the rules.

Too often, I think "fair" is misused to mean "equal or the same" or worse to mean "favorable outcome for all."  As such, different tee times on the same day can yield different playing conditions on each hole.

It would be great if we lived in a world where the majority accepted responsibility for his actions.  IMHO, personal accountability is in short supply.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()