The ground game versus the aerial game - on links courses

[Ally Mcintosh]

So in an effort to refine the rather simplistic view that links golf = ground game = fun and parkland golf = aerial game = no fun, I thought we should investigate which links courses demand one type of game (ground / aerial) more than the other, why they do and whether that has a direct relationship to A) how good the course is perceived to be and B) how much fun is had playing the course…

After you…

[Jason Topp]

Royal Dornoch seems to pretty much require aerial approaches.  People seem to like it.

[Bill_McBride]

You can bounce the ball onto every green on the Old Course if you're okay with playing away from the flag.  No. 13 might be the only exception.  But the greens are so big you also have the option of an aerial attack.  You mind up farther away than after a bump and run. That's fun. 

[Adam Clayman]

"Perceived"? Do you mean the individual's perception, or, the collective? (rankings)  I'm not so sure one can refine core principles further. Either the design has the Freedom and elasticity to allow the golfer to choose his own type of shot, depending on conditions, or it does not. The shot demands, on any hole, aren't solely reliant on the architecture. Are they?  After all, the grounds are the medium, not the sport.

Sadly, I've played my share of links courses that are not maintained optimally. Conceding to the aerial assault, dart throwing aficionado who can't, and apparently don't want to figure out how to adapt to a shot that bounces and rolls more than a few meters.

So, the answer has to be Yes, to both questions for me. There's a direct relationship between the fun, (Fun=figuring out which shot works best for the given circumstance and having the freedom to choose) and how good a course is.   


 
 

[Tom_Doak]

Royal Dornoch seems to pretty much require aerial approaches.  People seem to like it.

I don't think it really requires aerial approaches ... I just think the greens are big enough that it (almost) always gives you the option of hitting an aerial approach.  Many links do not.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Royal Dornoch seems to pretty much require aerial approaches.  People seem to like it.

I don't think it really requires aerial approaches ... I just think the greens are big enough that it (almost) always gives you the option of hitting an aerial approach.  Many links do not.

I think an aerial approach is a higher percentage option at Dornoch than at most other top-end links courses, partly because the greens are so large but mainly because the front contouring is so severe that in most cases, the run-up is harder to execute than at courses with greens at grade level... So yes, I think Dornoch tips towards the side of an aerial links golf course... But does that reduce the fun that is had? I would argue no in this case for two reasons.... One because that first bounce on a very large green can often provide the equivalent of playing a punch shot (if not quite fully along the deck) and second because when pulling off the full run-up on long approaches (or when skittling it along and up on short chip and runs), it is eminently satisfying to watch the ball skip up the bank and therefore succeed, even if that success is a less likely outcome than on some other courses; and you try it less often...

So for me, Dornoch = More aerial than most = but doesn't reduce the "fun" = one of the best golf courses in the world

Now, I can also think of golf courses that provide much more opportunity for bouncing the ball in... but appear to be a little more one dimensional than Dornoch in their approach shots...

[Tony_Muldoon]

Picking up on one of your thoughts on another thread Ally, the more run off there is around the green the more the ground game comes into play.  Deal does this pretty well and even thought the greens aren’t small hitting them in regulation is often tough.  However this does mean that most often ground game = texas wedge. 

I do wonder if faster green speeds and modern maintenance methods have changed the way we play links golf a bit? Generally from less than 5m off the green, where there is a choice, I use the putter over the bump and run on a ratio of at least 4:1.  Reading the old books I doubt that was always the case?  I see old timers using their 5 irons a lot more and sometimes on the green!

[Brent Hutto]

Tony,

If you watch old film of professional tournaments from the 40's, 50's and even 60's those guys were damned near playing bump and runs on the putting greens if they were 40-50 feet from the hole. Maybe not on firm, dry links courses but certainly on typical professional venues.

The game we played at Deal last year was about as fun as I'd want the course to be playing. Even in a 10mph-ish breeze (at most) the firmness had us landing balls well short of greens and still ending up using putters from 10 yards over the back after the ball bounce-bounce-bounced its way along for miles and miles.

The day before I had played the same fun game at Sandwich. Even the slightly more defended greens there required me weak-assed game to be played with a ground component.

And finally, during my one trip to Dornoch the wind was howling on the first day and blowing somewhat on the second. I don't care how much of a plateau a particular green is perched atop, for a short hitting handicap golfer on a windy day the plateau thing just makes the ground game hugely more difficult. It still does not mean an aerial one.

So my conclusion is it's the firmness of the ground and the strength of the wind that determines whether I'm going to be playing a "ground" vs. "aerial" game. The design of the course can be more or less accomodating to one or the other but it's what we've always known. Soft is no fun, no wind is no fun. As it was, is and ever shall be Amen.

[Ally Mcintosh]

OK Brent,

Can you think of any examples of links courses that accommodate the ground game less?

Is this the primary reason these courses provide less fun? Do they even provide less fun?

(Agreed firm conditions and wind are major drivers; but I'm looking at layout and design)

[Brent Hutto]

In my limited links experience I'd have to say Royal Dornoch is the least ground game favoring one. As for being less fun, I have to say a qualified yes. I've played a couple very windy (well over 20mph) rounds of golf on course that are receptive to the ground game. And had fun doing it.

During my week at Dornoch, the rounds that were very windy were not enjoyable. I just can't handle that course in a stiff wind. Between the occasionally massive areas of gorse to disappear wind-blown tee balls and the near impossibility of getting a ball onto some of those greens in a 20-25mph wind (even on my third or fourth or fifth shot) it was not fun. Later in the week we had a round in nearly still conditions and it was about as much fun to play as any course could be.

But across all the likely range of conditions one is likely to encounter over several days, I'd rather play almost any of the other links courses i my experience than Dornoch. That said, I have not played some of the tighter or more gorse-choked links courses out there. Many of the ones I've played have been relatively open and accomodating of the wind both from tee to green and the green complexes per se. An exception would be Littlestone the day I played it. It's a ground-game-friendly course but when I was there the rough was hugely deep and many playing corridors too narrow had the wind been blowing 20mph. Fortunately, it was a slightly breezy day and I had a great time.

[Michael Felton]

You can bounce the ball onto every green on the Old Course if you're okay with playing away from the flag.  No. 13 might be the only exception.  But the greens are so big you also have the option of an aerial attack.  You mind up farther away than after a bump and run. That's fun. 

The first? I guess you can bounce it in, but it's hugely reliant on luck to avoid the burn if you do. I doubt if anyone would deliberately do that. Not if their intent was to shoot the best score.

There are a few holes at Deal that really don't take the ground shot terribly well. 1, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 17 immediately spring to mind. Then there are some where you have little choice but to play it that way (15).

[Brent Hutto]

All this talk is making my head spin. I just want to get a plane and go play some of these damned links courses right now. I don't care if they are ground game or air game friendly!

[Tom_Doak]

All this talk is making my head spin. I just want to get a plane and go play some of these damned links courses right now. I don't care if they are ground game or air game friendly!

That's the aerial approach, dude.  Why don't you just walk over?

[Brent Hutto]

I guess if the wind were bad enough I might...

[Bill_McBride]

You can bounce the ball onto every green on the Old Course if you're okay with playing away from the flag.  No. 13 might be the only exception.  But the greens are so big you also have the option of an aerial attack.  You mind up farther away than after a bump and run. That's fun. 

The first? I guess you can bounce it in, but it's hugely reliant on luck to avoid the burn if you do. I doubt if anyone would deliberately do that. Not if their intent was to shoot the best score.

There are a few holes at Deal that really don't take the ground shot terribly well. 1, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 17 immediately spring to mind. Then there are some where you have little choice but to play it that way (15).

Well yes, I did kind overlook the first and the burn!   

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of factors I would like to add to the debate, not architectural factors however.

One - clubs - these days lofted SW's and 'lob' wedges are common, so are more consistently manufactured 'spinny' grooves. This has changed the way links courses can be played as has wider flanged irons and hybrids vrs long-irons, especially when combined with......

....two - the golf ball - both the change in size from the more running 1.62" to 1'68" and the way that some modern construction golf balls only like to 'go', while others will, if struck decently, 'stop'. Playing mainly the aerial game isn't really on with a 'go' ball whilst it's frequently possible with a 'stop' ball.

There are also maintenance and irrigation practices that have altered the balance between the ground game and the air game on links course. Just a couple of thoughts, admittedly at a slight tangent, but nevertheless, factors that do effect how links courses are now played.

As to "links courses (that) demand one type of game (ground/aerial) more than the other..." a links course type that comes to mind are the more modern 'big dune' courses, the likes of which I'm not sure can really be played as a majority ground game course. I shall have to ponder further the issue about "whether that has a direct relationship to A) how good the course is perceived to be and B) how much fun is had playing the course…"

atb

[Richard Phinney]

As the ball became bouncier, all links courses have had to incorporate the ground game more as it became impossible to stop the ball in dry hard windy conditions on the green.  Although sometimes greens have been enlarged to compensate instead.  Members don't want to play exasperating holes on a daily basis, and they tinker with the courses over time to adjust to the changing fancies of the sport, whether its equipment or conditioning or aesthetics. 

[Paul Gray]

"Perceived"? Do you mean the individual's perception, or, the collective? (rankings)  I'm not so sure one can refine core principles further. Either the design has the Freedom and elasticity to allow the golfer to choose his own type of shot, depending on conditions, or it does not. The shot demands, on any hole, aren't solely reliant on the architecture. Are they?  After all, the grounds are the medium, not the sport.

Sadly, I've played my share of links courses that are not maintained optimally. Conceding to the aerial assault, dart throwing aficionado who can't, and apparently don't want to figure out how to adapt to a shot that bounces and rolls more than a few meters.

So, the answer has to be Yes, to both questions for me. There's a direct relationship between the fun, (Fun=figuring out which shot works best for the given circumstance and having the freedom to choose) and how good a course is.   

 

Very well said.

Two elephants in the room in the form of maintenance practices and seasonal variety. It does seem to me, and perhaps it's a result of golf tourism with most golfers visiting these shores when courses are at their driest, that there is a perceived wisdom that any one course consistently plays the same for 12 months of the year. The reality is very different and there's nothing wrong with that.

To put it another way, Brent wouldn't be struggling anywhere nearly as much with those plateaus in the depths of winter. That said, Brent may well be able to correct me. 

[Thomas Dai]

As the ball became bouncier, all links courses have had to incorporate the ground game more as it became impossible to stop the ball in dry hard windy conditions on the green.   

Richard,

I'm curious to know a bit more about what you mean by "as the ball became the 'bouncier".

Are you thinking in general terms or do you have some specific time period(s) or type(s) or even name(s) of golf balls that you reckon are 'bouncier' than what went before?

atb

[Bill_McBride]

As the ball became bouncier, all links courses have had to incorporate the ground game more as it became impossible to stop the ball in dry hard windy conditions on the green.   

Richard,

I'm curious to know a bit more about what you mean by "as the ball became the 'bouncier".

Are you thinking in general terms or do you have some specific time period(s) or type(s) or even name(s) of golf balls that you reckon are 'bouncier' than what went before?

atb

Feathery > Gutty > "Bouncing Billy" Haskell?   

[Thomas Dai]

As the ball became bouncier, all links courses have had to incorporate the ground game more as it became impossible to stop the ball in dry hard windy conditions on the green.   

Richard,
I'm curious to know a bit more about what you mean by "as the ball became the 'bouncier".
Are you thinking in general terms or do you have some specific time period(s) or type(s) or even name(s) of golf balls that you reckon are 'bouncier' than what went before?
atb

Feathery > Gutty > "Bouncing Billy" Haskell?   

Any 'bounciness' changes, either plus or minus, to the ball since then Bill?
atb

[Mark Chaplin]

Michael - you maybe right during the Hewitt but 17 is ground game all day long, pitch 3/4 yards short on the left side of the bank. The closer you get to 7 the more a running pitch is required.

The only dodgy hole at Deal is 13 where the bouncer tends to pull up on the fringe. I've always wondered if it's running of from the green watering.

[Greg Taylor]

I seem to remember in the Trump Aberdeen thread that there was little/no scope for running the ball up....

Haven't played it and could be wrong!

Dornoch I have played and the raised greens make non-aerial approaches very difficult.

[Adam Clayman]

I'm watching my dvr'd senior open from Wales and I just heard the commentator quote Monty about why he doesn't like Links golf. Too much guesswork.

Firstly, It's shocking to hear those words from a man with his pedigree. Sad, because the subtext is all about the pro's interest in complete and total predictability.

These guys may be good, but,,,

Emulating these guys is bad.

[Bill_McBride]

As the ball became bouncier, all links courses have had to incorporate the ground game more as it became impossible to stop the ball in dry hard windy conditions on the green.   

Richard,
I'm curious to know a bit more about what you mean by "as the ball became the 'bouncier".
Are you thinking in general terms or do you have some specific time period(s) or type(s) or even name(s) of golf balls that you reckon are 'bouncier' than what went before?
atb

Feathery > Gutty > "Bouncing Billy" Haskell?   

Any 'bounciness' changes, either plus or minus, to the ball since then Bill?
atb

Probably not in terms of degree of change.   Those were logarithmic, everything since has been linear.  And all ever onward in distance if not bounciness.