Hazards That Defeat the Aerial Game

[Tom_Doak]

The full quote from Melvyn to Jeff B. was, "Golf Courses should be as penal as they were pre 1900, specifically instituting hazards that defeat the aerial game."  Sadly, it seemed like nobody wanted to touch that idea for a thread, so I thought I would.

There are two parts to it; I'd like to concentrate here on part 2, about defeating the aerial game.  [I'm happy to discuss part 1 in another thread.]

I'm a big believer in trying to make the aerial game as hard as possible for the guys who are good at it.  Good players love to scoff at the "ground game" and say that its only proponents are those who can't hit the ball in the air; and while there is a lot of truth to that, those good players are trying to duck admitting that they aren't so good at hitting low shots when called for.  It is just to their advantage that few modern architects have ever bothered to think how to try and DEFEAT the aerial game, and make a low running shot a preferred play.

Of course, to some degree the whole question revolves around having a course with reasonably firm and fast conditions, or enough wind that the downwind holes are already helping to defeat the aerial game.  But there ARE other things the architect can do to make the aerial game harder, so that you don't have to have rock-hard, hurricane conditions to make it tough for the aerial game.  A few things I've tried:

1.  Fallaway greens.  As long as the green is half firm, a 2% tilt away from the line of play makes it difficult for the player to stop the ball where it lands, but while helping the low-ball hitter get a bit of extra roll.

2.  Ridges in front of greens, or in the greens.  The aerial player has to be afraid of hitting the back side of the ridge and skittering away to the back of the green.  The low-ball hitter lands short of the ridge and his ball runs up and over it like it wasn't even there.

3.  Raised edges of the greens next to bunkers.  These contain the low-ball approach, but threaten a big bounce for the high shot, and make recovery around the green much harder for the golfer who has wrong-sided himself.

4.  Trees near the green!  Probably not what Melvyn had in mind    Of course, these have to be used judiciously, because if they're on the south-east side of the green they will cause the superintendent more trouble than the aerial golfer ... but having an overhanging tree fairly close to the green or just past the landing area is much more problem for the aerial approach, than for the low-ball hitter who may not tangle with its branches.  [On the other hand, trees in other positions cause a lot more problem for the low-ball hitter than for the guy who can play comfortably over them.]

5.  Anything else you'd find on a Walter Travis golf course.  Travis was a short, low-ball hitter and tended to feature all of the things I've noted above on his courses.


That should get the discussion rolling.  I'm all ears for more ideas on this matter, as I may be the only architect out there who's interested in this particular fight.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Yes, your ideas are used extensively on classic GB&I courses...which is likely where you spotted them way back when.  What I appreciate most about the conversation is that you are sticking to handicap golfers. I am not sure if that means you have conceded the pro game as unbeatable, but it doesn't much matter. 

Do you think fallaway greens (greens running front to back or side to side) and ridges are too subtle these days?  Will archies push hard enough to convince developers, owners and golfers that these can be excellent features? 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Do you think fallaway greens (greens running front to back or side to side) and ridges are too subtle these days?  Will archies push hard enough to convince developers, owners and golfers that these can be excellent features? 

Sean:

I learned all about these features from two months at St. Andrews.  They're all over The Old Course, and there used to be more of them on the Eden as well.

Yes, all of the contours around greens nowadays are too subtle for these effects to be pronounced.  Unfortunately, that's by design ... the good players complain about the possibility of a bad bounce, so the architect tones down such features.  Many architects do not push back at all in such conversations.

[Actually, you left out one of the biggest sources of complaint about such features.  The most pushback we get from superintendents when we are designing a course is about a mound or a ridge in or around a green, that might tend to dry out and require more careful monitoring of moisture levels.]   

But, as I said, most architects are not even thinking about trying to defeat the aerial game; they have been convinced that golf is supposed to be an aerial game.

[Paul Gray]

Tom,

Excellent topic.

I'm a big believer in firm plateau greens; green which might just accept an aerial approach when the pin is at the back but certainly won't with a front pin. I feel the dilemma induced by the pin placement is of huge merit, not least because it stops the player from falling into a learnt response approach each and every time the hole is played. I can think of some excellent Colt and Simpson examples.

Any thoughts?

[Thomas Dai]

How about the softness of greenside bunker sand?

Fly a shot in high to a green but miss the target with the ball coming down from a great height and spinning and with soft sand the ball bury's itself in the sand, fried egg lie, and an up-n-down is pretty unlikely. In contrast, a shot coming in low misses a green but rolls into the bunker (or moves a little on landing) so doesn't bury itself, and a higher chance of an up-n-down results.

Long thin waisted/hourglass style greens would be another. Roll the ball up and along the green is normally okay. Fly in high but miss the green to either side by even a small amount and the next shot becomes tricky, the 17th green at Stourbridge, which I did a GCA course photo tour on, would be an example.

Atb

[Niall C]

Tom

Melvyn referred to penal in that quote you used in your OP. It strikes me that what you propose isn't inherently penal but whether it was would depend on its deployment. I'd be interested to hear what sort of hazards Melvyn was referring to.

Also as Sean says, a lot of what you propose is on the classic UK courses however I wonder whether some of it was mean't as a challenge to the average golfer rather than a hazard for proponents of the aerial game eg. 1 and 2. In a similar vein Braid was fond of putting small mounds to the front of greens that acted in the same way as the ridges you describe in 2 except that the ball could also very well bounce sideways.

Basically the more uneven the ground the more it suits the low running shot. A bit like punting a rugby ball in the air, you've no idea which way its going to go when it lands, however if you hit a grubber kick you have a much better idea of direction of travel.  

It also strikes me that 3 is there as more of a help to those able to hit the green irrespective of whether they run the ball on or play the aerial game, but as you say, they make things "interesting" for those that have missed the green.

Paul

Not sure about plateau greens. I suppose it depends on the length of the approach shot, and of course that you can guage whether the hole is at the back or front of the green. If you can't tell then its the percentage shot every time.

Niall

[Ronald Montesano]

How about the softness of greenside bunker sand?

Would this sand differ from the grade of sand used in fairway bunkers?

[Ronald Montesano]

4.  Trees near the green!  Probably not what Melvyn had in mind    Of course, these have to be used judiciously, because if they're on the south-east side of the green they will cause the superintendent more trouble than the aerial golfer ...

I presume this relates to sunlight's effect on the grass. If I'm incorrect, why the south-east arc over the others?

[Adam Lawrence]

Plateau greens _mostly_ encourage aerial play imo. It depends on the severity of the plateau, and as Paul says, where the pin is. But trying to run the ball up a fairly steep slope is tricky. A very good example of this is the seventh at Askernish, a long, tough par four into the prevailing wind, with the green located on a natural plateau. It's a fantastic green site, but the natural contours at the front were so bumpy that running the ball up there was pretty much a lottery. Eric Iverson, Tom's associate, did a brilliant job making that contour a little more welcoming to a running approach - while still appearing totally natural.

I was once playing at Braid's Dunstanburgh Castle course in Northumberland, a really nice low key old links, with a howling wind coming off the North Sea. There's a par three on the front side where the green is a plateau, cut into a dune with pot bunkers front right and left. The wind was screaming over my right shoulder on the tee, behind me and from the right. I couldn't imagine I'd be able to hold the green if I went aerial, even if I did judge the wind correctly, so I hit essentially a long pitch and run with a five iron. The ball started well right, came back in on the wind, bounced nicely short of the green and scuttled up the bank. Unfortunately it was going too fast, and shed off into the left side bunker. Now, those conditions were pretty extreme, and if I'd gone aerial and put it in the bunker I would probably have been fairly happy. As it was, I'd hit as good a shot as I could, but wasn't on the green. With a steepish incline at the front of the green there's always going to be a fine line between giving the ball enough welly to get up the hill and hitting it too hard so it runs off.

[Thomas Dai]

Ronald,

Maybe yes, maybe no. Would depend on a few issues I imagine including the style of fairway bunkering, any variance in the cost of sand, any maintenance aspects, the depth of the teeth on the rakes, etc. Maybe just have grass filled hollows as fairway bunkers!
Atb

[Sean_A]

Adam - I agree with you.  Plateau greens are really about aerial golf.  Some are done to accept flatter shots (ie not too steep or with bunkers in the face), but there is also the angle of approach to consider...which is why I tend to prefer severe plateau greens as shortish par 3s or short 4s. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Plateau greens - totally agree with Adam and Seans comments, that's why I've always thought of Dornoch as being the prototype of modern American golf courses 

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

4.  Trees near the green!  Probably not what Melvyn had in mind    Of course, these have to be used judiciously, because if they're on the south-east side of the green they will cause the superintendent more trouble than the aerial golfer ...

I presume this relates to sunlight's effect on the grass. If I'm incorrect, why the south-east arc over the others?

Ron:

Yes, shade on a green is never ideal, but morning shade especially leaves the turf damp and promotes disease [and gives less warmth and fewer growing hours in the spring and fall], so the south-east exposure is the most important.

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn referred to penal in that quote you used in your OP. It strikes me that what you propose isn't inherently penal but whether it was would depend on its deployment. I'd be interested to hear what sort of hazards Melvyn was referring to.

My thought was that Melvyn tried to express two separate thoughts in the same sentence.  I agree that defending against the aerial game is not necessarily "penal", as a lot of features can be built on diagonals to encourage a particular angle of approach ... the essence of the strategic school.  When thinking of penal hazards, I think first of cross hazards, and those do nothing but ENCOURAGE the aerial game. 

Indeed, on the old courses, features like cross hazards and blind shots were an attempt to balance the aerial and ground games by dialing UP the need to display an aerial game from time to time.  Taking the same perspective today we would need to dial DOWN the aerial game but hardly anyone is trying.

[Don Mahaffey]

For it to matter the greens have to be firm, but most importantly the approaches have to firm and dry as well.
Modern construction techniques may not be to blame completely for the focus on the aerial game, but they share blame. 

Unfortunately the methods I'm seeing used to firm up approaches is building them like greens; similar drainage techniques and imported engineered mix. That is very expensive and I believe there are better solutions.

[Adam Clayman]

The difference between firm enough, for ground game creativity, and, what the American golfer typically gets, is small. I've found it's as simple as watering every other day, on courses that juice every night.

If your turf can't handle missing one day of watering, you've got bigger issues.

[JESII]

In my opinion, any inconsistency in the approach, whether it be rumpled ground, bunkers, fairway/rough lines, or even uncertain ground firmness is going to encourage the better player to avoid the low shot in favor of an aerial shot simply because they (like everyone) want to control the ball once it hits the ground...and they can.

Firm turf is, by far, the most important variable in promoting the ground game and we only have so much control over that...

As far as architectural features...I would say shallow targets with welcoming approaches and trouble behind are the most likely green complexes to get me to think about skipping a ball into the green versus a full regular shot.

I disagree about the fall away green, Tom, because in general you'd prefer to miss those greens long so hitting the approach in the air and hoping it stops is better/safer than hitting it on the ground and hoping it runs.


Just seeing Don's post and I agree...and am curious to read his thoughts on better solutions.

[Brent Hutto]

So would a prototypical "aerial game defeating" green be one as follows:

1) Green at grade level.

2) Enough tilt away from the player to make a difference in shot selection even when the green isn't at 100% firmness.

3) Some sort of subtle, perhaps angled "kicker" rise a few yards short of the green.

Not that you could build a course with a dozen greens all configured with those three features. But heck, I'd love to see a course with even a couple of holes like that. It would still require that the last 10-20 yards leading up to the green not be overwatered and soft (a tall order for most supers, as Don M. commented on) but the reward for keeping both greens and aprons firm would be a fascinating hole that does not require wind to encourage low shots, well judged.

[Jay Mickle]

Surely the firmness of the greens ups the difficulty on all of the above for the aerial approaches with little or no effect on the ground game.

[Brent Hutto]

I hate to point it out but slower speeds on the green surfaces tend to help the ground game but not the aerial game. If you trim the green surroundings down to a low fairway cut and the putting surfaces are Stimping maybe 8 or 9 it is much easier to judge how a ball will roll when it runs for a while on fairway then finishes on the green. Conversely, if the greens are running 10, 11, 12 and the surrounds have any dampness or grain to them the extreme difference in rolling speed once the ball is on the green becomes devilish to judge.

[Mark Pearce]

Ridges in greens across the line of play are a pain for the aerial game.  Land on the upslope and the ball will stop quickly, even on firm greens, land on the downslope, just a few feet further on and it will kick forwards.  There are several greens at the Northumberland where Colt laid the green on the rig and furrow ground, providing just this feature.  I often wonder why at Alwoodley Mackenzie didn't do the same on at least some holes.

[Peter Pallotta]

These two approaches have been discussed countless times before, with folks often concluding that 'they only work once' i.e. they only work if the golfer isn't familiar with the hole; but I think a perched and sky-line green (where one can't see what's behind the green) and tricks of depth perception (like bunkers that appear to be green-side but are actually 20 yards short) both work well not so much to defeat the aerial game but to mitigate the advantage of the better player (one who, almost by definition these days, relies heavily on that kind of game). Yes, these two approaches also impact/challenge the lesser golfer; but anything that gives the aerial golfer pause for thought -- in these cases, fear of the unknown (with the skyline green) and the confusion between what his eyes and his range finder is telling him (with the depth perception trick) -- is going to make it harder for him to fire away with any kind of confidence.

Peter

[Josh Bills]

One that often I find difficult for the aerial game is a down hill approach shot, especially with a lofted club in hand.  These often are harder to control distance and spin than from a nice level lie.  While hitting a running shot off a downhill lie is doable for most.  To that end, any uneven lies makes the aerial game more difficult, but can also impact the higher handicapper unfortunately. 

[Scott Sander]

What is the reaction to site-appropriate "hard" objects defending a sections of a green or along the perimeter of an especially aggressive driving line?
Something that is completely benign to the golfer who chooses a conservative approach or one who can safely sling low shots with a bit of a bend - but has ball-bounding consequences that will thoroughly haunt someone who is trying to drop a ball vertically into a specific area.

Half-buried boulders, mounds of mining spoils, a course or two of bricks left from an otherwise fallen chimney - that sort of thing.

Would that be/Should that be immediately dismissed as gimmicky? Unfair? Stupid?

[I'm bracing for (and prepared to handle) laughter, but that's nothing new; my current favorite hole is a par five with strategy defined and defended by a stand of trees.]  
  

[Jason Thurman]

It's all fun and games until someone's ProV1 gets scuffed.

Seriously though Scott, I'd get a kick out of it personally. And I don't know that the retail golfer's reaction to it would be all that violent. Wouldn't it be a close relative of a place like Fossil Trace in Colorado? I have no clue how popular that course is, but I've never heard anyone suggest it didn't look fun. I think golfers will accept and get a kick (literally and figuratively) out of "hard bounce hazards" as long as they're placed conspicuously where they both look cool and are obviously apparent when trying to navigate around them.