The Ideal Course For Considering Trajectory Control

[jeffwarne]

Great post John,
Destroyed post by attempting to edit while driving...


Short version-We're too focused on "Fast" in "firm and fast"
Ben says it quite well below

[David Davis]

David


I think in terms of playing in wind, spin control is probably just as important if not more important than trajectory. As you say, taking much more club into a wind and hit three quarter shot is a good way to retain control. Easier said than done mid you, or at least it is for me.


Niall

Niall, I won't disagree with that statement but to be fair I would suggest for most players trajectory and spin go hand in hand. Not many guys can hit a low high spin shot on demand in my experience. However, what you say is exactly right, just maybe another way to say the same thing. slowing down the club means lower swing speed, less loft usually less spin. Adversely swinging harder due to hitting in the wind will certainly offer a quick learning experience when the ball floats back and knocks you in the noggin...

[Ben Sims]

I'm going to brag and say that I have smart friends. John K and Jeff W are the only two guys to touch on the more obscure, but likely most impactful, elements to this discussion.

1) John mentions spin in his original essay. It really hasn't been broached since. I don't have the quality of skill that John or Jeff have, but even as a double digit golfer, I understand that trajectory and spin rate are linked. Understanding how spin rate affects landing characteristics is difficult. Made more difficult when there is a clear difference between how high shots and low shots react when they land. I don't think the linksiest of links possess this trait, nor does the typical lush parkland course.

2) Jeff mentions agronomy as a deciding factor. On a course with a variety of turf lengths, knowing whether the ball can be lifted off a tight lie, or will be a flyer from 2-inch "rough", or any number of other eventualities, is a key skill. This trait is primarily controlled by a pragmatic selection for height of cut. Additionally, the difference he mentions between speed and firmness cannot be overstated. Speed without underlying firmness presents a difficult playing combination that doesn't possess variety. A slower (within reason) surface with firmness does the opposite. It requires prudent judgement to properly determine weight, trajectory, and spin.

As I've already mentioned, I think then variety of design concepts--accentuated by the near perfectly pragmatic maintenance meld--at Ballyneal takes these concepts to the max.

[John Kirk]

Now I'm curious what Jeff actually wrote in the 25th reply.

Ben touches upon a couple points I wanted to make.  First, too much attention is being paid to my claim that "Ballyneal was the best course I had played for considering trajectory control."  In the essay I issued all sort of disclaimers for that view.  I'm a member, and have the luxury of experimenting with different shots.  I've played about a third of the perennial top 100 courses in the U.S., but have very limited experience abroad, where more links style golf is played.  On the other hand, Ballyneal maintains its fairways a bit longer, which reduces the spin on most if not all approach shots, resulting in a more reliable roll, and a requirement to accommodate greater rollout.  Furthermore, the longer fairways make 1/2 and 3/4 shots easier to execute for all levels of player.   

I don't necessarily correlate rock hard, super fast fairways with the best possible conditions for considering trajectory, for the reasons described in the previous paragraph.  Furthermore, the terrain needs to be interesting and somewhat predictable to consider bouncing/rolling a ball onto a green.

If the ground is dead flat, ground shots lack intrigue, although it seems Mark Chaplin (in reply #20) is suggesting an important point, that the intrigue of approaching the 10th hole at Deal is getting the distance right.

The main point of the essay is to suggest that by maintaining the course with a narrow fairway and ample short rough, you could take away the expert player's ability to spin the ball from everywhere, which may result in the following:

1.   level the playing field a bit between the expert and casual player.
2.   place a greater premium for accuracy off the tee.
2.   create more opportunities where bouncing/running shots are required.
3.   enhance the importance of playing to the proper side of the playing field. 

The second most important point is to suggest that a few well-placed trees would add significantly to the consideration of shot trajectory. Hitting over, under and around trees is fun.

I would guess that most players would still rather play the existing all-short grass model, regardless of whether or not it helps/hurts their game.  Mostly because the large swaths of short grass are impressive and remarkable in their agronomic beauty. 

[Tom_Doak]

I would guess that most players would still rather play the existing all-short grass model, regardless of whether or not it helps/hurts their game.  Mostly because the large swaths of short grass are impressive and remarkable in their agronomic beauty.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to impress anyone with the agronomic beauty of wide fairways.  I just think they fit the scale of a 200-acre golf course better than 30-yard fairways with a lot of rough in between.  And, I think wider fairways leave the decision of what angle to take up to the player, whereas 30-yard fairways are the equivalent of marking both sides of the way into the harbor.


Wider fairways still accomplish the first and last objectives you listed above.  As for the middle two [which are both marked (2)], I don't care so much about placing a greater premium for accuracy off the tee, and I don't need to require more bouncing or running shots.  If you want to play my courses all through the air you're welcome to try, but I think you'll find it's not always the best way home.

[Peter Pallotta]

John - an aside, but Tom's last post reminded me of a two-part pet theory of mine that I am excited about testing if I ever get the pleasure of being hosted at (wink wink) Ballyneal. That theory is: to score my best on a Tom D course like Ballyneal, "Play Short".  That is, play short of fairway trouble by taking less club off the tee, and then on the approach land short of the greens and on the safe side by swinging easier with more club so as to bring the ball in low and have it roll out and on. Part two of my theory is this: one should approach putting Tom's greens the way Jack Nicklaus approached putting at Augusta -- in his words, with only a couple of exceptions for a couple of specific pin placements, the best way to shoot your best score at Augusta was to get your ball to the middle of the greens and leave yourself the 15-20 footers you might occasionally make.   
Peter

[JMEvensky]

Peter,on what kind of course would that strategy not work? Playing away from/short of hazards and toward the centers of greens seems like a pretty good way to get around a golf course with a good score.

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter,on what kind of course would that strategy not work? Playing away from/short of hazards and toward the centers of greens seems like a pretty good way to get around a golf course with a good score.

Okay smart guy - how often do you actually put my pet theory into practice?
But kidding aside, I think the strategy wouldn't work on overly long courses and/or on courses with perched greens -- not for me anyways. If I played short off the tee, I'd have to be hitting high two irons all day long....and that shot isn't exactly one of my strong suits...   

[John Kirk]

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to impress anyone with the agronomic beauty of wide fairways.  I just think they fit the scale of a 200-acre golf course better than 30-yard fairways with a lot of rough in between.  And, I think wider fairways leave the decision of what angle to take up to the player, whereas 30-yard fairways are the equivalent of marking both sides of the way into the harbor.

Wider fairways still accomplish the first and last objectives you listed above.  As for the middle two [which are both marked (2)], I don't care so much about placing a greater premium for accuracy off the tee, and I don't need to require more bouncing or running shots.  If you want to play my courses all through the air you're welcome to try, but I think you'll find it's not always the best way home.

I thought about editing my post, but decided to keep both points numbered "2."

I wasn't thinking about your courses specifically, believing that many deluxe modern designs have incorporated the concept of wide fairways with a narrow strip of rough.

Wouldn't it be kind of funny to move the fairway around, create an 80 yard wide playing field, and then mow a 30 yard wide fairway almost completely in the left or right half of the corridor?  The next year, move it to the other side and see if that works better.

With my essay, I was shooting for "profound revelation!", but will happily accept "reasonable platform for a golf architecture discussion".

[Sean_A]

Short grass around greens....should higher cappers really be taking on the flop type shot if there is clearly a safer/better option with a putter/bobbler shot?  I suggest not...which means the short grass does help higher cappers play shots around greens.  The one main exception would be for sharply raised greens.  I can see higher cappers often feeling they are better off putting the ball in the air so need a cushion of grass to help out.

I try to avoid the flop shot on short grass...and in fact don't even carry a wedge for the shot just to quell the temptation.  Most of the time I would rather be in a bunker than in a position where I felt I had to put the ball in the air. Short grass as a hazard is not something I would advocate eliminating merely because better players have an advantage.  No, I would instead look to better bunkering systems and green placement which didn't cause too many situations where high cappers are forced to put the ball in the air.  To me its more of a design issue than a presentation issue.  I know I am a broken record on this, but Yeamans Hall is the exact type of course where I would question what the greenside bunkering actually accomplishes if a goal of architecture is to test good players, but make it fun for rabbits.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

John - an aside, but Tom's last post reminded me of a two-part pet theory of mine that I am excited about testing if I ever get the pleasure of being hosted at (wink wink) Ballyneal. That theory is: to score my best on a Tom D course like Ballyneal, "Play Short".  That is, play short of fairway trouble by taking less club off the tee, and then on the approach land short of the greens and on the safe side by swinging easier with more club so as to bring the ball in low and have it roll out and on. Part two of my theory is this: one should approach putting Tom's greens the way Jack Nicklaus approached putting at Augusta -- in his words, with only a couple of exceptions for a couple of specific pin placements, the best way to shoot your best score at Augusta was to get your ball to the middle of the greens and leave yourself the 15-20 footers you might occasionally make.   
Peter

I'm trying to contemplate if this would actually be the best approach.


Of course, it's a bit more complicated than you describe.  On a hole like the 1st, it wouldn't be a matter of laying up short of hazards, but of taking a more conservative line off the [back] tee on the diagonal.  On my favorite hole, the 12th, you've got to stay in the left of the fairway, or your ball gets sucked into a deep hollow and the approach is much harder.


There are holes where playing a shorter tee shot might benefit you ... mostly, on the short par-4's.  I usually play short on the 7th and 9th and 14th.  You could do the same on the 8th and 10th, but then you give up going for the green in two, which is also a hefty price. 


Though the course plays short overall, due to altitude and firmness, on most days there are several individual holes that play very long if you lay back off the tee, because of the combination of length and wind ... either the 1st and 2nd and 17th and 18th will play long, or 6-8-10-13-16 will be beasts.  Indeed, the design has everything to do with the fact that I suspect the wind will be blowing, but I can't control how strong or where from.


As to the greens, sure, being in the middle of the green is usually good, IF you can get there without missing in whatever spot makes for an almost impossible up and down.  But getting to the middle of the green is easier said than done on holes like 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, or 18.  More likely, when you've got a long club in your hands, you're going to have to hedge to one side of the green to give yourself the best chance of making par.

[BCrosby]

Peter -

The first part of your two part theory brings to mind something B. Darwin said.

Bernardo noted that he understood perfectly well the safe routes that architects offered him, but he couldn't make himself take them. He chalked it up to his golfer's pride. Something he wasn't very proud of, but there you have it.

His point is well taken. I'd bet most of us, like Darwin, rarely play rationally. We let the course kick the sh#*t out of us. A weird phenomenon that is part of the intrigue of the game, I think.

Bob

[Niall C]

Nice one Bob, although I take a slightly different take than Darwin in that it's not pride but the challenge that makes us want to take on the less than percentage shots. I think that is what a lot of gca's miss, that ordinary golfers like me still want a challenge and while a constant diet of having to land on narrow/small targets gets tedious quite quickly, super wide courses with no real hazards and/or strategy can be pretty dull. IMO of course.


Niall

[Niall C]

John - an aside, but Tom's last post reminded me of a two-part pet theory of mine that I am excited about testing if I ever get the pleasure of being hosted at (wink wink) Ballyneal. That theory is: to score my best on a Tom D course like Ballyneal, "Play Short".  That is, play short of fairway trouble by taking less club off the tee, and then on the approach land short of the greens and on the safe side by swinging easier with more club so as to bring the ball in low and have it roll out and on.

Peter

Peter


A very good friend of mine who still plays mid single figure handicap at near 70, plays exactly that way. Often he will actually aim at the trouble because that is the side to come in on. It's an education watching him but frankly I don't heed the lesson as I'm in the Darwin camp (see Bob's post above), whether it's pride or the challenge, I can't resist trying to get the ball by the trouble and a bit further up the fairway.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

Nice one Bob, although I take a slightly different take than Darwin in that it's not pride but the challenge that makes us want to take on the less than percentage shots. I think that is what a lot of gca's miss, that ordinary golfers like me still want a challenge and while a constant diet of having to land on narrow/small targets gets tedious quite quickly, super wide courses with no real hazards and/or strategy can be pretty dull. IMO of course.

Niall

There is pride, there is desire for challenge and there is a third factor that applies to those of us who play a lot of golf on the road, and quite a bit at famous courses -- the 'I didn't come all this way to lay up' factor. How many people, on their first and likely only play of Cypress's sixteenth, have it in them to lay up to the left? Even though that is almost certainly the best move, from a scoring or a matchplay pov.

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting posts, thanks. As usual, Mr Darwin speaks the plain truth, and elegantly so. But I think I may have the advantage over some of you (e.g. Bob, Niall, Adam) in this regard in that I took up the game later in life and am still at best an average golfer; and so my golfing ego manifests itself (for the most part) not in terms of hitting the great or unusual shot but simply in tallying up a lower score this month than I did last month. Granted, the satisfaction derived from this approach is more akin to dinner with a friend than it is a weekend in Las Vegas, but I think it best for my spirit and psyche to let golf serve this quiet goal and leave the 'drama' to the rest of my life...

Peter

[BCrosby]

Darwin's comment about rarely taking the "safe" route was, as I recall, made in the context of a (mild) criticism of ideas about strategic architecture that had become so popular at the time. (As we would say today, Darwin was trolling.)

His notion being that the vaunted playing choices that Low, Colt, Fowler, Simpson and others talked about were not as interesting as they claimed. Primarily because choosing the safe route was less fun, less manly (?), less interesting and so forth. I don't think Darwin was trying to undermine the philosophical basis of strategic golf design. He bought into that approach to gca.

But his point was a good one. The choices good holes present are often not very relevant because of our natural tendency to over-estimate our own golfing skills and under-estimate the problems we face. Which is to say that the sweet anxiety we should feel about making those choices doesn't happen as often as the Golden Age archies had hoped.

Bob       

[Tom_Doak]

Darwin's comment about rarely taking the "safe" route was, as I recall, made in the context of a (mild) criticism of ideas about strategic architecture that had become so popular at the time. (As we would say today, Darwin was trolling.)

His notion being that the vaunted playing choices that Low, Colt, Fowler, Simpson and others talked about were not as interesting as they claimed. Primarily because choosing the safe route was less fun, less manly (?), less interesting and so forth. I don't think Darwin was trying to undermine the philosophical basis of strategic golf design. He bought into that approach to gca.

But his point was a good one. The choices good holes present are often not very relevant because of our natural tendency to over-estimate our own golfing skills and under-estimate the problems we face. Which is to say that the sweet anxiety about making those choices doesn't happen as much as the Golden Age archies hoped.

Bob     

This is especially true of the panelist class, who so often play a golf course just once, and not in a match, both of which make them more likely to miss the subtler aspects of the design.


I've always thought that MacKenzie had it right, to make the challenging-looking carries easier than they seemed [so the average player could get his thrills], and make the difficulties for the best players less obvious.  But all that has much less to do with trajectory than with human nature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Many years ago in a separate discussion, I allowed that I figured a golfer could be asked to carry, skirt, or lay up short of a particular hazard.  You came on listing about 11 different options for a single bunker placed on the side of the fairway. 

My take was that I basically understood that the golfer would be counted on to over think things to the max, so I never bothered to do it for them.  Just put the hazard out there somewhere and let them start thinking......

In reality, the better players are probably less prone to take risks.  They know their capabilities and probably assess any shot in terms of being at least twice as likely to make than miss, and plan and play accordingly.  The average and "Didn't come here to lay up" golfers take more unreasonable chances, but in the latter case, aren't really playing for score, anyway.  In fact, I bet most golfers don't any more.  They play for the experience of a new course, camaraderie, etc.

[Ben Sims]

But his point was a good one. The choices good holes present are often not very relevant because of our natural tendency to over-estimate our own golfing skills and under-estimate the problems we face. Which is to say that the sweet anxiety about making those choices doesn't happen as much as the Golden Age archies hoped.

Bob     

Bringing the thread full round, I think this broaches the weakness of the short-grass-as-hazard philosophy. As a less skilled player, if all I'm left with is the flat stick, how is that any different than only having the wedge?


Darwin's opinions on strategic golf are intriguing for two reasons 1) I don't think he was really cognizant of how the modern ball would affect the game and 2) it's no surprise that a fan of Dickensian flourish couldn't make himself take the safe route. Those two thoughts intercede at ability and agronomy. Darwin had both the skill and likely the height of cut where he could choose how best to avoid hazards and slopes that would hurt his result.


But in the modern day, I wonder if Darwin would still feel this way. Tom Huckaby once opined--I'm paraphrasing--that he felt Old Macdonald reduced his ability to choose which shots to hit. Based on the playing surface and the greens themselves, he felt forced into putting as the only option. It seems that what we're trying to discuss and celebrate here is a small collection of courses whose entire makeup from architecture to agronomy allows for any number of trajectories and approaches to scoring.


 Yes, short grass around greens and on fairways out to the edges is certainly preferable to rough. But, I think there is a middle ground.

[Niall C]

The choices good holes present are often not very relevant because of our natural tendency to over-estimate our own golfing skills and under-estimate the problems we face. Which is to say that the sweet anxiety about making those choices doesn't happen as much as the Golden Age archies hoped.

Bob     

Bob


Maybe it's not even over estimating our own ability but that we weigh up the chances of hitting the 2 or 3 in 10 shot against the consequences of failing. The more severe the penalty, and for me the most severe is having to cross a large body of water, then the more inclined a player is to shy away. Personally I quite fancy my chances out of a bunker although I recognise I might be deluding myself. Either way I enjoy the challenge of scrambling, and there we are back to the idea of challenge.


Niall 

[Niall C]

Ben


I play a lot of links golf and I don't see too many folk using the putter off the green other than from the very fringe of the green. A lot will use the run up shot but how much air they give the ball and where they land it will depend on the contours between the ball and the hole as much as the lie in my experience.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Darwin's comment about rarely taking the "safe" route was, as I recall, made in the context of a (mild) criticism of ideas about strategic architecture that had become so popular at the time. (As we would say today, Darwin was trolling.)

His notion being that the vaunted playing choices that Low, Colt, Fowler, Simpson and others talked about were not as interesting as they claimed. Primarily because choosing the safe route was less fun, less manly (?), less interesting and so forth. I don't think Darwin was trying to undermine the philosophical basis of strategic golf design. He bought into that approach to gca.

But his point was a good one. The choices good holes present are often not very relevant because of our natural tendency to over-estimate our own golfing skills and under-estimate the problems we face. Which is to say that the sweet anxiety about making those choices doesn't happen as much as the Golden Age archies hoped.

Bob     

Bob


I think the larger point of the classic British achies is that there often was a safe(r) route.  To make all options equally appealing (or not) is not realistic.


Ben...no matter what design or presentation is in force...the better player always has the advantage and rightfully so.  Just as above, to expect a certain presentation to harm good players but somehow benefit poor players is not realistic.  That said...generally, the best chance a poor player has is from short grass...hitting a safe shot...be it a putter or bobbler...this is part and parcel in understanding one's limitations. 

My beef with rough around greens is when there is no wide fairway band around a green.  In other words, when chipping, being forced to carry the green because rough runs up near the the edge (ie classic US Open style). I think this is the absolute worst presentation because for sure better players will have better control from rough and be able to spin the ball better once the ball hits the green. 

To be fair though, I think there are more divisions of player quality once it comes to the short game.  To me, better players can impart spin so like short grass.  Plenty of single digit players can't cope with flopping from tight lies.  To me...this is a sure sign of player quality (it speaks to club on ball contact) and one which each golfer should recognize in their game.  If the choice becomes taking the putter out one's hand for a huge percentage of golfers or the wedge out of the hands of a relatively small nunber of golfers...I am going with taking the wedge away everyday and that means relatively short grass around greens. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob -
"Sweet Anxiety" is a great title for a golf movie. In my conception, "Anxiety" is the name of a young woman (think Diane Keaton) with old hippie parents straight out of Woodstock who made their fortune producing organic bees wax candles. She is at first confused by but soon attracted to a focused and straight-laced young golf professional from the wrong side of the tracks (think Jordan Spieth, if his parents had been working class alcoholics) who dreams of making it on tour and playing in the Masters. Ironically, of course, it is "Ben" who is wired tighter than a drum, while Anxiety is the very picture of an easy going free spirit -- a spirit that Ben at first openly mocks as a sign of privilege, but later learns to embrace as a means of "letting it happen" on the golf course instead of painfully trying to "make it happen" (long his Achilles heel when the competitive pressure is on).  In turn, Anxiety learns that life is not all peaches and cream and bees wax candles, and through Ben's passion for golf is helped to discover her own true passion, i.e. being a watercolour artist. Well, there are ups and downs (both on the golf course and off), but needless to say in the end Ben does get to Augusta, and Anxiety sells her first painting to a wealthy patron, i.e. it is of Ben, holding his finish after hitting his tee shot on No. 12, the traditional Sunday pin placement in the distance. The tag line could be: "Trying to make the cut is sometimes the worst cut of all". Ah? Eh?  I think so -- I think this has legs. Yes, it is a little on-the-nose as it were, but that just might make it the only golf movie anyone will have ever actually paid to see. It's a love story is what it is, with golf as the backdrop. Oh, and did I mention that Anxiety and her family live in Oregon, and that Ben makes ends meet working as a caddie at Bandon?

[Tom_Doak]

 (think Jordan Spieth, if his parents had been working class alcoholics)

I am trying to visualize this person, but I am giggling too hard to manage it.