[Matt Schoolfield]

I've been thinking about this for years. I feel like modern launch angles have overpowered the low, running shot strategies holes like the Biarritz or Redan. I just think controlled running shots are a really unique skill that ought to be considered. The only things I've come up with to try and encourage running shots are just comically bad ideas (basically, add angled sleepers to make higher shot misses more dangerous).

Does anybody here have any ideas on designs that ask players to keep the ball low, even with modern equipment?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Contours (firmer the better)
Easier (for me) to roll up to a contour than to hit on top of one

[Ben Sims]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring. 

[Jim Hoak]

Well, there are the obvious ones--like less going on in the front of the green. like bunkering, hazards, sharp contouring, major false fronts--but I'd add one more.  There has been a fascination recently with Zoysia grass (for example, the course for the Nelson today had it).  My experience is that Zoysia is like Velcro--the ball sticks rather than rolls out, so needs to be avoided for the ground game to be encouraged.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Many years ago at an ASGCA meeting, and after reading "ground game this, ground game that" right here on this site, I took the opportunity to ask him what kind of design might make him use the ground game on the approach.  He thought a second, then said something to the effect of, on a long, downwind par 4, with a 2 tier green, higher and a bit narrower in the back, that he preferred to aim for the bigger front portion of the green with less slope and "chase it up the hill."  I later concluded that making that tier slightly concave would really enhance that play.


So, from that point on, I laid out, or on a reno, found the longest downwind par 4 and designed it that way.  I was always surprised at how many people would argue that point.  For me, if JN thought that was a good way to introduce variety in shots away from the standard high flight, high spin shot, it was enough for me.


Similarly, I asked him what the smallest target on a green he would aim for was, and his answer was 40 foot diameter, if he had a shorter iron.  Again, I designed my minimum green lobes at at least 45-50 feet diam., allowing for collars and some grow in over time.  Again, I was always amazed at how many club players would tell me they would aim for smaller targets (obviously, Erik B and several others weren't around to back that up, LOL).  I would be there saying, "Well, Jack won't aim for that, so I doubt you should."  But, again, many seemed to think their strategic thinking was better.  Again, LOL.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring.

Ben, Mike,


You’re going to have to explain this one to me:


If the alternative to a running shot is a shot that flies directly on to a green (and stops on that green), how do contours and elevation outside of the green surface help in any way your decision to use the ground on approach? Logic says it is the other way round, you will use the air more if the bounce is somewhat unpredictable.


Or are you both just talking about short grass rolls at the edge of - and inside - greens as your “ground”?

[Adam Lawrence]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring.

Ben, Mike,


You’re going to have to explain this one to me:


If the alternative to a running shot is a shot that flies directly on to a green (and stops on that green), how do contours and elevation outside of the green surface help in any way your decision to use the ground on approach? Logic says it is the other way round, you will use the air more if the bounce is somewhat unpredictable.


Or are you both just talking about short grass rolls at the edge of - and inside - greens as your “ground”?

I must say that I rather agree with Ally here. For those who have seen it, I think of the sixth hole at St Patrick's in Ireland. There is a _huge_ and complex contour in front of the green, and I remember thinking to myself that I would rather fly the ball over it and take my chance trying to stop it than try to figure out how a running shot would react to it.

[Sean_A]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring.

Ben, Mike,


You’re going to have to explain this one to me:


If the alternative to a running shot is a shot that flies directly on to a green (and stops on that green), how do contours and elevation outside of the green surface help in any way your decision to use the ground on approach? Logic says it is the other way round, you will use the air more if the bounce is somewhat unpredictable.


Or are you both just talking about short grass rolls at the edge of - and inside - greens as your “ground”?

I must say that I rather agree with Ally here. For those who have seen it, I think of the sixth hole at St Patrick's in Ireland. There is a _huge_ and complex contour in front of the green, and I remember thinking to myself that I would rather fly the ball over it and take my chance trying to stop it than try to figure out how a running shot would react to it.

Depends on wind direction and distance of shot. If you are 200 away and know you can't fly the mounds and hold the green, what are going to do? Layup, go long or try a running shot? It's a real choice, even if none are ideal, no?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring.

Ben, Mike,


You’re going to have to explain this one to me:


If the alternative to a running shot is a shot that flies directly on to a green (and stops on that green), how do contours and elevation outside of the green surface help in any way your decision to use the ground on approach? Logic says it is the other way round, you will use the air more if the bounce is somewhat unpredictable.


Or are you both just talking about short grass rolls at the edge of - and inside - greens as your “ground”?

I must say that I rather agree with Ally here. For those who have seen it, I think of the sixth hole at St Patrick's in Ireland. There is a _huge_ and complex contour in front of the green, and I remember thinking to myself that I would rather fly the ball over it and take my chance trying to stop it than try to figure out how a running shot would react to it.

Depends on wind direction and distance of shot. If you are 200 away and know you can't fly the mounds and hold the green, what are going to do? Layup, go long or try a running shot? It's a real choice, even if none are ideal, no?

Ciao

But that’s not what we are discussing. All other variables being equal (wind, distance etc…), fronting contour moves the needle towards the air over ground.


There will be very rare instances when contour moves towards ground over air e.g. when you find yourself on the far left of fairway with a front-left green-side bunker and a front right mound that feeds the ball around and in to the green. But that’s a pretty specific - and rare - situation.

[Sean_A]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring.

Ben, Mike,


You’re going to have to explain this one to me:


If the alternative to a running shot is a shot that flies directly on to a green (and stops on that green), how do contours and elevation outside of the green surface help in any way your decision to use the ground on approach? Logic says it is the other way round, you will use the air more if the bounce is somewhat unpredictable.


Or are you both just talking about short grass rolls at the edge of - and inside - greens as your “ground”?

I must say that I rather agree with Ally here. For those who have seen it, I think of the sixth hole at St Patrick's in Ireland. There is a _huge_ and complex contour in front of the green, and I remember thinking to myself that I would rather fly the ball over it and take my chance trying to stop it than try to figure out how a running shot would react to it.

Depends on wind direction and distance of shot. If you are 200 away and know you can't fly the mounds and hold the green, what are going to do? Layup, go long or try a running shot? It's a real choice, even if none are ideal, no?

Ciao

But that’s not what we are discussing. All other variables being equal (wind, distance etc…), fronting contour moves the needle towards the air over ground.


There will be very rare instances when contour moves towards ground over air e.g. when you find yourself on the far left of fairway with a front-left green-side bunker and a front right mound that feeds the ball around and in to the green. But that’s a pretty specific - and rare - situation.

I don't think so Ally. Wind is usually a factor on firm ground with a fronting feature. Plenty of guys cannot fly over the mounds and hope to get close to the hole (ir maybe even hold the green) if playing downwind....and that could be from 200 or 50 yards. For many, it's a risk to even try to get the ball in the air high enough to get the ball to stop. Fairways have become so tight that erring toward a bouncing runner is a very viable option. I don't necessarily like either option on this hole ( especially with the hole up front), but they are options. It's an awkward feature for sure, but for me it's compelling because I dislike the choices. Nothing about this hole suits my eye. St Pat's has a good handful of awkward features.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I had an answer for you, then I read Mike’s reply. I’ll just say I agree.


When the place I want to go is elevated or there is a significant contour near it, it’s much easier to envision and use a shot with a running result.


That said, it can become an overused concept. When all I do is putt up slopes around greens that I miss for four hours, it’s a bit boring.

Ben, Mike,


You’re going to have to explain this one to me:


If the alternative to a running shot is a shot that flies directly on to a green (and stops on that green), how do contours and elevation outside of the green surface help in any way your decision to use the ground on approach? Logic says it is the other way round, you will use the air more if the bounce is somewhat unpredictable.


Or are you both just talking about short grass rolls at the edge of - and inside - greens as your “ground”?

I must say that I rather agree with Ally here. For those who have seen it, I think of the sixth hole at St Patrick's in Ireland. There is a _huge_ and complex contour in front of the green, and I remember thinking to myself that I would rather fly the ball over it and take my chance trying to stop it than try to figure out how a running shot would react to it.

Depends on wind direction and distance of shot. If you are 200 away and know you can't fly the mounds and hold the green, what are going to do? Layup, go long or try a running shot? It's a real choice, even if none are ideal, no?

Ciao

But that’s not what we are discussing. All other variables being equal (wind, distance etc…), fronting contour moves the needle towards the air over ground.


There will be very rare instances when contour moves towards ground over air e.g. when you find yourself on the far left of fairway with a front-left green-side bunker and a front right mound that feeds the ball around and in to the green. But that’s a pretty specific - and rare - situation.

I don't think so Ally. Wind is usually a factor on firm ground with a fronting feature. Plenty of guys cannot fly over the mounds and hope to get close to the hole (ir maybe even hold the green) if playing downwind....and that could be from 200 or 50 yards. For many, it's a risk to even try to get the ball in the air high enough to get the ball to stop. Fairways have become so tight that erring toward a bouncing runner is a very viable option. I don't necessarily like either option on this hole ( especially with the hole up front), but they are options. It's an awkward feature for sure, but for me it's compelling because I dislike the choices. Nothing about this hole suits my eye. St Pat's has a good handful of awkward features.

Ciao

Sean, you are not picking my point up correctly. Why does “contour” make you choose the ground over “no contour”? All other things being equal.

[Charlie Goerges]

I love contour (macro, micro, and elevation), it's my favorite thing about golf courses, it looks good and can be fun to play. But if I wanted to actually reward ground game over an aerial shot, the only way I think that can be done is to plant a couple trees near the entrance of the green Blairgowrie Wee-style and force it on the player. And keep the canopy as big and bushy as possible.


I'm not generally advocating for this approach, but I think it's the only way to consistently reward only the ground game. Wind does it as well, but may not be consistent enough to get the job done.

[Ally Mcintosh]

A few design choices that promote a ground game:


- build on sand
- build on a windy site
- really good drainage
- approach and green sloping away from play
- build greens at grade
- don’t build containment mounding at rear of greens
- undergrowth cleared from beneath trees (i.e. hitting recoveries under canopies)
- put a long club in the player’s hand for approach
- make sure approaches aren’t irrigated / over-irrigated
- leave middle and one-side of green open with no fronting hazard
- design kick-plates at the front that feed balls in


I’m sure there are a few others… but not many.

[Ben Sims]

Ally (and others),


The one thing that gets me about the ground game discussion is how people distill to mean what they think it means. For many, it usually distills to mid and long approaches. In my mind, I can’t think of a single design choice, not one, where I’m using a running shot into a green from more than 120 yards or so. This ain’t to say I’m a great golfer. But I hit the ball high on full shots and I’d prefer to just hit the ball to the spot.


Inside 120, and inside 50 in particular, is a whole different ball of wax. If there are contours above grade between me and the green and the pin is anywhere near those contours, I’m probably chipping into those contours. If I’m off a green on short grass and the green is above me, I’m putting up that slope. Fronting contours usually result in a green slightly sloping away, so that’s one reason. But the other reason is variability. I’m trying to reduce it. I can read contours better than I can rely on a nipped wedge off tight grass.


One of my favorite holes that Bill Coore has designed is the 5th at Friars Head. It’s kind of a take on their Lion’s Mouth concept. Except in lieu of a bunker fronting, there’s a mound and it totally dominates strategy. When I played it, I hit a decent drive up the right side leaving 50 yards to the hole. From my angle, the hole was right behind the mound. Every fiber in my being said hit the low shot and negotiate the mound. Tommy Naccs was standing behind the green and so I foolishly nipped a wedge with an open face right at the hole. It landed with a ton of spin on the back of the mound and trundled onto the green for an easy three. Tommy correctly noted that I could take a bucket of balls down there and not recreate that shot.

[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam makes a good point about the nature of contours discouraging a running approach.  So many who say they advocate for run up shots then put a lot of contour in the approach to make it unpredictable.  When golfers plan shots, they prefer as much predictability as they can get.  Thus, IMHO, the C+C approach where the contours direct a shot onto the green with a consistent side slope mostly to one side are more enticing than a straight on approach with micro or macro contours to negotiate.


I once heard someone describe Harbor Town as a course that looks like you should play the ground game, but in reality, is an aerial course because too much contour in front makes those shots take sometimes crazy bounces, and why risk that?  I think many am archies, and some pro ones focus their design on too much difficultly over creating contours that help shots, which would make the ground option more enticing.


As always, just MHO.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Agree, Jeff.


Design in contour that helps the golfer and this encourages the ground game. (As my above post)


Ben, on almost all examples, you would use the same amount of ground with no contour as you would with contour. I get that sometimes a pin position over a mound calls for a low-spin shot over a nipped shot. But that specific situation arises more rarely than situations where you want to remove the unpredictability of contour.

[Ira Fishman]

A few design choices that promote a ground game:


- build on sand
- build on a windy site
- really good drainage
- approach and green sloping away from play
- build greens at grade
- don’t build containment mounding at rear of greens
- undergrowth cleared from beneath trees (i.e. hitting recoveries under canopies)
- put a long club in the player’s hand for approach
- make sure approaches aren’t irrigated / over-irrigated
- leave middle and one-side of green open with no fronting hazard
- design kick-plates at the front that feed balls in


I’m sure there are a few others… but not many.

Pretty darn good description of lots of links courses. I would add greens with internal contours where it easier to get near the pin with a running shot than being precise with even a shorter iron. Ballyneal comes to mind.


Ira

[Charlie Goerges]

A few design choices that promote a ground game:


- build on sand
- build on a windy site
- really good drainage
- approach and green sloping away from play
- build greens at grade
- don’t build containment mounding at rear of greens
- undergrowth cleared from beneath trees (i.e. hitting recoveries under canopies)
- put a long club in the player’s hand for approach
- make sure approaches aren’t irrigated / over-irrigated
- leave middle and one-side of green open with no fronting hazard
- design kick-plates at the front that feed balls in


I’m sure there are a few others… but not many.

All these sound necessary but not sufficient. They allow the ground game but don't reward it. They're all good things, exactly what I'd want to see though.

[Ben Sims]

Agree, Jeff.


Design in contour that helps the golfer and this encourages the ground game. (As my above post)


Ben, on almost all examples, you would use the same amount of ground with no contour as you would with contour. I get that sometimes a pin position over a mound calls for a low-spin shot over a nipped shot. But that specific situation arises more rarely than situations where you want to remove the unpredictability of contour.

What is this unpredictability of contour? It’s a far more predictable variable than the variables of lie, shot visualization, and strike quality. In honesty, I’d relish playing a match against someone that grabbed a lofted club every time there was contour between them and the green/hole inside of 50yds.


The word is out about variance and reduction of risk. It isn’t a fad. Even my friends that don’t know Scott Fawcett from Farah Fawcett are changing how they approach greens from shorter distances.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Who said anything about grabbing a lofted club every time? Who said anything about shot visualisation, lie or strike quality? They are all other variables that are equalised.


Although actually, lie is relevant because contour in the landing zone can create a variety of lies that can in turn promote a different kind of shot in to a green…


…but for the purpose of our discussion, unpredictable contour in front of a green (because yes, it’s less predictable than flattish ground or long slopes) does NOT promote or reward the ground game with all else being equal (wind, firmness etc… etc…)…


It does look gorgeous though. And throwing your ball through those rolls and pulling it off can be a great thrill! And doing so is often the right option to choose (just not more often than on flattish ground with all other conditions equal).

[Ben Sims]

Who said anything about grabbing a lofted club every time? Who said anything about shot visualisation, lie or strike quality? They are all other variables that are equalised.


Although actually, lie is relevant because contour in the landing zone can create a variety of lies that can in turn promote a different kind of shot in to a green…


…but for the purpose of our discussion, unpredictable contour in front of a green (because yes, it’s less predictable than flattish ground or long slopes) does NOT promote or reward the ground game with all else being equal (wind, firmness etc… etc…)…


It does look gorgeous though. And throwing your ball through those rolls and pulling it off can be a great thrill!

I guess we will agree to disagree to an extent on this one. That said, Mike illustrated it nicely in his post above and after playing his Wolf Point about fifty eleven times, I know exactly why I choose the ground game over the aerial approach when I’m near his greens. I’ll try and think of a better way to explain it.

[Sean_A]

Ally

All contours are less preditable than level ground. The reward is in the execution. If its well executed there is reward. I agree that mounds such as on #6 don't promote the ground game...they certainly don't for me. Given the options and conditions, I chose to hit a shot along the floor one round. Every shot is its own situation.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Interesting topic,

After reading these comments, the one course that keeps popping in my head is TOC.

It seems like the implementation there is the golfer is forced to make the decision: use the ground game and have a relatively safe route for par, or try flying it over the trouble and risk getting a bad bounce into a nasty bunker or woefully out of position where you may risk bogey or worse.  So to some extent it seems effective ground game needs to push the golfer a bit, with nasty results lurking for not pulling off a precise aerial shot.

[Ally Mcintosh]

(EDIT - I had forgotten about this thread which has a much better discussion on the topic:


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70987.msg1706062.html#msg1706062)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree, Jeff.


Design in contour that helps the golfer and this encourages the ground game. (As my above post)


Ben, on almost all examples, you would use the same amount of ground with no contour as you would with contour. I get that sometimes a pin position over a mound calls for a low-spin shot over a nipped shot. But that specific situation arises more rarely than situations where you want to remove the unpredictability of contour.

What is this unpredictability of contour? It’s a far more predictable variable than the variables of lie, shot visualization, and strike quality. In honesty, I’d relish playing a match against someone that grabbed a lofted club every time there was contour between them and the green/hole inside of 50yds.


The word is out about variance and reduction of risk. It isn’t a fad. Even my friends that don’t know Scott Fawcett from Farah Fawcett are changing how they approach greens from shorter distances.

Ben,


I won't answer for others, but long reasonably consistent slopes, like a Redan bank are fairly predictable.  A bunch of moguls in front of the green are not and would seem to discourage the ground game.  People will fly those just like they fly over rough to the edge of the green, at least if they are smart.


But I always said I would design for the ground game when I saw a sleeve of balls that advertised "flys lower! Less spin!"  Redans work, but for the most part, I am resigned to the fact that the ground game is now from 100 yards in or escaping from trees.  BTW, low shots with roll work well on the average irrigated course at least from that <100 range.  And, I think that is okay.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()