[Paul_Turner]

Rich

All the British Golden Age archies you list were the product of links golf; they learned the game on the links.  There wasn't much inland golf when they took up the game.

[Andrew Summerell]

The ground game is really only usefull on sand based courses, as anything else gets too soft or too unpredictable. Even then the courses have to be kept firm, otherwise the aerial game is the only option.

The ground game will never outweigh the aerial game, but it is still important. If you play on a course that has only 5 opportunities for the ground game, then you are playing on a course where the ground game is important. It could mean the difference between shooting 75 or 80.

BTW, A previous post referred to tee shots in regards to the argument over ground v aerial. I have never heard tee shots included in this argument. Ground game generally only reffers to approach shots & recovery shots. It's the choice you make when you are 30 yards out. Do you pitch it in or do you chip it in.

[ForkaB]

Paul

I conceded that Morris, Park and Ross learned on links course, but contended that of them only Morris did so "in particular at St. Andrews."  Where did Colt and Fowler and MacKenzie learn their golf--which links course(s) (surely not St. Andrews)?  As for the Americans, neither the sentence nor the parenthetical comment of Tom's seems to be true.

Also, there is a very interesting statement in the article on nregan's thread on the size of greenswards (1923), in which the author makes a statement to the effect that only the highly skilled player can in fact play the "ground game" adeptly.  I hadn't thought of this before, but I think it is true, based on my experience.  This leads me to think that perhaps it IS possible to design a hole/course that:

1.  allows the less than skilled player to tack his or her way to the green
2.  offers preferred aerial options (off the tee and to the green) for the more skilled player (or the foolhardy), and
3.  offers a "ground game" option which allows the very highly skilled player to trump the "aerial" player with a shot of more finesse.

The 4th at Dornoch seems to fit this description to a "t".

Note:  Post edited to keep within current GCA  "3 Hour" guidelines.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Would you mind telling any or all of us where you're trying to go with this thread and it's question?

I think almost all of us have proven that the ground game is not a myth and there has not been an over emphasis on it and its reestablishment. Just go back and read my post #9 to understand what the ground game was and what it meant to the early American Golden Age architects---and consequently what its reestablishment would mean again to these golf courses.

Again, the ground game option is just that an OPTION---and a very important one. No one ever said that the ground game option should be a requirement as the aerial shot sometimes is! But do you actually think if it's not offered architecturally everywhere, on every hole, it should NOT be maintained anywhere and that therefore it should be considered a myth and that those who propose it's reestablishment are 'emphasising a myth?'

If that's what your saying or imlpying I'm afraid that would show an incredible lack of fundamental understanding on this classic/strategic style of architecture so many of us think is so interesting.

There's virtually no hole in the world that I'm aware of that can't be played somehow through the air with an aerial approach but that by no means should indicate that an OPTION of playing many of them with a ground game approach should be eliminated or minimized or that the ground game choice on them should be considered a myth.

There is, however, as we all know here, a certain way of making that option or alternative choice of playing approach shots with bounce and roll into various greens a myth and a memory. And that, of course, is to simply over-irrigate the turf of all golf courses so there is no bounce and roll. The ground game option would still be there architecturally but of course it wouldn't work--it wouldn't function! We've certainly seen enough of that in the last fifty years, don't you think?

[Andy Levett]

The ground game is really only usefull on sand based courses, as anything else gets too soft or too unpredictable.

In the UK the majority of courses (though not the majority played by overseas visitors) are clay based and the majority of these manage without fairway watering.
In a decent summer they become very firm and fast and the ground game works fine, though it has to be relearned each spring after a winter of chucking muddy darts.

[T_MacWood]

Colt learned the game at Malverne (from Douglas Rolland another links porduct), however St. Andrews is where he developed his love for the game...on holidays as a boy. Fowler has a similar story, he began at Westward Ho! but St.Andrews sparked his love for the game and design.

Alison, Campbell, HG Hutchinson, CK Hutchison, Wifred Reid, Willie Watson, Whigham, the Foulis clan, T.Simpson, Park, John Low, Wethred, George Low, Darwin, Strong, Emmet, JD Dunn, Seymour Dunn, Alex Findlay, MacBeth, Ross, Braid, Taylor, Vardon, Russell, Otani, Macdonald, Tillinghast, MacKenzie (The Spirit of St.Andrews), Maxwell (his design career began after touring the links) and Travis were all products of links golf....off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. No doubt their appreciation for the ground game can be traced to the links (and to St.Andrews for many of them).

bold = architects who practiced in America

[TEPaul]

Where did the initial ground game of golf emanate from? Pretty simply really---in the old days of golf in the linksland, the golf ball, known as the "featherie" and later the "gutta" was light enough if the golfer didn't keep his ball low to the ground and on the ground on windy occasions he could forgetaboutit! Probably wasn't that much different than us trying to play a slightly heavier version of the wiffle ball!

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I wouldn't classify the old 12th at GCGC or the 4th at NGLA as ground game holes.

A pure aerial shot must traverse some nasty terrain for a substantial distance in order to reach the green and surrounding area.
That one can land his ball slightly short of the green is not what I would consider to be the ground game.

Approaches to the 5th at NGLA would be what I would consider to be an integral part of the ground game, where a ball can roll for 50-100-150 yards and reach the green.

TEPaul,

Reread the title of the thread, the key word is "emphasis' on the ground game.  A concept that has been almost worshiped by some, to the diminishment of the reality that golf is and has been, "mostly" an aerial game.  In other words, the
emphasis has been misdirected.

Rich Goodale,

Isn't it primarily the wind that makes one consider the ground game, especially at TOC ?

With all of the bumps and undulations in the fairways and approaches, what golfer in their right mind would trust chance when playing TOC on a windless day.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Reread the title of the thread, the key word is "emphasis' on the ground game.  A concept that has been almost worshiped by some, to the diminishment of the reality that golf is and has been, "mostly" an aerial game.  In other words, the
emphasis has been misdirected."

Patrick:

I don't need to reread the title of this thread. But what you need to do is begin to answer my questions on post #29! And you surely do need to answer whatever it is you're implying about the ground game and it's reestablishment when you make a statement like this;

"A concept that has been almost worshiped by some, to the diminishment of the reality that golf is and has been, "mostly" an aerial game."

What are you saying with a remark like that? What in the hell are you talking about with the "diminishment of the reality that golf has "mostly" been an aerial game?"

Have you had your eyes closed for the last fifty years? What's the diminishment of the aerial game? Haven't you noticed that American maintenance has created almost total reliance on the aerial game in the last fifty years?

Who on here has ever talked about diminishing the aerial game? All we've ever said is that there happens to be an OPTION to the aerial game that's designed into much of this old architecture and there is no reason at all to minimize or extinguish its function!

Repeat after me Pat;

The ground game is an OPTION and an important one to the aerial game. It's an OPTION, not a REQUIREMENT. Options foster choices, choices foster multiple strategies and multiple strategies foster thought, challenge, interest and fun!

What the hell has happened to you Pat? As much as I kid you I thought you actually did know something about the fundamental of this old style strategic architecture and what it takes to maintain its function of multiple options. The ground game is a necessary part of that.

So, once again, what are you trying to say or imply here?

[redanman]

This is easy

Just because there has been an historical need for some aerial shots does not negate the importance of the ground game.

The rest is just loggorrhea at its worst.

[ForkaB]

Pat

In my opinion, it is the contours of the greens, particularly when they are firm and fast, that favors the ground game at TOC.  Aerial shots, unless hit to exact spots, are likely to bound in any direction other than towards the hole.  Wind has a relatively neutral effect on this phenomenon (making it harder to fly the ball in down wind, but much easier to do so upwind.  There was little wind at the 2000 British Open, but Tiger still won by playing the ground game (and doing so better than anyone I have ever seen).

Tom MacW

You have an interesting understanding of the word "product."  By your definition, every architect in the world, including Rees and Fazio, are "products" of links golf just because they visited Scotland once or twice, at various stages in their golfing career.

PS--I'll take your word for it re: Colt (although I'd love to have Paul T's confirmation), even though the only Malvern I've ever heard of is smack dab in the middle of England.  It is pretty near to Painswick, though.........

[TEPaul]

"This is easy

Just because there has been an historical need for some aerial shots does not negate the importance of the ground game.

The rest is just loggorrhea at its worst."

I wsh it were that easy redanman. Unfortunately the rest is definitely not loggorrhea! The problem with your answer is you just make a general statement. On this website one generally needs to do a bit more than that--they actually need to explain why they're making those statements and still people like Pat Mucci struggle to understand.

[TEPaul]

redanamn:

I guess you're probably right about making posts readable. It seems like not many today are capable of handling more than a few lines at a time or at least in the slightest bit interested in more than a few sound bites at a time. It's some world we live in today. Matter of fact, just the thought of this small attention span world we live in is inspiring another thread in me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's a limited option at best at some of the great classic courses in the world.

Let's go back and review Pine Valley, on a hole by hole, shot by shot basis.

If you exclude the tee shot then you're not discussing the play of the golf course, only a segment of it.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
What modern architects are guilty of over emphasizing the ground game? What is your definition or idea of over emphasis?

Rich
Malvern is inland. Colt and some of the others (Travis) may have first been introduced to the game at some inland venue....but you can not deny the influence that links golf had upon their golf design and design philosophies. (by the way St.Andrews is where Colt and Fowler developed their games).

It may not be the answer you were hoping for, but links golf (and the gound game as intregal part of the game) was a major influence .

I take it from your Rees/Fazio comment that you believe my list is a stretch...which architects do you doubt were significantly influenced by links golf and why?

Others: Hilton, Garden Smith, Robert Hunter, and Macan.

On the flip side Vardon was an advocate of the aerial game, he hated St.Andrews. Bobby Jones at first hated St.Andrews (and the ground game), but as we all know he eventualy developed the skills necssary for links golf and his hatred turned to love. It could be argued his interest in golf architecture could be traced by to St.Andrews (and links golf). I believe MacKenzie said Joyce Wethered was the best ground game golfer he knew.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I don't have a problem with the length or content of your post. If I do (and I doubt that I will)...I will send you a private message and expect you to do the same for me....after all none of us are perfect.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

I never said that most (if not all) golden age architects were not influenced (many strongly) by links golf.  That is obviously true, given the prominence of such courses in the game at the time those guys were around.  What I was questioning was the word "products" which implied to me that you believed that links golf was the fundamental source of their experience and predilections.  I don't see the evidence for that, except for most of the very earliest archies--surely none of the home-grown Americans would seem to qualify.

redanman

Pat's question is not whether or not "the ground game is a myth" it is whether or not "we" have over emphasized the influence of the "ground game" on early golf course architecture.  He argues, and I (mostly) concur, that design for the aerial game is prominent (perhaps predominant) in "golden age" architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The emphasis has been largely on this site, the architects understood the aerial nature of the game, the need to reward a well struck shot, something many seem to overlook.

Redanman,

Would you explain the ground nature of the tee shot on # 4 at Pine Valley to me ?

Would you also explain the carry on the tee shot, over water, on # 15 to me.  I haven't seen too many balls skip across that lake onto the fairway, perhaps it's a unique way of playing the drive.

The drive on # 16 over scrub barrens and sand also puzzles me.  How do you play along the ground on that shot, even if you drive to the extreme left toward the trees ?

Could you also explain how the average golfer hits to the 12th green, especially when the pin is center or back ?

Perhaps you should revisit how you play PV on a shot by shot basis, from tee shot to approach shots, and then tell me who in their right mind would play along the ground, with a few rare exceptions.

Rich Goodale,

All to often posters don't read or comprehend the thread topic or subject matter, especially TEPaul, choosing instead to go off on misquided tangents.

Architects have, and continue to place a premium on well struck shots, not topped or missed shots.

The emphasis is clearly on the aerial game.

[TEPaul]

redanman;

You're right about blathering ad infinitum. Naturally, all of us were interested in the capture of that greatest of all despotic assholes, Saddam Hussein, but when all the news agencies have is the fact that our military found him in a hole like a large cornered rat and told him to get the hell out of there and come face the music and about a two minute tape of a mouth-swab DNA test---that really isn't enough to fill up the air-waves for about two straight days.

You know, you really do need to find humor wherever you can, though, and I would've preferred that they intersperse the news of his capture with about an equal amount of reruns of Baghdad Bob telling the world that the Iraqi Elite Presidential Guards were killing the infidels on the walls of Baghdad when we all could hear the entire US 4th Infantry Division in the background about to shut that idiot's yap!

And it is my real regret that they didn't film that US soldier who pulled the rug and trap-door from the super-rat's hole and asked who was down there---only to hear Hussein say;

"I am Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq", only to have the soldier reply;

"Well, in that case, Mr President, I bring you President Bush's regards!"

[T_MacWood]

Rich
If you don't like 'product', perhaps admirers or disciples of links golf. Whatever you call it, its hard to deny the influence. As you know most of the US courses designed in first two or three decades (of the last century) were designed by foriegners. Its hard to find a more important home grown architect than Macdonald, educated and introduced to the game at St.Andrews. I believe the same is true for Tillie. Hunter (author of The Links), Travis, Emmet and  Maxwell understood the ground game.

Pat
I'm not sure I would agree with your characterization that many on this site do not understand the importance of a well struck shot (and over emphasize the importance of the ground game).

When did irrigation systems and watering systems become the norm on US golf courses?

From what I understand sand greens were extremely small and were found mostly in the South (and West)...was the preferred approach to a typical sand green aerial?

[A_Clay_Man]

Wind is a big factor but I believe the ground conditions are more important. What happens when all irrigation is removed? The reliance on mother nature for moisture is all there is. Would you still golf Pine Valley if it were a frozen tundra? Would you re-evaluate how far you would fly the ball, allowing for the added bounce and roll? You bet you would!

Giving the golfer options to adapt, seems like an integral part of what would constitute "great".

Perhaps PV needs to be re-evaluated as to it's greatness?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

This is without question the dumbest and also the most maddening thread I've ever seen you create. What are you doing with this? What are you trying to imply? Why don't you just join all those over-irrigating idiots in the last fifty years who have no conception of a ground game option anywhere? Why have you recently been so supportive of NGLA and what they're trying to do there and are doing by reestablishing the ground game approach option? Didn't you listen to Matt Burrows as he explained not only how but WHY they're working so hard on so many of the approaches to greens that have the architectural capacity to accomodate a ground game option approach shot but had been too soft in recent years?

Aren't you the guy who was so upset that GCGC has been soaked in recent years thereby negating the function of ground game approach shots on holes that architecturally offer them? Why did you even bother to mention that if you're trying to maintain the mindless point of this thread that even Golden Age architecture was totally aerial reliant?

Once again Pat--the ground game option in golf and architecure is an OPTION and a good one! It's not an absolute requirement and it really never was.

And this complete crap you're foisting on us about PVGC and #5 tee shot, #15 tee shot, #16 tee shot is not a complete ground game option is beyond belief! Are you starting to subscribe to that ridiculous notion that the ideal golf course should actually allow some hacker to be able to putt his ball around the entire golf course? That's what's a complete myth Pat! There's not a great golf course in the world that I'm aware of where you can do that, no matter how old it is. Even at TOC you'd find your ball in a berm or up against a stone wall as in age old North Berwick.

Fellow Golfclubatlas.com contributors who have any sense or architectural understanding at all---this thread is Pat Mucci at his absolute worst and most argumentative and for what possible purpose?

Once again, Pat, the gound game approach option does not have to exist on all holes of any golf course to be more than worthy of being maintained as extremely functional on those holes that were architecturally designed to offer it. Can't you understand that simple fact?

And please don't be trying to point out to any of us that perhaps half the holes of Golden Age architecture on courses like Merion or PVGC have an aerial requirement and no ground game option. I've pointed that out numerous times on here and also the reasons why that is--why those courses are designed like that. I've mentioned many, many times why many of the best of the golden age holes did have aerial requirements to those who apparently think ALL of the old golden age holes or even all good strategic hole MUST have a ground game option. That simply is NOT true and it never was! I have no idea why some otherwise good golf architectural analysts think that--because it was simply never true in architecture! But the other half of the holes do have ground game options and there's a very good architectural reason for that too.

This incredibly ridiculous notion of yours that holes like PVGC's #2,3,5,7,8,10,14,15 and others have some kind of aerial requirement at some spots on them and therefore the ground game has been over-emphasized or some kind of myth is just beyond belief!

Why don't you email the GCGC green committee and recommend they soak the sh.... out of that golf course for the rest of time because you just became aware that Travis and Emmet basically designed a totally aerial reliant golf course and consequently no bounce and roll of the golf ball is necessary and certainly no ground game approach options are needed either?

This thread ranks right up there as about your most non-productive and actually destructive to many of the things that some people on this site are trying so hard to reestablish.

I really am going to find one of those Hannibal Lecter masks and strap it on your face!  

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

I wouldn't classify the old 12th at GCGC or the 4th at NGLA as ground game holes.

A pure aerial shot must traverse some nasty terrain for a substantial distance in order to reach the green and surrounding area.
That one can land his ball slightly short of the green is not what I would consider to be the ground game.

Approaches to the 5th at NGLA would be what I would consider to be an integral part of the ground game, where a ball can roll for 50-100-150 yards and reach the green.

Patrick, I wonder if we have a definitional problem here.  If you only see ground game where the ball can 50-150 yds, then it is no wonder you think the ground game might be overrated.   I would agree; given your narrow definitions.

[TEPaul]

"Patrick, I wonder if we have a definitional problem here."

David:

Yeah, no sh... that's what we have here. We have more than that--we have a guy who's hanging onto one of the stupidest most unsupportable points I've ever heard on this website.

He must think the ground game option means you not only can putt the ball all the way around a strategic golf course but that that must be some kind of interesting optional strategy to try and if not then the ground game option shouldn't exist!

Jeeesus to think that he seems to actually be almost attempting to argue such a thing as if that's what he thinks the ground game is by reminding us that a PVGC has some aerial requirements off tees and into some greens and should therefore be considered aerial reliant.

Patrick, the classic "redan" shot IS landing the ball short of the green and bouncing and rolling the ball slowly onto the green and to let it filter down the right to left slope of the green.

The next thing I know you'll probably be arguing with everyone about what "slightly" short of the green means. I can and have landed teh ball maybe 20 steps short and to the right of that green with a low drawing shot that filters onto the green properly. That IS the "classic redan f....GROUND GAME SHOT if you didn't realize that until now. If the ground to the right and in front of that green is soft than that CLASSIC shot OPTION does not exist PAT! Do you actually think that Macdonald designed that hole with Tiger Woods's moon shot 5 iron in mind? You probably do! This is the stupidest thread I've seen from you yet!

[A_Clay_Man]

TomP- In reading that article from 1923 on the other thread the author eludes to the fact that there weren't many aerial game courses around. It makes me think that from that point forward the desire to be "new" by creating more and more of an emphasis on the aerial options (or more accurately the lack of ground game options) became something similar to a fad or the start of a new trend. 'Grass is always greener' type analogy and/or mindset.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()