[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci has to mean if a player like SPDB hardly ever uses the ground game option at PVGC then that ground game option must be a myth to SPDB somehow.

That's your flawed reasoning, I never said that the ground game was a myth, that's your distorted logic.
What it does mean is that if SPDB hardly ever, or never uses the ground game, then his emphasizing of the ground game is a myth

I suppose we'll have to assume that if Pat Mucci also hardly ever uses the ground game option at PVGC then it must basically be a myth to him too!

How do you jump to the wild conclusion that I hardly ever use the ground game at PVGC or anywhere else ?

How could anyone possibly draw any other conclusion after what Pat has said here? (although there should be no doubt that Pat Mucci will try to figure out some convoluted way of deflecting or avoiding this point and this conclusion!)  

Because other people are capable of understanding a concept that you continue to fail to grasp

So, I submit that Pat Mucci's logic and mindset is that if the ground game is not used by him it must be a myth for all!

This is a wild and incorrect conclusion, based totally on faulty logic

I support that by noting that Pat has remarked that in his opinion the ground game option does not really exist architecturally or otherwise on approaches to holes such as PVGC's #5, #12, #13 and #15.

From a practical, versus a theoretical point of view,
for the vast majority of golfers, that's true.
# 5 requires a most heroic carry, # 12 requires a long and almost perfect drive down the right side of the fairway,
something only the most skilled players dare attempt, and the likelihood of a successful execution difficult.
on # 13 the approach options are pin and drive location dependent, on # 15, the sloping, narrowing terrain makes shots along the ground, risky and difficult for all but the best players to even attempt to execute.

Do you really believe that a ground shot exists for a 12 handicapper, 150 yards out from the green on # 15 ?

And furthermore, how can anyone not assume that Pat Mucci's mindset here--that if an option is not used by him it must be myth and consequently should not exist even if others use it and think it does exist and should exist?

You've totally lost your way and obviously don't understand the underlying principle behind the thread.
It's not that the ground game/shot is a myth, it's the emphasis, or over emphasis on the ground game that is the myth.

To me, Pat Mucci's mindset here is nothing more than that well-known and traditionally destructive and corruptive mindset of the self consumed green chairman who exclaims that if something on the golf course does not pertain to or suit his own game it should not remain and must no longer exist?

Again, you don't understand the concept and have warped it to form wild premises and wilder conclusions

How can any other conclusion be drawn at this point after what Pat Mucci has said on here?

That's pretty simple, it's called prudent man logic,
something that's been absent from your posts  

[SPDB]

Pat -
I think you vastly misunderstand the ground game. TEPaul cited 10 holes which supported ground approaches.  You countered with an analysis that was focused mainly on the tee shot, as if that were an integral part of the ground game. You cited a bunch of holes where an aerial approach is required on the tee shot. More interesting than the ones you cited were the ones you left out. To illustrate what I'm talking about -

1. At the risk of sounding repetitive. You cite #4 tee shot as emphasizing an aerial approach (is there anything else when a driver is in your hand?). The carry is really only about 140-150 max. If there were closely mown, fairway height grass all the way from the tee - would you suggest somebody make use of it? Would you use it?

Like I said, you had me before you started creating distraction by talking about tee shots to emphasize your aerial argument.

You gotta learn to give and take with your threads. When somebody raises a valid point, don't take it as such an insult to the primacy of your propositions.

I also wonder about something. You always start threads with questions. Yet you come across as if you already know the answer. Why then pose them in the first place?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -
I think you vastly misunderstand the ground game. TEPaul cited 10 holes which supported ground approaches.  You countered with an analysis that was focused mainly on the tee shot, as if that were an integral part of the ground game. You cited a bunch of holes where an aerial approach is required on the tee shot. More interesting than the ones you cited were the ones you left out. To illustrate what I'm talking about -

1. At the risk of sounding repetitive. You cite #4 tee shot as emphasizing an aerial approach (is there anything else when a driver is in your hand?). The carry is really only about 140-150 max. If there were closely mown, fairway height grass all the way from the tee - would you suggest somebody make use of it? Would you use it?

You seem to forget about the steep hill that confronts the tee shot, it's just not carry, it's carry and trajectory.

Like I said, you had me before you started creating distraction by talking about tee shots to emphasize your aerial argument.

You gotta learn to give and take with your threads. When somebody raises a valid point, don't take it as such an insult to the primacy of your propositions.

When I see a valid point, I recognize it as such.
When it's not a valid point, I recognize it as such.

I also wonder about something. You always start threads with questions. Yet you come across as if you already know the answer. Why then pose them in the first place?

Isn't this supposed to be a discussion group ?
Isn't asking questions a good way to initiate discussion ?
Doesn't fostering debate result in the putting forth of many ideas, including TEPaul's wild ones ?

In a brief review of the last 17 pages of threads I've noticed that you haven't initiated one single thread.
Instead of questioning or complaining about my methodology, why don't you contribute to the site by starting a variety of interesting threads  

And, you can structure them any way you choose.    

[SPDB]

here we go. duck and run. i sometimes wonder why i bother. A couple of questions if you would indulge me:

1. Why don't you answer questions posed to you?

2. how many times a round do you suspect you use the ground game off the tee as opposed to the aerial game? if you also wouldn't mind explaining to me the difference.  

plus,

3. for shits and giggles (and who knows maybe a lesson?!) look to your response in post #68 about hitting into the hill. then revisit the question (as yet unanswered) in my last post re: #4.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

here we go. duck and run. i sometimes wonder why i bother. A couple of questions if you would indulge me:

1. Why don't you answer questions posed to you?

I do

2. how many times a round do you suspect you use the ground game off the tee as opposed to the aerial game?

depends upon the golf course and conditions of the day

if you also wouldn't mind explaining to me the difference.

all carry versus low running drive.  

plus,

3. for shits and giggles (and who knows maybe a lesson?!) look to your response in post #68 about hitting into the hill. then revisit the question (as yet unanswered) in my last post re: #4.

I have no idea of what you're talking about

Now, you're just grasping to try to find an issue that you can be right on.  

But the fact remains, all the clamoring about the ground game, in the U.S., on this site, and the emphasis on the ground game in the U.S., is mostly a myth if you go by practical application during the play of a round of golf,
reality versus idealization.

Try the ground game, throughout the year in the deep south.

And, TEPaul would have you believe it's an option, and I would agree, however, when an option becomes so rarely employed, is it really a viable option, or more, a myth ??

I say EMPHASIS on the ground game is mostly a myth

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it

[TEPaul]

Pat, this quote below from you on post #86 is exactly the point;

You said:

"But the fact remains, all the clamoring about the ground game, in the U.S., on this site, and the emphasis on the ground game in the U.S., is mostly a myth if you go by practical application during the play of a round of golf,
reality versus idealization."

Pat:

When you talk about practical application and that the ground game is not used often in the USA we all know that. But the reason it isn't is not because many American golf courses DO NOT offer the ground game architecturally--it's because most American courses just don't MAINTAIN the ground game. We know why! And we know how to correct that. So is EMPHASIZING how to reestablish the ground game, as we do on this site, on those American holes that offer it such a myth? We on this site don't think so. We think if the ground game was more DEDICATEDLY MAINTAINED in America those courses would play better and more interesting.

You said;

"Try the ground game, throughout the year in the deep south.
And, TEPaul would have you believe it's an option, and I would agree, however, when an option becomes so rarely employed, is it really a viable option, or more, a myth ??
I say EMPHASIS on the ground game is mostly a myth.""

Again, our EMPHASIS on this site on reestablishing the ground game is not a myth. On many American courses the ground game exists ARCHITECTURALLY on numerous holes but it doesn't function properly for MAINTENANCE reasons. These courses have got to concentrate of firming up the ground again and then the ground game will function again and be used again on those holes that offer it as an ARCHITECTURAL option.

But how many times have I said--if a course really wants very good players to utilize what ground game options do exist on golf courses they basically have to force both the thought to use ground game options and the use itself of ground game options on good players. And there's only one way to do that obviously! That is to begin to minimize the reliability of the aerial option approach to green surfaces. The only reasonable way to do that is to firm up the surfaces of the greens!!

That is a good deal of the theory of the "Ideal maintenance meld"!

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- Do you consider Putting to be part of the aerial game?

Of course not!

I have alwys been under the impression that better control over the ball can be achieved by keeping that ball close to the ground. In other words the closer to the ground the more control.

I no it's mostly semantics but I'll ask again why do you ignore putting when talking about the American ground game? Since putting is the ultimate in reading the land, ignoring it's importance is under-emphasizing a major part of this game.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Let's see if we can tighten this discussion on the ground game up some with Pat.

This isn't rocket science here. Pat is taking all of us on a merry goose chase here and for what?

There're plenty of architectural ground game options out there that can be used again but first American golf courses have to concentrate on firming up their playing areas. They just have to start to slow down on over-irrigation--that's all it really takes and the ground game will eventually return for those who want to use it.

We aren't over emphasizing this issue at all. We probably aren't empahasizing it enough. The ground game is no myth and our emphasis on it is no myth--it just doesn't work very well in America because the ground and turf on too many American courses simply remains too soft.

Basically that's about all there is to this issue and this entire discussion!

[Michael Moore]

"Find a precedent . . . and analogize it to the present case, and use the analogy to put an impossible burden of proof on your opponent, and limit the scope of your rule by rejecting further analogies on however arbitrary a ground . . this is what is called "legal reasoning," and it is hard to take seriously." - Richard Posner

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

Extendiing the concept of the ground game to the putting surface is more then a bit of a stretch.

Extending the concept to the immediate green side areas is like wise a stretch.

I do have a dear friend and long time competitor who putts from 80 yards off the green, out of rough, bunkers, you name it, but he does so out of fear as he is almost incapable of chipping or pitching, but he sure can be effective with his 40 year old blade putter.

Which brings up another point.
Putters have become so green surface oriented that it becomes very difficult to use these new creations from off the green.  Look at the Futura and try using that baby from 30 yards out.  Even the Pros are weighting them for long putts, let alone 30 yard approaches.

I believe Bobby Jones or Tommy Armour or some other old time golfer made the case for using the least loft possible, although they didn't have the benefit of seeing Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods.

There is more certainty through the air then on the ground.

The invention of the sand wedge didn't just have a dramatic impact for balls in bunkers, but balls in the rough and on the fairway as well.  Lob-wedges made the game even more aerial.

Try putting from off the green through KiKuyu grass, when the ground is damp or when the grain is against you.  
The aerial game usually gets better results.

I understand all aspects of the ground game, having used every club from driver to putter from off the green or for approaches, but, in practical terms, for the great majority of golfers, emphasis on their ground game is a myth.

TEPaul,

Are you sitting down.

I think rotary irrigations systems at the green are largely responsible for it's demise.  I discussed this with you in IM's and on site.

Critical to you concept of "maintainance meld" is the need to realign, reposition and re-fit irrigation heads at the green.

Only when this is done can you begin to prepare the playing surface to accomodate your "maintainance meld" and the resurrection of the ground game, which is currently hibernating at most courses.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"TEPaul,

Are you sitting down.

I think rotary irrigations systems at the green are largely responsible for it's demise.  I discussed this with you in IM's and on site.

Critical to you concept of "maintainance meld" is the need to realign, reposition and re-fit irrigation heads at the green.

Only when this is done can you begin to prepare the playing surface to accomodate your "maintainance meld" and the resurrection of the ground game, which is currently hibernating at most courses.

Pat:

First of all, I'm almost always sitting down--so don't worry about that. The reason I'm almost always sitting down is because, as you well know, the sheer weight of the knowledge I carry around in my head is far too great to remaining standing for long!  

Now, to important things to do with this discussion. What you said there is exactly the type of thing that these discussions should depend on to remain productive, interesting and ultimately effective.

Talking about something like the types of sprinkler heads surrounding probably most greens these days might not seem like much to some but when you start to analyze these types of little things at various courses you begin to indentify the little pieces that end up making the big jigsaw puzzle come together. I'm certain you know exactly what I mean by that.

This is the type of thing that should've been said on this thread in the first 3-5 posts! Saying this type of thing early would lead to more logic like it and on and on until something very interesting in the over-all would likely come out of it!

Let's start to put those pieces together, and who knows, some club or a number of them might see it and start to put the necessary things together that create the process to reestablish those architectural ground game options that do exist on their courses but haven't functioned well for God knows how long!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'd be curious to hear from a number of superintendents as to what they feel the costs per green are, to move, reconfigure and re-fit green side sprinkler networks.

I'd also like to know the cost to install dual heads, with one head watering internally and the other externally, with and without an entirely new system which is costly.

I thought, with that big head of yours, that compendium of knowledge that you'd know the answer  

In addition, fringe creep must be eliminated and the entire putting surface recaptured prior to moving any heads.
No sense in doing it twice.

[corey miller]

I do not know how many people have dropped out of this one  ;Dbut I am also interested in Pat's question about the cost per green, to move, reconfigure and re-fit the sprinkler networks?

I am not sure who was responsible for the present network at my club but it seems some of them are placed in positions that were once part of the green.

[Pat Brockwell]

My own interest in the ground game was fostered not by architecture but by the weather.  Spring winds in New Mexico taught me not to put the ball in the air till May or June.  I have to think that the origins of the game were similarly influenced.   I have to think the emphasis on the airborne game has been heavily influenced by modern irrigation capabilities and practices.  

[George Pazin]

Nice post, MM. I'm saving that quote.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()