Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Greg Tallman on July 25, 2012, 11:07:20 AM
-
Can a course be considered great if it offers zero options on the ground?
Any examples within the GOLF Top 100? (Answer is yes... what are they? Why are they consodered great?)
-
I'm sure Tiger B. will disagree, but if you play the ground game at Cypress Point, you will have mostly skulled your ball rather than played it properly and strategically.
-
I haven't played Cypress point but I have yet to play a course that lacked ground game that wouldn't be improved by it. BallyNeal v Sand Hills is a good example for me. I wouldn't say S H entirely lacks ground game, but I would say it would be a better golf course if ground conditions more closely resembled those at BallyNeal.
Brian,
Are you saying that you feel that Ballyneal is a better course than Sand Hills? (Honestly curious. This isn't one of those "how dare you" statements, just an honest question.) I have played Ballyneal and loved it, but I have not played Sand Hills. To answer the OP question. I think that the majority of great courses (or at least what many of us would consider great courses) involve the ground game.
-
Great question Greg. I've been going over in my mind whether I believe Crystal Downs is a better golf course than CP for this very reason. I had no shots at CP that required a bump and run and a few at Crystal that did. That being said, I know neither course that well to come to that conclusion.
-
Peachtree GC
-
Peachtree GC
What makes it great?
Design?
History?
Lineage?
-
Is the concept of ground game though of too narrowly, in terms of approaches only?
-
Looking back at The Open this past weekend, there are courses where the ground game is not related just to approaches and other shots around the green. Part of the key to figuring out Lytham is playing shots with the line, shape and intended rollout to avoid the fairway bunkers or ending up in the rough. This becomes even more important on sites with canted fairways, like Olympic.
Unless every shot you hit is going to stop where it lands, the ground game is a factor. Congressional last year is probably the best example of a course that played in conditions where the ground game was a very negligible factor. It did not play that way this year.
The softer the conditions, the less the player has to worry about what his ball will do on the ground.
Whether its a must for any great course comes down to personal preference. I'd bet there are certain touring pros and other score fixated folks who would prefer playing on courses and under conditions where the outcome of a shot is easily discernible. There are others on the reverse side of the equation who cherish the added thought processes and increased chance of the influence of randomness that comes when the ball is rolling out and where a course provides avenues for the ground game to be used.
-
I have not played Pine Valley, but from reading and looking at the aerial, it has several holes that do not allow for a ground game. Just from the aerial I assume you have to fly approaches in on 2,3,7,8,10,14,17,18. I think most consider it great.
-
No. Why do we think that every course should have any one thing in common? Some of my favorite courses do no allow for the ground game very much. Pine Valley is at the top of the list. one of the beautiful things about golf is that courses can be dissimilar from each other, unlike tennis or football which are played on the same boring courts and fields.
-
How do we define great?
I think the ground game goes a long way in ensuring a course will be fun to play over and over.
-
"I am no authority" -Brian Sheehy
Truer words have never been spoken.
Mr. Sheehy, don't you have to actually WALK a golf course to attribute to its difficulty? Because you were out at Sand Hills for your first time last month for two days and never walked one hole. I'm not sure you have the right to chime in on the matter. I also don't think you can add your two cents when it comes to the watering schedules and routines of both Ballyneal or Sand Hills. You talked to no one from the grounds staff in your time here about water. You are passing off your perception as fact.
My name is Jared Kalina, I'm the first assistant at Sand Hills Golf Club. I was recently offered membership to GCA after lurking on the site for the past 5+ years. I was going to write a nice introductory post about myself, but I'd like to "pop my cherry" so to speak on this matter because it is far more important than where I'm from and how I got to this position in my life.
The more I become educated about golf architecture and the industries surrounding golf, the more I find this site frustrating. Frustrating in the fact that guys like Mr. Sheehy take their opinions and premonitions and speak of them as if they are the truth. Don't get me wrong, I love this site. I'm sure there are many young, hungry, impressionable minds lurking as we speak throughout this forum looking for answers to their own burning questions. I just find it disappointing that almost daily I'm able to find someone speaking on a matter they can not fully represent and passing it off as 100% truth.
Maybe it is a simple overstatement, and maybe they don't mean to come off that way, but I think a greater emphasis must be placed on when someone is writing something they can back with references and sources and when someone is writing something they themselves hold to be true. Because a fabrication is like a wildfire - it can spread fast and wide. Usually it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things what someone makes up on a golf architecture website, but when we start delving into the world of agronomy and golf course maintenance, and a person takes something they read on here as gospel and brings it to their club/course superintendent or greens committee, it can have ugly consequences. Unchecked, untruthful statements don't have positive endings.
I don't mean to call out Mr. Sheehy, I'm sure there's a sizeable contingent of contributors that advertently or inadvertently said something they can't back up.
Off my soapbox, I apologize.
Regarding Ballyneal vs. Sand Hills -- Having played both multiple times, I would say there are more times at BN where the ground shot is easier to execute. But I wouldn't say it has more of them throughout the course. Those options are available at SH as well, but some of the severe slopes makes the ground shot more intimidating/difficult.
As for what course is better overall, it's no contest. And that is my OPINION.
-
Jared,
That's a fantastic opening post in terms of reality check time. Big kudos to you and welcome to the site!!!
P.S. Back on Topic...how well does Pebble Beach accomodate the ground game? I've yet to play it, but from what I've seen on TV from the pros not much.
-
Jared,
Welcome to the site...that was an interesting intro post.
Sand Hills takes a lot of unwarranted pot shots around here and it's good to see that her honor will now be well defended against scurrilous and obviously ill-informed Irishmen. ;) ;)
BTW, have you ever played Lahinch?
-
I really don't want to get in between a quarrel, but...
I have walked Sand Hills and Ballyneal and I agree with Brian that, IN MY OPINION, there are more options for ground game at Ballyneal then at Sand Hills. This is mostly due to the fact that there are far more raised greens at Sand Hills and more movements around the green at Ballyneal that invites creative ground play. Also, the fact that fescue greens and fairways promote more consistent speed between fairways and greens compared to fescue/bent fairways and bent greens.
Whether or not I agree with everything that Brian has said (I don't), he is presenting it as his opinion and should be respected as such. We can certainly have healthy and educational discussions about the ground game at both courses without degenerating into a shouting match.
-
This post is one that of course does not have a true answer, you will always have opposing factors. I love the ground game offered on links courses and I personally find this game while it may help out on occasion does not fit on hardly any parkland courses, which (also in my opinion) boils down to grasses and maintenance issues. I don't have the feel to play an effective bump and run shot consistently through a parkland fairway. I did use a few bump and run shots at Cypress but I wouldn't by any means say they would be my first options there.
If you look at the Top courses according to Golf Digest or Golf Magazine, pretty similar, are courses like Augusta, Pine Valley, Oakmont, Merion all inviting of the ground game? No question they are perfectly maintained. My personal opinion is they are not, yet no-one will argue whether or not they are great courses. The courses on the list that do really open themselves to all types of shots and ground game are obviously (in my opinion) what's left. RCD, Portrush, Ballybunion, Muirfield, Old Course, Dornoch, Pacific Dunes etc etc.
Again I'm not saying you can't play a ground game at those non-links courses, no more than I'm saying you should always choose the ground on a links course from a tight lie as apposed to pulling out your 64 degree wedge and playing a flop shot, I'm just saying golf is a percentage game and some shots are just easier and work better in different conditions on different grasses.
I'm sure many will disagree but this is my experience and preference when playing these types of courses. At the end of the day I'm a hacker.
-
Brian,
You know I love ya, but I think you have to pump the brakes on ts one a bit.
First off, saying Jared kept tabs on you is a bit disingenuous. You played as the unescorted guest of the owner, and there were a maximum of 54 golfers there at the time. It was also 107 and you had pants on the first day. It is fair to say that even if the staff were not aware of you, so that a guest of Dick's did not have a bad time, that hey would have been aware if you walked and carried in that heat.
Second, you said the Sand Hills was a long tough walk. Jared was responding to that determination when you had not walked the course. I think hat I can tell that Lake of Isles in Connecticut is unwalkable without walking it, but the courses in the sand hills are a different monster. As I have said, walking Sand Hills from the diamonds is a nice walk. Don't forget that a lot of people who had never walked Dismal told Eric Smith it was unwalkable, and there is a school in Tenn thankful that he didn't listen.
Lastly, you are free to think whatever you want about any course you want. As long as there is no agenda behind your posts, I don't hunk people object. I personally believe, and have told you as such, that your myopic hunt for firm and fast affects your critique a bit too much, especially off one play. That being said, it is you opinion, and I don't have to agree, the same way you don't have to agree with me.
-
Brian-
1. I don't mean for it to seem as a personal attack. It was an unfounded statement or two of yours that started as a jumping-off point in my diatribe that we need to be careful in what we disseminate on this site. Because I think it's a travesty when misinformation is spread.
2. I don't think I would be doing my job to the best of my ability if I didn't know who was playing the golf course on any given day. Ask any superintendent or assistant who visits this site. There is a certain bit of politics that come with this job, even if it is as little as knowing what members are here, where they are from, who they are with, etc. It's important I can put a name to a face and vice versa, that they can recognize managers in all facets of their club so they can direct their questions and comments towards the right people. I could take you up to Ben's porch right now and within a few minutes tell you what group is on 12 tee and what group is on 3 green.
As for your part about publishing information about guests of this club on this site, I'm fairly positive Mr. Youngscap wouldn't mind if I was clearing up a few statements from a sponsored guest. But feel free to take your concern up with the powers that be.
3. Once again, please don't take this as an "attack". I apologize for any offense. I do find it interesting that you didn't address my main point, you didn't walk the golf course, until a re-edit of your reply. It was hot, yes, as it has been all summer long, but plenty of people, some much older than you, walk the place daily.
The rest of it (how SH is softer, a tougher walk, with fewer fun holes), however, is of your opinion and I can't really address that. I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good. But again, that is my opinion and since it's just an opinion, it can't be refuted by anyone else.
I apologize for the sour introduction in my tenure on this site. I promise to not be the protector of Sand Hills because it certainly doesn't need me to protect it. I'll play nice, promise.
-
I wasn't talking about playing the golf course when I asked if you had to walk the golf course to attest to its difficulty. I was referring to your statement it is a difficult walk. You re-edited your last post to say you walked 8 holes. I'm still not sure that gives your opinion credibility, but I could be wrong.
And thank you Keith for mentioning he was wearing pants on a 103 degree day. I remembered that but feared saying it to further cast myself as the guy who has "files" on everyone who tees it up.
-
As to the OP, I would consider Augusta National great and it has a very limited ability for a ground game (even though that was the original intent). Off hand, I can only think of #2,8 and 14 that even have a considerable option for a ground run up shot.
As has been well discussed here, turf maintenance in the U.S. is not conducive for he ground game....unfortunately so.
-
I have not played it but seen numerous times on TV and am not sure a ground game would be very conducive at Pebble Beach. Maybe a few approaches but I would guess not the majority.
-
Land that provides for the ground game but isn't utilised is a "crime", however there are many great courses on land that doesn't provide for the ground game.
-
I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good.
Jared:
Allow me to introduce myself.
I was going to chastise Mr. Sheehy for making his weird distinction between describing the playing conditions at Ballyneal as ideal and then saying that Sand Hills was "more manicured" [which typically means it's overwatered and overfertilized] ;) . I've played Sand Hills on several occasions, and I rate it as one of the very best courses in the world, but I have seldom seen it play anywhere near as linksy as the typical course in the UK.
But then you got on the site ahead of me, took him to task, and submitted the backhanded "compliment" above.
Most people play golf to have fun. Only a few are egotistical enough to believe that there is some higher level [whether in playing competitively or designing or maintaining or whatever] and that they hold the key to it. If you are going to represent Sand Hills publicly, I would guess that your boss doesn't want you putting yourself in that position.
P.S. Say hello to Mr. Youngscap for me. I keep promising myself I will find time to visit when I stop through Dismal River, but whenever I get there I am working like a dog. One of these days I will be happy to show you around what we've been up to ... maybe it will open your mind a bit.
-
Greg T:
To answer your question -- no, the ground game is not a must for any great course. But, in my opinion, it's a lot easier to get to the level of greatness if you've got some of it. A lot of people here think that courses with ocean views are overrated, but I think that a lot of the bonus they are given is really the wind and the playing conditions that go hand in hand with being by the ocean.
-
Greg T:
To answer your question -- no, the ground game is not a must for any great course. But, in my opinion, it's a lot easier to get to the level of greatness if you've got some of it. A lot of people here think that courses with ocean views are overrated, but I think that a lot of the bonus they are given is really the wind and the playing conditions that go hand in hand with being by the ocean.
Okay, let's narrow the focus. How about a seaside course on pure sand that offers nary a run up option throughout? Still can be great? Not enough info? Missed opprtunity?
Just curious as to the general perception after stumbling upon this revelation about a particular course.
-
I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good.
Don't we play golf to have fun? Wouldn't a course that is "more fun" be better?
-
Can a course be considered great if it offers zero options on the ground?
Any examples within the GOLF Top 100? (Answer is yes... what are they? Why are they consodered great?)
Yes, plenty of the better courses offer zero options. You dont always have to have a ground option.
-
Peachtree GC
What makes it great?
Design?
History?
Lineage?
1. The site. Gently rolling to heaving topography.
2. The routing is sensible with reasonable green to tee transitions. Generally, par is defended around and on the greens with length rewarded off the tee with many tee shots played downhill - fun. Conversely, many greens are sited on higher ground, making approaches play longer and pin locations obfuscated. Frequent uneven fairway lies reward the better iron player. Judicious fairway bunkering.
3. Excellent maintenance. Significant tree removal to open up vistas and improve turf quality. Bermuda rough maintained at ideal height to exact no more than a half shot penalty. Firm and fast fairways and greens.
4. Varied greens with a mix of subtle macro movements and bold micro movements (the first five are eye openers). Butt-Pucker short putts require touch and concentration.
5. Tough pars, relatively easy bogeys.
6. Nigh near impossible to lose a ball.
All that, plus an understated, casual vibe.
-
Peachtree GC
What makes it great?
Design?
History?
Lineage?
1. The site. Gently rolling to heaving topography.
2. The routing is sensible with reasonable green to tee transitions. Generally, par is defended around and on the greens with length rewarded off the tee with many tee shots played downhill - fun. Conversely, many greens are sited on higher ground, making approaches play longer and pin locations obfuscated. Frequent uneven fairway lies reward the better iron player. Judicious fairway bunkering.
3. Excellent maintenance. Significant tree removal to open up vistas and improve turf quality. Bermuda rough maintained at ideal height to exact no more than a half shot penalty. Firm and fast fairways and greens.
4. Varied greens with a mix of subtle macro movements and bold micro movements (the first five are eye openers). Butt-Pucker short putts require touch and concentration.
5. Tough pars, relatively easy bogeys.
6. Nigh near impossible to lose a ball.
All that, plus an understated, casual vibe.
Now that is a reason :D
-
Jared, no problem, I sent you a PM, check your messages.
In addition, I would take Tom Doak up on a visit to "open your mind a bit". Maybe he is the Timothy Leary of course design?
-
Greg T:
To answer your question -- no, the ground game is not a must for any great course. But, in my opinion, it's a lot easier to get to the level of greatness if you've got some of it. A lot of people here think that courses with ocean views are overrated, but I think that a lot of the bonus they are given is really the wind and the playing conditions that go hand in hand with being by the ocean.
Okay, let's narrow the focus. How about a seaside course on pure sand that offers nary a run up option throughout? Still can be great? Not enough info? Missed opprtunity?
Just curious as to the general perception after stumbling upon this revelation about a particular course.
Greg:
Aha. Now I understand your question.
That one is really about expectations. If you have a seaside sand-dune setting, the people who first seek out such a course are projecting that it will be bouncy and linksy and ground-game-oriented ... just like the people who seek out Jack Nicklaus courses first are expecting a difficult test, and the people who seek out my courses first expect to find some wild greens. [When I've built courses in a setting that I didn't think called for wild greens, they seem disappointed.]
So, my answer is still that the ground game is not a must for a course to be great ... but you are always going to run across some panelists who have their expectations for it.
-
Can a course be considered great if it offers zero options on the ground?
Any examples within the GOLF Top 100? (Answer is yes... what are they? Why are they consodered great?)
Is there a course with zero ground game options?
Anyway, I think a course can be great and not ground games centered. Thinking on it though, Merion is probably the only great course I have seen where the ground game isn't a particularly good or viable option. I am not sure I can say that about any of the other great courses I know.
Ciao
-
Question was born from the aforementioned revelation about a seaside course set in sand dunes that I like very much. Until a recent dissussion it had never dawned on me that the approaches are exclusively aerial in nature seemingly contrary to the seaside dunes setting.
Thinking about it firther the grass chosen would have likley limited one's ability to utilize the ground game even if the design had allowed for it that may well have factored into the design.
-
Ha, I may need go back to lurking status for another 5 years. Statements can get misconstrued around here in a hurry.
Tom-
There was no backhanded compliment there. I made no compliment towards BN at all. I will now, though, when I say it is a great site and your team did a wonderful job with the place. A real pleasure to visit.
I don't hold a key to any higher level in this game. I am a peon in the industry. I'll be the first to admit. Of course we play golf to have fun, however, I do believe the term "more fun" is used far too often when comparing one course to another. When that term is used, it is never followed up with any mention of hazard variety or shot value or WHY it is more fun. It is just a blanket statement (as used earlier in this thread) without any justification of it.
To be honest with you Tom, my boss is thoroughly enjoying himself watching me try to wiggle my way out of these comments getting picked apart.
I will say hi to Dick for you, he hasn't been here for a while. Staying out of this nasty weather.
I have been to your site down the road many times, it looks marvelous. I would love to tour it with you. I hope that you guys finish the place because it could be special. And I have hosted about half your crew out here at SH to play this summer, you picked a great group of guys.
-
The ground game is there more often than not, but most experienced male players in today's era don't see it because it's so rarely the prudent play for them. I'm sure Old Tom Morris would see plenty of ground game opportunities at Pebble Beach if he were to play it. My mother certainly did. It was pretty cool watching her have one of her best rounds ever at Pebble, working her low ball flight around the course. She came within a few inches of acing the 7th and the 17th, both with running shots. How she was able to run one onto 7 I'll never fully understand, but I watched it happen.
As others have mentioned, it's not always on the approach shot that you see the ground game. My mother stood over her second shot at the 8th for a long time before realizing she could just go around the ravine to the left. She hit a cut shot (on purpose, as her usual flight is a draw) that went around the cliff's edge and ran down the fairway to about 60 yards short.
The ground game is usually there. It's just hard to see it when it isn't the prudent play, which it isn't on most holes for most golfers who hit the ball over 220 yards with equipment manufactured since 1997.
-
Welcome to GCA Jared!!! :)
-
4. Varied greens with a mix of subtle macro movements and bold micro movements (the first five are eye openers). Butt-Pucker short putts require touch and concentration.
Thread-jacking here a bit...
Bogey: I'm intrigued by this comment. Can you help guide me through your thoughts on subtle macro movements and bold micro movements on greens?
-
Phil, thanks for your confidence in my ability to explain this, however misplaced it might be!
By subtle macro movements I simply meant broader tilts or mild slopes covering a significant amount of square footage. By comparison bold micro movements are easily discernable, often abrupt and bold interior contours that segment the green to some extent - sometimes referred to here as greens-within-a-green.
Does that make any sense?
Peachtree's first five holes feature relatively bold internal contouring. Thereafter, things settle down a bit. IMHO it is a great golf course under any set of criteria. As a relatively quiet club it flies below the radar screen but its modest lockerroom and simple dining facility define old school comfort.
Bogey
-
Bogey:
Thanks -- that does. I was thinking of some courses like Blue Mound, where Raynor really does "segment" many greens or has quite bold interior folds and contours on his green. Compared to Milwaukee CC, which for the most part doesn't have greens with bold micro movements but oftentimes greens with significant tilt, like the par 3 17th.
Peachtree does sound like a really good course, and one in which you're correct -- doesn't get much notice around here.
-
Greg - re your post #29, when you offer the hypothetical of a seaside course on pure sand that offers nary a run up option throughout. I'd imagine that in a case like that, the architect and/or client would have had to make a very clear (and quite bold) choice; having not a single run up couldn't happen by accident. And so we are left to judge the architect's choices -- and, like them or not, we have to admit that making these choices is what he's paid to do. Can such a course be "great"? Sure it can. There's a big difference -- when it comes to judging any art/craft -- between "this doesn't work" and "I don't like this". Sadly, very few, including those who should, seem to recognize that difference.
Peter
-
Before seeing Bogey's reply I composed one which is eerily prescient. I did, however, make an empirical distinction which may call into question my competitive character...
I'm not Michael, but I immediately smiled with recognition at his poetic distinction.
"Bold micro movements" strike me as those which anyone can see -- obvious bumps, swales, ledges, and ridges like those on my home Raynor course. Their contour stands out from the rest of the green. "Subtle macro movements" are probably those about which only the members know -- the almost invisible tilt of the land which leads a member to say, "It looks straight, but I'd be thinking right-edge" to a good friend playing the course for the first time and to remain silent towards those I will charitably call "others."
-
Charlie, with apologies to the Isley Brothers "you ain't me and I ain't you. Check out the difference between the two."
Thanks for cleaning up my clumsy explanation with your beautiful prose.
Welcome.
Bogey
-
Bethpage Black is one course that comes to mind.
-
If you live in a part of the world that has heavy thick organic soils (great for row crops or livestock) that means you can not have a great course? ... no matter other factors?
This will discount 99% of the North American Continent East of the 100th meridian and South of the 40th latitude. (exception the Sandhills of NC).
-
There is stuff I'm not enamoured with at BN (Ballyneal) too but I doubt I will ever share it on here.
Why not?
-
There is stuff I'm not enamoured with at BN (Ballyneal) too but I doubt I will ever share it on here.
Why not?
Sheehy-I`m with the Doc. What happened to frank commentary my boy? ;D
-
Bethpage Black is one course that comes to mind.
I think it depends on how one defines the ground game. If the course plays like it does in the midsummer on, holes like #7, #12, and #16 offer an opportunity to bounce a long approach up. However, #2, #3, #5, #15 don't. If it's all about low running shots, there are very few good courses in America that fit that description. But an occasional spot? Yes.
If every approach was flat to the fairway and open on the front, allowing for a poor player to skull a shot in, wouldn't that be universally panned as a mediocre course?
I think the ground game in American golf is overrated. Not saying being able to fly a 5 iron in and stop it on a dime is appropriate either, but let's face it, most of us don't live in an area where the weather allows sparse watering (especially this summer.)
-
If every approach was flat to the fairway and open on the front, allowing for a poor player to skull a shot in, wouldn't that be universally panned as a mediocre course?
Well, depending on your definition of "flat to the fairway," there's the Old Course at St. Andrews. I guess you can't bounce it in to the first green, but you can to the other 17.
-
If every approach was flat to the fairway and open on the front, allowing for a poor player to skull a shot in, wouldn't that be universally panned as a mediocre course?
Well, depending on your definition of "flat to the fairway," there's the Old Course at St. Andrews. I guess you can't bounce it in to the first green, but you can to the other 17.
Was referring to stateside golf (which generally lacks the "randomness" that is so fun with British links), but isn't the greatness of St Andrews the tee shot setting up the ability to bounce it in on the approach based on where the flag is? i.e., on #3, if you drive it left, you can bounce it up... to the left of Cartgate and leave a potentially 200 foot (!) putt. Otherwise, to access a flag over the bunker, you're going to need to fly it in.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating 18 straight aerial approaches or forced carries- in fact that would be even worse than 18 open greens. Just think it needs to be planned based on the lay of the individual hole. A 440 yard par 4 from the whites almost HAS to have a ground game access for an average player to enjoy it. A 340 yard par 4 doesn't always.
-
Thank you, Brian, for your honest assessment of the greens at Ballyneal.
Away from this site dozens of well-travelled and very knowledgable golfers have pointed this out as a negative TO THEM as well.
Now, let's move onto something else.
Let's go with the walk at Sand Hills.
I greeted you on Ben's Porch after I had finished my 36 for the day. You were just about to head out for your first round.
It was 108 degrees.
108 (ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT) for those of you following along.
It felt similar to what it would feel like if one were to place a fan in front of their open oven door.
You were wearing long trousers.
These trousers appeared to be covered with vinyl or some other material more suited to keeping one comfortable on a rainy day in the British Isles.
And you walked without the services of a caddie.
Is this not correct?
I believe most of the caddies sensibly went to the community pool in Mullen about that time.
So let's rehash:
1. 108 degrees
2. No caddie so you couldn't possibly know where the little paths were for the simple green to tee walks.
3. You were wearing a moon suit.
4. You walked on a day unlike any which one would encounter on the Grande Olde Sod. For that matter, one which most Americans rarely experience.
So I agree, you had a tough walk. But common sense tells most that if you find yourself in the heart of Rome, one should think twice about ordering a burrito supreme.
Sometimes you just gotta go with the flow.
Firm in principle, flexible in procedure.
-
Gene:
Funny how you are fine drawing out the negative side of Brian's thoughts on Ballyneal, but can't accept even the minor criticism of Sand Hills. It's been 108 degrees in the region a lot this summer, so dismissing Brian's comments on those grounds is willfully blind.
-
There is stuff I'm not enamoured with at BN (Ballyneal) too but I doubt I will ever share it on here.
Why not?
Sheehy-I`m with the Doc. What happened to frank commentary my boy? ;D
Dr Gene, Tim: I'm getting thin skinned. I don't like getting attacked and there is too much tribalism on this site as it is. Has Kalina been booted from the site yet? :) OK: Ballyneal does lack the setting of Sand Hills we all know it. That will be a big deal for many and it is for me when not thinking about purely what is on the ground. And although my describing BN's maintenance meld in positive terms and lauding the manicured setup of SH seems contradictory, well it isn't in my mind. I don't know if it's a function of the design of the greens or because it's all fescue in a climate that can get quite hot, but the greens when I played BN were slow to the point of being unenjoyable for me - now I am not talking UK slow v US, I am talking SLOW! It did impact on what is otherwise an exhilirating course. So, setting and slow greens - I'll still pick BN but SH is impressive enough for me to doubt my own judgement on this matter and to understand when folk take the stance that it is as good as it gets.
A nod to Dismal in all of these confrontational comparisons if I may: I honestly do not have a clue how this course can't even break the top 200 modern (let alone 100) on the GW list. What I saw when I played was great hole after great hole. The front 9 at Dismal was my favourite 9 holes of golf out of the 54 I played in the region and the setting tops them all by a distance. When the Doak course is completed I am sure it will get all the play, but if either of those 9s tops the Nicklaus front 9 for ME I will be over the moon. Not because TD doesn't create top golf courses but because the fun factor in those 9 holes of golf is unlike anything I have seen to date. Honestly. It would be disingenuous of me not to point out that the cartball nature of Dismal Nicklaus is a negative in my mind - but because I was never expecting to walk it didn't bother me as much. The sound of petrol carts and cart paths everywhere on both courses is a negative relative to BallyNeal. I still think at Dismal that if one day it has a bank of expendable cash, a series of Addington style bridges could (a) add a distinctive differentiating element to the personality of the course and (b) a means of making the Nicklaus course genuinely walkable.
In general, i don't know why folk get so offended when luke warm comments are made on their course, even when most folk do caveat said comments by saying they are all fine courses - but having been to Holyoke and Mullen, I understand that making these places a viable business proposition is a very tough ask regardless of the quality of the course, so emotions run a lot higher. I hope they all thrive in the long run as they are all truly great places.
-
Gentlemen,
Unfortunately I've not played Ballyneal or Sand Hills yet. However, your enthusiasm for these courses makes them a must on my list. I will say that I don't believe I've ever been in temperature above 104 degrees and while I'm certainly a walker, in that temperature I just can't imagine playing golf or doing anything besides hiding in an air-conditioned room or a shaded pool full of ice. Not an experience high up on my list of to do's no more so than repeating the wettest/windiest day I've ever golfed in Ireland. Took off my shoes after the first hole to empty them of water. Extreme conditions aside I can't wait to play both and then come back and read this discussion. However, should I play in those extreme temperatures I too would wear pants, in fact I always do while golfing.
I do understand being passionate about your course, I am about mine as well. However there will always be people that see it differently or prefer one style to another sometimes there comments will be justified and sometimes they won't, c'est la vie.
Clearly according to the experts and most GCA opinions ground game is not a must for a great course! I believe that's been proven in this thread!
-
i don't know why folk get so offended when luke warm comments are made on their course
This is the issue with "frank and honest commentary".
Kudos for your giving your honest opinions and assessments, Brian.
-
Brian - a bit about gas carts. Both we and Sand Hills use them as electric carts don't hold a charge for the all day nature of use here. Recall, you use a cart to get around both the course and the property. Dismal tried electric (and electric with solar) and several guests ran out of battery on the course. The other issue is where to charge them, since you use the cart to get to the clubhouse and back to cabins. I agree gas is noisy but, after many trials, it works best. We are hopeful that battery life will further develop so we can go to electric in the future.
wrt to the Sand Hills/Ballyneal/Dismal River discussion...ALL of the courses are outstanding and each is a bit different. Nothing at all wrong with having a preference and I appreciate the commentary. I love Sand Hills, really enjoyed Ballyneal (the only time I played it), and agree with you wrt Dismal River. All are fun to play, have great people, are a treat to visit and be a member. I can't imagine enjoying walking anything at 100+ degrees - I'd bet you find Sand Hills more enjoyable to walk if you play with a member and it isn't so blasted hot. It also probably takes several rounds to get a course.
-
Tom:
The walking issue at Sand Hills has been discussed on here ad nauseum. Many think the walk is no big deal while some do.
My point was to make it perfectly clear to those reading what the conditions were at the time Brian first played SH and quit walking after 8 holes.
He also stated he FIRST played and walked 36 at BN prior to driving the three hours to SH. He doesn't state whether or not he had the services of a caddie to aid him at BN. As you point out, the temps were high the day before while he was at BN, but it wasn't 108 degrees F.
Maybe he was fatigued?
Maybe his scorched legs couldn't handle the constant rubbing against the moon suit while he walked?
Again, my point was to put things in their proper context so others may draw their own conclusions.
-
Augusta doesn't seem to present much of a ground game.
WW
-
Augusta doesn't seem to present much of a ground game.
WW
I would disagree. I think I would--depending on pin position--prefer to run the ball up on 5, 8, 11, 17. I can see where it is possible on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 18. It's not as one-dimensional as you might think.
-
Ben:
With the exception of players trying to reach the eighth hole in two, I never see the ground game in use at The Masters. A player may aim an approach a few yards from some hole positions but the game in demand appears to be played nearly entirely through the air.
WW
-
Ben:
With the exception of players trying to reach the eighth hole in two, I never see the ground game in use at The Masters. A player may aim an approach a few yards from some hole positions but the game in demand appears to be played nearly entirely through the air.
WW
The pros don't use the ground game anywhere. I don't say that to be snarky at all. It's just that they hit the ball so high, with so much spin. I find it very difficult to judge architecture based on how the top 0.01% play the game.
-
That's right - we tend to have too lofty/exact a notion of the "ground game". For me (average golfer) the chance/opportunity to bump and run something up from 50 yards or so (instead of trying a half-wedge shot that I never practice) IS the ground game option, as is the chance/opportunity to hit a soft/low 4 iron instead of a hard/high 5, knowing that there is at least a chance to come up short and roll on up and on. In that sense, Augusta seems to offer quite a bit of the "ground game" for a golfer like me.
Peter
-
Ben:
Point well taken. I tend to make judgements about courses based on shots good players, not just professionals, hit. It's not fair to make broad statements based on a Masters field and I didn't intend to do so.
I also tend to evaluate ground game based on whether it is the preferred play (and not just on whether or not it is an option). My second-hand knowledge of ANGC tends to suggest that playing through the air always beats playing on the ground, even for players of lesser skill.
There are a number of holes at Augusta that don't seem to permit any run-up shot (2, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16) and a couple that I didn't list seem to be pretty severely uphill on the approach.
I'm certainly not arguing against Augusta's status as a great golf course. I am suggesting that it may be as great as it is without the presence of a significant ground game.
WW
-
Ben says:
The pros don't use the ground game anywhere. I don't say that to be snarky at all. It's just that they hit the ball so high, with so much spin. I find it very difficult to judge architecture based on how the top 0.01% play the game.
An excellent post and one to think about when we begin to assess ground game options at our favorite courses. I recently played a round at The Honors with the superintendent there, David Stone. It was a lesson in ground game options on a golf course. He may max out at 175 yards but man oh man does he know how to get his ball close to the hole and it wasn't with a lob wedge!
-
Tom:
The walking issue at Sand Hills has been discussed on here ad nauseum. Many think the walk is no big deal while some do.
My point was to make it perfectly clear to those reading what the conditions were at the time Brian first played SH and quit walking after 8 holes.
He also stated he FIRST played and walked 36 at BN prior to driving the three hours to SH. He doesn't state whether or not he had the services of a caddie to aid him at BN. As you point out, the temps were high the day before while he was at BN, but it wasn't 108 degrees F.
Maybe he was fatigued?
Maybe his scorched legs couldn't handle the constant rubbing against the moon suit while he walked?
Again, my point was to put things in their proper context so others may draw their own conclusions.
Gene, you're right, it was only 107 at Ballyneal the day before. I played through Brian's group three times that day (they picked the absolute worst day to play Ballyneal - imagine being the only foursome on the course with a bunch of charity-driven speed demons. I am actually surprised that didn't leave a slightly bad taste in his mouth). I was in too much of a hurry to notice or care to notice whether he was wearing shorts that day.
There was a dense fog the morning Brian played Ballyneal. I'm not surprised that the greens were slow in the morning. They were definitely crispy and all one can handle in the afternoon after the wind picked up.
As far as Ballyneal's greens, I'm sure a significant portion of golfers would view them as a negative. Just as I'm sure many appreciate their variety, challenge, short-game options and (gulp) fun. I happen to like my lag putting being tested. In my experience, many golfers simply don't like three putting. More than once or twice a round and the greens must be tricked up. Of course, no one says anything about being in the wrong spot in the first place.
-
Gene-
Don't get frustrated with Sheehy about the walking aspect. If only he had expected to ride Sand Hills like he did Dismal River he wouldn't be so let down.
-
Of course, no one says anything about being in the wrong spot in the first place.
BOOM! This is a crucial element to really great greens, in my opinion. They affect play all the way back to the tee, as you need to adjust your strategy depending on where the pin is that day in an effort to have the appropriate angle on your approach shot. Ballyneal is amazing in this regard, as is Pinehurst #2...and well, I guess many other great courses...and many other great courses with ground game options.
-
Gene-
Don't get frustrated with Sheehy about the walking aspect. If only he had EXPECTED to ride Sand Hills like he did Dismal River he wouldn't be so let down.
Sorry Brian, not booted yet.
Jared, Brian Sheehy is nice man who traveled half way around the world to visit the Sand Hills. He didn't write anything that hasn't been written before and he was highly complimentary about your course and club. You sure you want to keep going down this road?
-
Gene-
Don't get frustrated with Sheehy about the walking aspect. If only he had EXPECTED to ride Sand Hills like he did Dismal River he wouldn't be so let down.
Sorry Brian, not booted yet.
Jared, Brian Sheehy is nice man who traveled half way around the world to visit the Sand Hills. He didn't write anything that hasn't been written before and he was highly complimentary about your course and club. You sure you want to keep going down this road?
+1 -- all too typical of the SH's crowd around here -- never letting any even modest critique of the course pass by without a comment defending its honor.
-
Surely the 1% has something better to do than get wrapped around the axle over the relative merits of golf courses in the Sand Hills. Then again, spirited debate is much more fun than the quarterly report I can no longer put off.
Sand Hills is not a difficult walk. It is among my favorite 10 courses in the country. It is not perfect as some suggest, just mighty close.
Ballyneal is a better walk. It is among my favorite 25 courses in the country, a notch below Sand Hills in my book.
Question, when is the last time we debated the walkability of a golf course designed by Donald J. Ross?
Gas carts are a good thing at destination courses, where walking the first 18 is simply not enough satifaction for the once-in-a-life time wanderlust (even when it's your fourteen-in-a-lifetime).
Neither the greatness of Sand Hills nor its first-born status in any way impacts the relative merits of other courses in the region. Both Dismal River and Prairie Club are worthy of an independent visit notwithstanding the fact that they are a notch of two below the two aforementioned courses in my opinion.
We are all so damned spoiled.
Bogey
-
So...what seaside dune-sy course was the OP thinking about in the top 100 that doesn't have a ground game option?
For my part I don't think a course with 18 forced carries should be considered all-world, but I don't mind several holes requiring it, as long as they're spaced out, strategic and part of the overall package.
Re great courses vs. fun courses: I'm looking forward to seeing PV and SH for what the have to offer top flight golfers; I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing Ballyneal for what it offers ME.
For that reason if I had a jet I'd transport myself to BN first, but if the pros could tee it up anywhere I'd be most interested in watching them tackle PV or a windy SH.
-
There is stuff I'm not enamoured with at BN (Ballyneal) too but I doubt I will ever share it on here.
Why not?
Sheehy-I`m with the Doc. What happened to frank commentary my boy? ;D
Could anyone honestly answer the question which I posed as to why Brian was so reluctant to post what he found lacking at Ballyneal?
If so, then one will truly see the complete irony of this entire debate.
As far as all the golf courses are concerned, El Bogero is correct in stating that each are worthy of an independent visit. Those reading these comments from around the world must understand that the land these golf courses rest on is almost beyond description. "The greatest grass covered dunes land in the world" is what a couple of prominent golf course architects have stated in the past. They are all epic and grand.
-
Could anyone honestly answer the question which I posed as to why Brian was so reluctant to post what he found lacking at Ballyneal?
Gene,
The honest answer is that it is difficult to get past the hard feelings created by Rupert. I love Ballyneal and 99% of her members but every time I try to express an unbiased opinion of the value of the course I get stuck by the emotions that are still too fresh to look past. This, to me, makes the majority of critiques worthless on any level beyond petty gossip.
That being said, for Brian to say greens are too slow in 108 degree heat is either ignorant or misguided. I have played Ballyneal when the greens are slow, fast and just right. Courses change day to day and hour to hour so a one time visitor commenting on conditioning is always suspect.
-
Those reading these comments from around the world must understand that the land these golf courses rest on is almost beyond description.
Yes, sir! They are truly amazing!! I told my latest guest to the region during our trek out to Mullen that I thought the land in Mullen was the best I'd ever seen for the game of golf. This comment drew a doubtful look. However, the doubts were removed when he saw the land. Magnificent!!
-
Though I do not want to overshadow the routing and the shaping/finish work (which I believe to be Renaissance's best); the beauty of Ballyneal is a direct result of two things 1) fescue turf 2) climate
In Ballyneal we have an aggressive--and controversial--decision to use a fine fescue blend on the entire golf course in a brutally difficult climate for that selection. Triple digit temps, 40 knot winds, snow coverage, these are the conditions that Dave Hensley combats on a year to year basis. The climate combined with the turf selection creates a situation where Ballyneal--as much or more than any course I have ever seen--changes greatly day to day, even hour to hour. This is also why the feature shaping both inside the green surfaces and outside the green surfaces are so novel. They aren't exclusionary. The ball can be worked to a pin using the green itself, or the area outside of it.
Additionally, this is also why I consider Dave a genius. There are very few people who can do what he does with fescue, in that climate, on his budget.
-
Is the concept of ground game though of too narrowly, in terms of approaches only?
Never been to BN, SH, LV or PV, so I'll go back to this question. Greg, I think you've got a good point. As a personal preference, I like to be able to hit low drives and low fairway shots and have them run out. At my skill level, the higher I get the ball in the air, the more likely it's going go somewhere I do not want it to. Of course, I also prefer chip and run approaches if I have the opportunity. However, others might not like to play it that way. From my perspective, a great course should permit a ground game, but generally not require it.
-
Ben:
Does Dave Hensley work hard? I bet he does.
I also think Jared and the rest of Kyle's crew also work hard at the Sand Hills Golf Club.
All the crews at all of these courses have worked especially hard this summer just to keep the grasses ALIVE.
They are working day and night like dogs to try the best they can to ensure that those traveling to their courses from far and wide enjoy their time during their "golfing retreat."
So on Dave's behalf (and Jared's) your point is well taken.
Gene
-
Dr. Gene,
My post was meant as no slight. I have no doubt that the crew at SH is every bit as talented as those elsewhere. I was merely commenting on what I have seen at BN with regard to Dave and crew's work there, and the original turf selection. I don't have a basis for comparison because--regretfully as you know--I haven't been to SH yet. Though the sand may be perfect out there, the temps and preciptation patterns aren't.
-
From my perspective, a great course should permit a ground game, but generally not require it.
BTW...This is my answer to Greg's question as well.
The course which is considered by most to be the greatest in the world, Pine Valley, has limited ground game.
-
I loved Ballyneal AND Dismal River.
I loved Dismal River AND Ballyneal.
(http://i946.photobucket.com/albums/ad310/wellmond/Dismal%20River%202012/photo-5-4.jpg)
-
Ben:
Your post was not taken as a slight.
It was (re)enlightening for me and probably for Brian as well, he being of moon pants fame.
Gene
-
OK, the concensus is that it is NOT an absolute which I believe we wll knew to begin with.
Question for Tom Doak - Will you one day take a shot at a course that will require a prediominantly aerial game? Why/Why not? If yes, what must the site have for you to go this route?
-
Jared,
Since I have not yet played Sand Hills, I'm in no position to dispute anything you have or have not said about the place.
However, I disagree with what I interpret to be your opinion: that fun=great. IMO, fun=great golf course that does not beat you up. From championship tees, would anyone consider Pinehurst #2 or Carnoustie fun? Fun courses to me are Shoreacres, Lawsonia, Pasatiempo, and Yale. They demand good shots but do not harshly punish mediocrity. They allow you to make some mistakes yet not destroy your handicap or ego.
I had a a lot of fun at Ballyneal in 30mph wind the whole day. I just moved to forward tees on holes into the wind and back on the holes downwind. I can assure you, I would not have had fun playing tips into the wind all day.
BTW, the private club I belong to in the US is one of the least fun courses I've ever played and it has two awful holes.
-
Jared,
However, I disagree with what I interpret to be your opinion: that fun=great. IMO, fun=great golf course that does not beat you up. From championship tees, would anyone consider Pinehurst #2 or Carnoustie fun? Fun courses to me are Shoreacres, Lawsonia, Pasatiempo, and Yale. They demand good shots but do not harshly punish mediocrity. They allow you to make some mistakes yet not destroy your handicap or ego.
I had a a lot of fun at Ballyneal in 30mph wind the whole day. I just moved to forward tees on holes into the wind and back on the holes downwind. I can assure you, I would not have had fun playing tips into the wind all day.
Are you saying you play or played Shorearces, Lawsonia, Pasa and Yale from the tips?
-
Ben-
You made one omission from the praise you heaped on Dave Hensley -- the guy has a limited amount of water to work with each year.
Maybe that's not the case anymore - it was three years ago - but at that time when I visited with him over the 4th of July they were on pace to run out of water. I can't imagine how nerve-wracking that would be. Sand Hills doesn't have that issue, thank God. It definitely would have been depleted by now.
Granted, they don't get the cart traffic to create all those nasty burns, but with a summer like this, I don't know how he does it. Sleep would surely be difficult every night.
-
Ben-
You made one omission from the praise you heaped on Dave Hensley -- the guy has a limited amount of water to work with each year.
Maybe that's not the case anymore - it was three years ago - but at that time when I visited with him over the 4th of July they were on pace to run out of water. I can't imagine how nerve-wracking that would be. Sand Hills doesn't have that issue, thank God. It definitely would have been depleted by now.
Granted, they don't get the cart traffic to create all those nasty burns, but with a summer like this, I don't know how he does it. Sleep would surely be difficult every night.
Jared:
It might actually be a blessing in disguise.
Another of our courses, Stonewall, also has a very limited water supply, and in case you've never been there, Philadelphia has its share or brutal summers, too. The superintendent, Dan Dale, uses this fact to his advantage. When the course starts to get a bit brown in early summer, and the members start to question why, Dan just looks them straight in the eye and tells them if he starts watering now, he'll run out in August and the place will burn up -- so the limited supply has reduced the pressure on him to water for the sake of color. And over the years, he's wound up with a sward of turf that's pretty resistant to drought, or it would have died by now.
Stonewall is a walking-only course, too, and you are right, that helps reduce the stress [and the need for cosmetic watering] a lot. I'll bet not many people think about how much more water their course uses because they have golf carts driving in the fairways.
P.S. I hope that Dave H. and Dan Dale are not losing too much sleep over their situations. You can only do what you can do.
-
OK, the concensus is that it is NOT an absolute which I believe we wll knew to begin with.
Question for Tom Doak - Will you one day take a shot at a course that will require a prediominantly aerial game? Why/Why not? If yes, what must the site have for you to go this route?
Greg:
I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think I've ever turned down a project because I thought the site would not allow for a reasonable amount of ground game interest, and I'm honestly not sure that I've seen a site where it couldn't be incorporated. At Pine Valley, Crump excluded ground game options by choice, not because the site forced him to ... and would you not say the same for Diamante?
So would I refuse to build a project if the George Crump of the 21st century called me and wanted me to build something of the same ilk? Probably not; yet I might try to convince him that such a project NEEDED a couple of bounce-and-run approaches because it is one of the rare things that the best golfers have trouble doing ... it's only the lesser golfers that are troubled by the aerial demands of Pine Valley. [And even Pine Valley does have a potential running approach or three -- I am thinking right off the bat of #1, and #4, and especially #13 -- although the last time I played there it was so wet that balls were plugging in the fairways.]
Now, there are plenty of courses where the ground game is impractical for a good player because the turf conditions make it too unpredictable compared to the aerial option. If you had a course where you decided you had to use zoysia fairways, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to think that good golfers are going to bounce the ball into the greens. But, many seniors are still going to be hitting their 4-woods between the bunkers instead of flying over them, so having an open entrance is still a plus. Riviera, with its kikuyu fairways, is another example of this.
-
I just returned from the Yucca/Ballynizzle Cup and the conditions were fantastic, especially given the recent drought that we've been experiencing in this region. If anything, the course played a bit soft for the morning rounds; there was a bit of humidity in the air that likely was the cause. The ground game was certainly in play, as always at Ballyneal. Dave should be commended for the work he has done, and continues to do.
I'd bet the same can be said for the staff at Sand Hills.
The conditions these fellas have to deal with on a regular basis, from drought to monsoons, shows just how good they are at being able to present these courses in the manner they were intended. I, for one, know I take what they do for granted from time to time. I'd bet I'm not alone in that regard.
-
So what's next, we gonna cry for how tough the guys out at Bandon have it? btw. How is Ballyneal going to build a second 18 if they don't have enough water for what they got?
One of the great things about the guys working out at Dismal is that they could care less if you know their names.
-
So what's next, we gonna cry for how tough the guys out at Bandon have it? btw. How is Ballyneal going to build a second 18 if they don't have enough water for what they got?
One of the great things about the guys working out at Dismal is that they could care less if you know their names.
No, you should cry for us for we have had 6 inches rain in 3 years. Better yet save the tears for once on site, the moisture would help.
-
Greg, take a look around, you're in F'ing Mexico.
-
OK, the concensus is that it is NOT an absolute which I believe we wll knew to begin with.
Question for Tom Doak - Will you one day take a shot at a course that will require a prediominantly aerial game? Why/Why not? If yes, what must the site have for you to go this route?
Greg:
I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think I've ever turned down a project because I thought the site would not allow for a reasonable amount of ground game interest, and I'm honestly not sure that I've seen a site where it couldn't be incorporated. At Pine Valley, Crump excluded ground game options by choice, not because the site forced him to ... and would you not say the same for Diamante?
So would I refuse to build a project if the George Crump of the 21st century called me and wanted me to build something of the same ilk? Probably not; yet I might try to convince him that such a project NEEDED a couple of bounce-and-run approaches because it is one of the rare things that the best golfers have trouble doing ... it's only the lesser golfers that are troubled by the aerial demands of Pine Valley. [And even Pine Valley does have a potential running approach or three -- I am thinking right off the bat of #1, and #4, and especially #13 -- although the last time I played there it was so wet that balls were plugging in the fairways.]
Now, there are plenty of courses where the ground game is impractical for a good player because the turf conditions make it too unpredictable compared to the aerial option. If you had a course where you decided you had to use zoysia fairways, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to think that good golfers are going to bounce the ball into the greens. But, many seniors are still going to be hitting their 4-woods between the bunkers instead of flying over them, so having an open entrance is still a plus. Riviera, with its kikuyu fairways, is another example of this.
Gracias.
What is the longest course in your portfolio? What if a client said he wanted a long, hard golf course where the pros would have trouble breaking par? Said client had a wonderful property and intended on luring a Tour or USGA event.
Would you be reluctant? Would you simply say no?
Better start thinking in such terms because that dau is coming... probably not too far down the road.
Regarding your question about Diamante. That is the course that was the impetus for the "question".
Not sure how many times I have played there but quite a few time anyway. As noted it never dawned on me that the ground game is not in play whatsoever. That fact did not take away from my enjoyment of the course or overall opinion of it... I think it is wonderful and quite fun and the fact that the ground game thought never hit me is more or less validation of what is there and my own answer to the question.
As one who grew up on a course with a whopping 8 bunkers this surprises me a bit as flying it to the hole was generally the last option during my formative years as a player.
-
Greg, take a look around, you're in F'ing Mexico.
What does that have to do with rainfall? If we were 190 mile east we would average maybe 65" per year.
And for the record, I'll take where I am living over where you are living all day every day.
Cabo isn't really "F'ing Mexico" but it is f'ing great.
-
So what's next, we gonna cry for how tough the guys out at Bandon have it? btw. How is Ballyneal going to build a second 18 if they don't have enough water for what they got?
One of the great things about the guys working out at Dismal is that they could care less if you know their names.
As one who is not a member of any of the CO/NE prairie links clubs and admires (mostly from afar) each of them, I find these little snits between interested parties on this site to be quite tiresome.
-
Tim,
Please point out the snit.
-
Tim,
Please point out the snit.
Oh please John.
-
So what's next, we gonna cry for how tough the guys out at Bandon have it? btw. How is Ballyneal going to build a second 18 if they don't have enough water for what they got?
One of the great things about the guys working out at Dismal is that they could care less if you know their names.
John,
My post was not for celebrity, and I am sure that Dave couldn't give two figs about me mentioning his efforts. I was merely applauding what it takes to keep fescue in that climate. But so Dismal won't feel left out (God forbid another prairie course gets mentioned without them all getting mentioned), Jagger Mandrel is the terrific super at Dismal River.
-
Is the concept of ground game though of too narrowly, in terms of approaches only?
I like this question, and I'm disappointed it didn't seem to get the attention it deserves. I could swear I posted something about it in the thread, but must not have.
I think most people's idea of the ground game is indeed far too narrow. It seems most think it means you should be able to top it around the course, or get around with a putter. To me, I think of the ground game as anything that requires more thought than "What's my drop and stop yardage?"
That's the opposite approach of Greg's question - it uses a definition too broad - but I think the ground game has a certain negative connotation among better golfers, as they simply view it as a means of appeasing lesser golfers (like me).
Certainly there will be occasions when the best option - maybe even the only option - is a high spinning shot. I just think it should be minimized, and there should be a distinct emphasis on allowing players to get around in almost any way possible. Yet the exact opposite seems to be preferred by most, on here and elsewhere.
To me, the essence of golf - and golf course architecture - is: Here is the tee. There is the hole. Get it in the hole in as few strokes as possible.
In a weird way, I think that's the most unheeded lesson of TOC (guessing here, haven't had the pleasure myself). There seems to have been a move somewhere along the way toward the architect decided the path to the hole, and the manner in which said path is approached. I don't know when it happened, but the shift was rather complete, as I see very few holes that evoke the spirit I desire.
That theory also explains why I never win the armchair architect contests... :)
-
No, out west, Riviera, Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, Muirfield Village,
not sure what walking has to do with all of this , but I for one, don't think walk-ability should be a requirement in determining a great golf course.
I agree with the poster that course conditions in the US are generally detrimental to allowing a ground game to be a viable option.
-
George,
I concur with you when you say ""I think of the ground game as anything that requires more thought than "What's my drop and stop yardage?""
I play a ground game from up to 120 metres out at every opportunity and I rather think that this approach would only be stymied when playing on very, very spongy turf. If I find the going a bit soft I just bunt my ball a bit harder! Fast and firm is best but in my world not paramount for the ground game.
Cheers Colin
-
What is the longest course in your portfolio? What if a client said he wanted a long, hard golf course where the pros would have trouble breaking par? Said client had a wonderful property and intended on luring a Tour or USGA event.
Would you be reluctant? Would you simply say no?
Better start thinking in such terms because that dau is coming... probably not too far down the road.
Greg:
Well, our client in China is certainly interested in hosting a big tournament, so that day may already have come ... but he isn't insistent on a particular length for the course in question, and he's probably well connected enough that it won't be the deciding factor on whether it happens or not.
I have been reluctant about similar situations in the past ... one of the reasons I wound up not designing Erin Hills is that Mr. Lang spoke openly of having a 7800-yard U.S. Open course, and I thought that was nuts. [As it turned out, we were both right!] Another potential client in South Korea had a similar assignment, and I said I would do it if they would also let me build a 6,600-yard course for one of the 5 other courses they wanted to build -- but no, they wanted them all long and hard, so I passed.
On the other hand, I have it on reliable information that my design for the Olympic course was longer than most of the other entries -- and it had some ground game components, too. But I think the result of the Olympic competition showed that the Tour would rather deal with other designers than with me, so I doubt I'm going to design a lot of tournament courses.
-
Tom,
It sounds like you believe that the Olympic decision was made for non golf issues. After reviewing the winning plan, are you convinced your proposal was better, and the choice was not a golf related one?
-
Tom,
It sounds like you believe that the Olympic decision was made for non golf issues. After reviewing the winning plan, are you convinced your proposal was better, and the choice was not a golf related one?
Keith:
No, I didn't say that. Gil's plan looks excellent. I think ours was, as well, but it was more complicated, too, and that probably didn't help our cause. Really, I would guess that there were several excellent plans presented, and therefore that other factors were considered, too.
I think that Gil set himself apart by promising to be there every day. But I also think that the Tour was in his corner, because they've worked with him before; and that they were opposed to me being the choice, because I'm still thought of as "controversial" [not without reason]. But of course, none of us really know the whole story. Only a handful of people even got to see all the presentations, and their deliberations were done in private. Maybe in four or five years someone will tell me if I have it right.
-
Is the concept of ground game though of too narrowly, in terms of approaches only?
I like this question, and I'm disappointed it didn't seem to get the attention it deserves. I could swear I posted something about it in the thread, but must not have.
I think most people's idea of the ground game is indeed far too narrow. It seems most think it means you should be able to top it around the course, or get around with a putter. To me, I think of the ground game as anything that requires more thought than "What's my drop and stop yardage?"
That's the opposite approach of Greg's question - it uses a definition too broad - but I think the ground game has a certain negative connotation among better golfers, as they simply view it as a means of appeasing lesser golfers (like me).
Certainly there will be occasions when the best option - maybe even the only option - is a high spinning shot. I just think it should be minimized, and there should be a distinct emphasis on allowing players to get around in almost any way possible. Yet the exact opposite seems to be preferred by most, on here and elsewhere.
To me, the essence of golf - and golf course architecture - is: Here is the tee. There is the hole. Get it in the hole in as few strokes as possible.
In a weird way, I think that's the most unheeded lesson of TOC (guessing here, haven't had the pleasure myself). There seems to have been a move somewhere along the way toward the architect decided the path to the hole, and the manner in which said path is approached. I don't know when it happened, but the shift was rather complete, as I see very few holes that evoke the spirit I desire.
That theory also explains why I never win the armchair architect contests... :)
George:
Great post.
Your opening lines made me think you were taking a different direction ... it's also true that the ground game can be in play for steering tee shots or in the short game, but most people think of it strictly in terms of approach shots.
You are dead right in your inference about St. Andrews (and all early links courses), that there was no prescribed "right" way to play them. That's what I hate about those "risk-reward holes" with the alternate fairways that most people go gaga about ... really, it just creates two distinct ways to play the hole and forces the golfer to choose one of the two, instead of allowing for the subtlety of 100 different ways based on the strengths of each golfer.
One other thing I love about the ground game (done right) is that there are shots on links courses that are actually easier for the senior golfer than for the professional. When we were filming the video on Old Macdonald, I watched an elderly woman golfer roll a 3-wood to six feet on the 11th at St. Andrews, on a cold and windy day when a low-trajectory 170-yard shot was clearly the best way to get there. But none of the professionals have that shot -- they would have been lacing long irons and hybrids up into the wind. I liked the lady's chances better just then. Come to think of it, Bobby Jones was beside himself with admiration for the way that Joyce Wethered played St. Andrews.
-
George
I hope folks don't think of the ground game as mainly about approaching or working around greens. If they do, why bother with gathering fairway bunkers or even worrying about carry distance? After not paying enough attention to his rollout on the 72nd at Lytham, I bet Scott will give his ground game more thought in the future.
Ciao
-
George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill? I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).
Peter
-
George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill? I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).
Peter
Peter
I do think you have something there. These days, folks don't imagine cracking a putter off the tee 150 yards to a green. While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up. This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.
Ciao
-
Good one, Sean. I hadn't thought at all about cross bunkers and their possible use -- which use is the first I've read that, for me at least, justifies their placements on modern courses/restorations.
Peter
-
While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up. This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.
Ciao
What a fantastic line of posts these past 6 or so. And it is to date the clearest definitions what snarky scratch golfers will never understand. That the ground game isn't an architectural excuse for poor golfers.
-
And sometimes it rains.
It just sucks when it rains every night for 20 mins per head.
Every other day will still keep your grass alive and allow the more sophisticated plodder a chance to feel good about golf, again. It might even teach the stock and stop aficionados a chance to experience something foreign.
The answer to the orig posit is resounding Yes. A course can not be great unless it's elasticity includes the ability to be creative, when the ground is firm and wind is a blower.
-
I think there's a correlation between windy sites and ground game options that is not getting enough emphasis on this thread.
When you look at the total influence that the elements can have on the game, I think you get a better idea if a course can be great without ground game options. I can't imagine having to play anywhere where it howls without having the option to play a runner below the breeze or the ability to watch a downwind shot run out before getting to where you want it to end up.
When the wind doesn't blow, the architects will need to find another way to defend par, and limiting the ground game options is one method of doing so.
-
Ben-
You made one omission from the praise you heaped on Dave Hensley -- the guy has a limited amount of water to work with each year.
Maybe that's not the case anymore - it was three years ago - but at that time when I visited with him over the 4th of July they were on pace to run out of water. I can't imagine how nerve-wracking that would be. Sand Hills doesn't have that issue, thank God. It definitely would have been depleted by now.
Granted, they don't get the cart traffic to create all those nasty burns, but with a summer like this, I don't know how he does it. Sleep would surely be difficult every night.
Jared:
It might actually be a blessing in disguise.
Another of our courses, Stonewall, also has a very limited water supply, and in case you've never been there, Philadelphia has its share or brutal summers, too. The superintendent, Dan Dale, uses this fact to his advantage. When the course starts to get a bit brown in early summer, and the members start to question why, Dan just looks them straight in the eye and tells them if he starts watering now, he'll run out in August and the place will burn up -- so the limited supply has reduced the pressure on him to water for the sake of color. And over the years, he's wound up with a sward of turf that's pretty resistant to drought, or it would have died by now.
Stonewall is a walking-only course, too, and you are right, that helps reduce the stress [and the need for cosmetic watering] a lot. I'll bet not many people think about how much more water their course uses because they have golf carts driving in the fairways.
P.S. I hope that Dave H. and Dan Dale are not losing too much sleep over their situations. You can only do what you can do.
I caddied during a very hot summer at Stonewall in 2000. The greenskeeper did a MASTERFUL job. Didn't know they had water issues. The North Course was still under construction, but I loved the "Old" Course!
-
George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill? I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).
Peter
Peter
I do think you have something there. These days, folks don't imagine cracking a putter off the tee 150 yards to a green. While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up. This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.
Ciao
If you've got a really firm and fast course, having a handful of cross bunkers might not be a bad thing.
But, Peter's premise is really the heart of the good player's objection to the ground game ... that sometimes someone will get away with a topped shot and actually win the hole. It's this idea that the architect must solve this problem FOR EVERY SHOT that is one reason so many courses are over-bunkered. If a topped shot yields a good result and allows the B golfer to shoot 89 instead of 91, so what? And if it allows him to square his match against you, that's the sort of test of character that golf is about.
Dr. MacKenzie compared hazards to the fielders in a game of cricket -- they won't catch every mistake, but you can't keep making mistakes without being caught out.
-
Tom
I think you are right except that I would add that championship mentality also greatly increased bunkering. There is no need for an archie to purposefully try to cut off all luck. What is interesting is that centreline bunkers will stop a lot of topped shots and 1 centreline actually does a better job of bunkering so long as greens and fairways are designed around the idea of them.
Ciao
-
Tom D writes:
"Peter's premise is really the heart of the good player's objection to the ground game ... that sometimes someone will get away with a topped shot and actually win the hole. It's this idea that the architect must solve this problem FOR EVERY SHOT that is one reason so many courses are over-bunkered. If a topped shot yields a good result and allows the B golfer to shoot 89 instead of 91, so what? And if it allows him to square his match against you, that's the sort of test of character that golf is about."
Interesting. The above brings to mind what were called 'leveler' holes during the Victorian era. If you could get away with a foozle, the hole was badly designed. It was a 'leveler'. Such holes were thought to be marks of bad architecture. The notion was pretty simple. If all bad shots should be punished and all good shots rewarded, levelers violated that rule. The ideas behind it are still very much with us, though sometimes not consciously. But back in the GA it was very much on the minds of people like Low, Colt, Mack, Simpsn and others. In important ways the emergence of key ideas behind strategic golf architecture was only possible if you could get past the notion that there should be a strict, equitable correlation between the quality of a shot and it's outcome.
Bob
-
Thanks much, Bob. You raise/contextualize a central point - i.e. if strategic architecture requires the architect to transcend a strict correlation between execution and outcome, what degree of that correlation most/best ensures both the enjoyment of all levels of golfer as well as the shot-testing/challenge that is essential to/inherent in the 'game' that is golf. While I share the tastes of many on this board, I do think it legitimate for better players to question the choices architects make in regards this degree of correlation.
Peter
-
I only agree on this leveler principle to a small extent. If you are going to use examples of shots that are 1 and 1000 or worse, pure luck and fortune then there is no valid arguement here. I could also shank my ball left from a 100 yds out off a tree and have it bounce onto the green with full speed hit the pin and go in, if this happened on a hole that didn't allow for any ground game would that be a leveler hole?
I would say the objective should be to have 18 different holes requiring many different options and allowing for many different methods of play not to discriminate against people that may be not quite as strong as other or hit the ball as far but do have a great game. Which is exactly the kinds of courses that are not often being designed these days. These long and tough championship courses being built now for the modern game for the most part follow the same patterns, boring, longer, narrower, just ad water and let the rough grow deep. Clearly that's what the tour wants and needs. How many of them do we see coming into for example Golf Magazine's Top 100 after they open? The ones that do seem to be the likes of Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Chamber's Bay, Castle Stuart. All these courses for the most part provide the option classic option of a strong ground game.
What am I missing here? I don't know the lists by heart but what new tour ready courses or even target golf courses are ending up being rated as top courses? In Europe I can think of Bro Hof Slot, 8000 yds from the back tees, which they don't utilize but the course is still quaint in a lovely setting and not typical industrial tour golf.
-
Thanks, Tom.
People - even thoughtful, well-meaning people :) - always throw on the idea that luck shouldn't be the deciding factor, or that randomness is the worst thing possible.
Question: Is it even possible to design a hole where this is the case (that isn't complete nonsense)?
I'd argue that even a completely random course would likely favor the better golfer, as he would be better able to handle the mental strain.
But really, as Tom says, if you're worried about the bogey golfer shooting a couple strokes better by luck, that's just silly.
Of course, I've long contended that most golfers want a course that is incredibly hard - for the golfer just a hair worse than themselves...
-
George, Tom - but just to say, Joyce Wethered played St Andrews like the champion and excellent golfer that she was, and the elderly woman who hit a 170 yard 3 wood to six feet clearly knew what she was doing too. Do you think that in providing for and honouring the ground game, today's architects should make any kind of distinctions (and related design choices) between allowing for an intentional and well-executed run up shot and one that happens by accident/because of a lack in skill? I know that ToC didn't originally make any such distinction, but there are a lot of differences between then and now (not least in the technology).
Peter
Peter
I do think you have something there. These days, folks don't imagine cracking a putter off the tee 150 yards to a green. While I think creating kick away slopes is usually a better way to discourage the unintentional skull turning out fine, there is also a place to bring back cross bunkers placed in such a way so as to leave space for a well judged approach which must fly the hazard yet still allow for a kick-up. This sort of thing is especially effective for uphill shots.
Ciao
If you've got a really firm and fast course, having a handful of cross bunkers might not be a bad thing.
But, Peter's premise is really the heart of the good player's objection to the ground game ... that sometimes someone will get away with a topped shot and actually win the hole. It's this idea that the architect must solve this problem FOR EVERY SHOT that is one reason so many courses are over-bunkered. If a topped shot yields a good result and allows the B golfer to shoot 89 instead of 91, so what? And if it allows him to square his match against you, that's the sort of test of character that golf is about.
Dr. MacKenzie compared hazards to the fielders in a game of cricket -- they won't catch every mistake, but you can't keep making mistakes without being caught out.
Tom, Same premise but at a different level. Frist time I ever visited Cabo del Sol I played golf with the then DOG on The Desert Course. We are playing the 15th hole, a par 5 of about 520. I hit what for me is a great tee shot and have about 215 left while Brad hits his normal bomb and has maybe 175. I have every intention of running it on but come off my shot a bit and it never gets more than head high, terribly hit shot, but it skirts what is supposed to be a cross bunker and rolls, and rolls and rolls some more... ends up about 7 feet from the hole. Brad hits a perfect high iron shot to about 5 feet.
While it may as simple as a poorly placed "cross bunker" it is a scenario like that which drives a ball striker crazy.
-
Greg,
What proportion of mis-hit shots get a result like that? The ball striker needs to learn to live with the fact that that will happen. You can't eradicate luck, nor should you want to. And bunkers can play a roll in luck, too. In a recent match in our club's foursomes (alternate shot) knock out competition, one of our opponents skulked a chip. It travelled at a velocity that would have taken it through the green into the deep crap behind. However, it entered a green side bunker on the fly, lost most, but not all, of it's velocity, climbed to the top of said bunker and popped out forwards, onto the green, 20 feet from the hole. David bunker saved bogey, which, with their shot, halved the hole.
-
"Dr. MacKenzie compared hazards to the fielders in a game of cricket -- they won't catch every mistake, but you can't keep making mistakes without being caught out." TD
What a great quote, thanks going to keep this in my back pocket!!
After reading all the posts on this thread, it's pretty clear to me that a great course doesn't necessarily need to have a ground game, some terrain and grass types simply won't allow it, however most great courses have a mixture of aerial and ground features on their holes.
As some have mentioned in this thread, some ground game elements could be tee shots, layups and not simply approaches. A windy course, even with zoysia or kikuyu , will require low shots that will roll some, especially downwind.
The 4th hole at Riviera has some ground game element to it for a lesser player, or a moderate player playing the back tees, to hit the ball with a boring trajectory and use the slope right of the green to roll it onto the surface.
I've seen average golfers roll the ball on holes 1,2,3,5,11,13,15 at Riviera, so its available, but better players would rarely use this shot type unless it was the only way to get the ball to the green, ( impeded by trees.)
-
Mr. Bartman, You speak as though there's a plethora of great courses. Very good, sure. But it's widely accepted in the treehouse there's but half a top 100 list of great. Thankfully the list is growing due to the efforts of thoughtful designers.
-
Mr. Bartman, You speak as though there's a plethora of great courses. Very good, sure. But it's widely accepted in the treehouse there's but half a top 100 list of great. Thankfully the list is growing due to the efforts of thoughtful designers.
Not sure how you derived that I think that there are an abundance of great courses from my post, I most certainly do not, but I would say that for each person the definition of a course as great or not , is entirely up to them , in or out of the tree house.
FYI - I have played 28 of the top 100 classic courses (18 of top 50 and 10 #51-100) and only think 11 are great, 2 of which are over #50 and I have played 36 of the top 100 modern with only 4 as great and only 1 of those was over #50. I think I am pretty hard to get a great out of.