Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jay Mickle on September 30, 2015, 11:28:56 AM
-
Over the past couple of months I have played a good number of classic and modern courses that at least visually invited a ground game. Those that had greens running around 10 were very playable on the ground. As speeds increased to 11 and above it seemed that “drop and stop” held a significant advantage. Fast greens that require a very deft touch for putts create great difficulty when ground approach shots go from high friction surface to seemingly zero friction surface.
While we have come to appreciate the challenges of the new agronomy that allows for hyper greens I am not sure that they are compatible with the style of play that we embrace for classic courses.
-
The problem is greens that are soft yet super-fast. If the ball is rolling when it enters the putting surface, it'll keep rolling, but if it's coming from the air it will stop fairly quickly.
-
Jay,
Adam beat me to the punchline here and he's absolutely correct.
Here in Britain you will find that links greens in good condition, and I'll suggest quite a few renowned heathland courses have some work to do in this area, are sufficiently hard for pitch marks to be a rarity. Well, that's true in the summer at least. Stopping the ball is not an option.
-
At the risk of making a generalization (that will no doubt have many exceptions), greens in the U.S. tend to be fast and softer, while greens in GB&I tend to be slower and more firm. The former does favor the aerial game while the latter encourages the ground game.
-
Another aspect is very firm and fast greens on GB links/heathland courses when the approaches/fairways have a sprinkler system. Not a nice combination.
Fly the shot all the way and even with a spinny ball like a ProV1 and modern grooves there's a good chance it'll be bounce, bounce, bounce and run time when it lands on the green. On the other hand with the same ProV1-ish ball if you deliberately land a shot short of a green with say a three quarter or half shot with a 8-gw aiming to run it on, ie play the ground game, there's a pretty good chance the ball will grip and spin and finish on the fringe or even short of the green. Very, very irritating.
One way I've observed to combat this when the approaches/fairways are watered but the greens are very firm is to play a ball that lands and rolls all the time like the Srixon Soft Feel or AD333 etc. Cheaper too! :)
atb
-
Jay, I agree with your premise (and what others have written) about what type of green firmness and speed is ideal for the ground game. But at the end of the day, golf is about adapting over and over again to constantly changing conditions both in the air and on the ground. So if faced with a ground-game shot to a lightning-fast green, the answer seems to be simply to land your approach shot farther away from the green.
-
Ben - as mentioned by Thomas, above, one of the problems with your prescription, and one of the major difficulties with playing the running game on modern courses, is the tendency to find approaches that have been heavily watered, or are grassed with something that's a bit 'sticky' and grabs the ball, like kikuyu, or paspalum that's not cut very short and tight. Then you're really screwed, you can't run the ball onto the green because it won't run on the approach, and so you have to fly it in.
-
Fair point, Adam (and Thomas). I guess I haven't experienced that phenomenon before (when I play a "ground game" shot, I deloft a lot at address/impact to ensure minimal height and maximum run), but I can see how it would all but eliminate the ground game.
-
How about the speed differential and graininess between a fast green and slow thick fringes and approaches?
-
Its very easy to lose the speed connection between fronts of greens and the greens. In my experience, most US courses are disconnected, thus making the balance of play via the aerial route. Combine this with rough pinching in the fronts of greens and going aerial most of the time is the obvious play. I suspect as greens become quicker this disconnect will heighten.
Ciao
-
I've often felt if they really want to make a course hard for the Pros, like for the US Open...
Don't worry about picking a course that's 7500+ yards long. Just water the crap out of the fairways and cut em a bit longer, and let the greens bake out and firm up. That way they have longer approach shots, with more difficulty as they can't run them in, nor hold the green on a long aerial approach. Then they can stop with the crazy long tees, ribbon fairways, and 6 inch rough....
-
See, this is why 'firm and fast' is not really an ideal catchphrase. The two aren't as closely linked as one might think; IMO firm is considerably more important than fast.
-
Sean, I like your concept of disconnectedness. It surely seems that on certain courses between green speeds and receptiveness, approaches accessibility and graininess and moisture content of fairways there are many ways to disconnect the course concept from the actuality of what we play.
-
See, this is why 'firm and fast' is not really an ideal catchphrase. The two aren't as closely linked as one might think; IMO firm is considerably more important than fast.
Si. The phrase should be firm and true.
Ciao
-
Rustic Canyon has greens that regularly stimp 10-11 but the surrounds stimp 9-10! The ground game is not only encouraged but necessary. I think the only time high speeds discourage the ground game are when it is soft or the difference between fairway surrounds and green are very noticeable.
-
Jay,
Are you really playing a lot of courses that stimp at higher than 11? The average speed on the PGA Tour is 10.5.
To answer the question, though, I'd offer a STRONG no. The trick on very fast greens is to be below the hole, and roll is ALWAYS easier to judge and control than carry. If that wasn't the case, we be chipping from ON the green instead of putting anyway, right?
If I'm 10' off the green and the pin is 30' away on greens that are running 12, there is NO way I want the ball in the air unless I'm forced to by contours of some other condition. All other things equal, I want to roll the ball MORE on fast greens than slow; more control.
-
but AG...how about if you're 100 yards away?
-
but AG...how about if you're 100 yards away?
....or the pins only 10 ft onto the front green which slopes upwards behind it and the fringe and fairway are lush and soft and the winds from behind?
Atb
-
AG, It seems that this is the time of year that if bent greens can be sped up it can be done with little fear of burnout and super and or members like to see fast greens. I do love putting on them.
Jim, I wholly agree.
When I think of ground game I am not thinking of 10-20 feet off the green that's an approach shot that came up short.
-
but AG...how about if you're 100 yards away?
....or the pins only 10 ft onto the front green which slopes upwards behind it and the fringe and fairway are lush and soft and the winds from behind?
Atb
As you've already alluded to, that's a nightmare. That, far more than any issues of cosmetics, is a real example of bad conditioning. I'm assuming here we're including longer cuts, pinched approaches and the like, although the over enthusiastic green side sprinkler can be nearly as dangerous! ;D
-
For those of us who promote 'the ground game' and want to see it encouraged via architecture&maintenance, a question, i.e. are we fond of such an approach:
A. Because we are not as skilled as some golfers (who can come in so high and with so much spin and with such distance control that they stop a ball on the hood of a Buick from 100 yards away) and so we want to be offered another way to compete and get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, or
B. Because we genuinely and quite simply find the shots required with the ground game more fun to play, and we want to maximize our "fun" on the golf course, or
C. Because we hold very deeply the belief that good golf course architecture provides countless "options" and is playable by all skill levels, and so are dismayed by any course that doesn't provide for the ground game
I think the answer informs the expectation, and a reasonable level of expectation, in the context of the game.
-
but AG...how about if you're 100 yards away?
Jim,
Do you play with many players that use the "ground game" from 100 yds.? I don't, and I play a LOT of golf...
But on the VERY rare occasions that we see more play along the ground, it is when the FAIRWAYS are fast, not the greens, and/or when the wind is an issue. I can't recall situations in which I've seen players make those decisions based on green speeds.
I'm probably a good example, btw. At every opportunity, I chip with a 7 iron rather than a wedge, and in the winter off dormant bermuda I'll often use my 4 hybrid. I love to bump and run the ball, as opposed to the hop-and-wedge, and I care not at all about green speed when I make the decision of which club to use; it is ONLY about what is between me and the actual green surface.
In short, I'm not sure I can imagine why a player would choose a club for a chip or a pitch based on green speed. It's only about getting it close and keeping the ball below the hole; what the green is stimping isn't relevant to that.
-
IMO firm is considerably more important than fast.
Most people and places get caught up in the fast, rather than focusing on the firm,and this usually leads to SOFT and fast, the worst combination ::) ::)
-
For those of us who promote 'the ground game' and want to see it encouraged via architecture&maintenance, a question, i.e. are we fond of such an approach:
A. Because we are not as skilled as some golfers (who can come in so high and with so much spin and with such distance control that they stop a ball on the hood of a Buick from 100 yards away) and so we want to be offered another way to compete and get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, or
B. Because we genuinely and quite simply find the shots required with the ground game more fun to play, and we want to maximize our "fun" on the golf course, or
C. Because we hold very deeply the belief that good golf course architecture provides countless "options" and is playable by all skill levels, and so are dismayed by any course that doesn't provide for the ground game
I think the answer informs the expectation, and a reasonable level of expectation, in the context of the game.
Pietro
For me its about making the angles count. When courses are firm, angles matter. When courses aren't firm its all just talk.
Ciao
-
Sean - thanks, that's very well put, and makes perfect sense.
Peter
-
For me its about making the angles count. When courses are firm, angles matter. When courses aren't firm its all just talk.
Yes. Or another formulation, without firmness, there is no strategy.
-
Sean - thanks, that's very well put, and makes perfect sense.
Peter
When a course is in good nick we now can have a good idea of how well it is designed. To me, courses can still be great if designed for wetter conditions, but it takes more savvy, probably better terrain and extremely interesting greens to make it happen. Its easier to design a great course on what can be firm land because more variation is available. Anything that can be produced on a wet property can be reproduced on a firm property, but the same thing doesn't hold true the other way around. Mind you, when a course can show off its angles it must not only have angles, but also width to make the angles more meaningful in terms of available options of play. Its a truly depressing thing to see a wonderful design in good nick presented with a lack of width :'(
Ciao
-
[/font]
[/size][size=78%]Ciao [/size]
Sean,
If you don't mind, you may have just written my latest motif. :)