Simple solution to reduce length

[Cliff Hamm]

Peter Kostis has the following article postted at golfonline:

http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/features/features/article/0,17742,1057214,00.ht

Unfortunately the link won't work so I will insert his solution:

 For those who feel change is required, this simple scenario about course conditions could possibly change the whole equation. Grow fairways to 3/4 of an inch like they were in the 1960s. This, coupled with today’s lower spinning balls, would create "mini-flyers" that would send players back to manufacturers begging for more spin to help control shots. The increased spin and longer fairways would arguably reduce overall distance. As well, it would almost certainly reduce maintenance budgets.

Is there any viability to this idea?  Would it not help courses like Merion bring back championships?  Would it really change the game that much?At the same time I suspect there would be an outcry about sub-standard conditions so it would never happen.

[TEPaul]

That's not going to happen. Very few would accept fairway mow heights today of 3/4". The best way to go is to do it with new ball specs and regulations. A relatively recent USGA I&B chairman mentioned the other day that he'd heard the USGA has asked the manufacturers to look into making balls that had both 15 yards distance reduction and balls that had 25 yard distance reduction from now from the ODS today. I believe that's the way he put it.

[Tom_Doak]

Cliff:

When the square-groove issue was being litigated twenty years ago, I wondered if it wouldn't be better to have them.  If everyone had square grooves, the fairways wouldn't have to be nearly as tight ... and maintenance budgets would be far lower than they are today.

[Craig Sweet]

3/4" fairway heights would make for better turf, easier shot making for higher handicappers, lower maintance budgets, and would be the cheapest, easiest solution.

However, I can hear the egos' of many club members screaming that they are not paying all that money to hit off a pasture...wah...wah..wah.

[Tyler Kearns]

The ball is most likely the greatest culprit, and has been responsible for the pursuit of greater course length which has been detrimental to classic architecture and the cost of golf. However, don't the firm & fast conditions that the majority seem to adore on this site contribute to the problem? Keeping fairways a little higher in combination with a technological rollback could go a long way to maintaining the design integrity of classical architecture. It's the same idea as the green speed debate; raise the mower blades to save well-crafted green contours.

TK

[Craig Sweet]

No question, the argument can be made that many "classic" golf courses have been impacted more by modern turf management...what some call the modern "maintence meld", than equipment changes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cliff Hamm and Craig Sweet,

I don't ever remember fairways cut at 3/4 of an inch, with the possible exception of Maidstone.

[Cliff Hamm]

Pat...I learned to play golf in the 60's caddying at a private club and also playing at a muni.  I agree with you.  3/4" seems extremely long and even the muni I do not believe had grass, where there was some, that long.  This is not my quote, however, it is Peter Kostis.  If grass were longer would it make that signifcant of a difference given the skills that professionals possess?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cliff,

Wouldn't 3/4 inch fairways also go against the grain of everything about golf as it was imported from its linksian origins ?

I can't imagine 3/4 inch fairways as firm and fast.

I also recall discussions and debates I had with Peter regarding the ball.

I see he's still maintaining his position that the ball should be left alone.

Altering the field of play for which the ball was intended to traverse hardly seems like the proper solution.  But, it would allow the manufacturers to continue with the arms race, while golf courses across America ceased cutting the fairways, allowing the entire field of play, excluding hazards and putting greens to be played as rough.  That is a novel approach.

[Craig Sweet]

Gee, where to begin...

Golf imported from it's "linksian origins"? Obviously, who cares? The importation has gone from links, to woodlands, to the sand hills of Oklahoma...each area has its own unique soils, weather,grass, and the more you "import" the more you turn those areas into Disneyland...

The whole point of 3/4" fairways is NOT firm and fast.

Altering the "field of play" has been on going from the first day someone picked up a stick and hit a rock...it will not stop. Nature does not put "growing" and "change" on hold...3/4" fairways.. .25 green heights...**were* the norm at one time, but someone "altered" the playing field...hmmm....what were they responding to??? The ball??? The club? Better mowers?

[Joe Hancock]

I've stated my position on here a couple years ago, and there was no interest...I doubt that would change by stating it again today because it's already been stated 3/4 inch can't be firm and fast. But....

Fairways could be firm and "bouncy"....not green speed fast...if they were cut at 3/4 inch and dried out. I, to this day, still mow at 3/4 inch on my fairways....

I think some may be guilty of preaching the health and cost attributes of drying out the turf along with raising mowing heights....yet, they continue to pump their money into courses that are still going the other way....lower and lower heights, along with more pesticides, fertilizer...and water.

Wouldn't there be a great deal of courses that would actually improve if they raised the height to slow down roll, while at the same time drying them out so the ball can still bounce and hop....re-utilizing contours that were once a part of the game?

Combine that maintenance meld with tree removal and fairway widening and it might actually make some of the older clubs play a little closer to the original intent.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gee, where to begin...

Golf imported from it's "linksian origins"? Obviously, who cares?

Obviously the likes of Pete Dye, Tom Doak, Coore & Crenshaw to name some.[/color]

The importation has gone from links, to woodlands, to the sand hills of Oklahoma...each area has its own unique soils, weather,grass, and the more you "import" the more you turn those areas into Disneyland...

Importing links qualities turns those areas into Disneyland ?
How would you describe Sand Hills ?
Hidden Creek ?  Seminole,  Pine Valley ?

Could you cite five courses in each area that have had fairways with lengths of 3/4 of an inch ?[/color]

The whole point of 3/4" fairways is NOT firm and fast.
Which is contrary to the play of the game, and the inclusion of the ground game[/color]

Altering the "field of play" has been on going from the first day someone picked up a stick and hit a rock...it will not stop.

Could you cite five examples of how the field of play has been altered ?[/color]

Nature does not put "growing" and "change" on hold...3/4" fairways.. .25 green heights...**were* the norm at one time,

When were they the norm ?
Could you cite the year and the five courses where those conditions existed ?[/color]

but someone "altered" the playing field...hmmm....what were they responding to??? The ball??? The club? Better mowers?

How was the playing field altered ?

Let's narrow your task down to one course and start with TOC.[/color]

[Craig Sweet]

Well Pat, just what do you call a links style course in Oklahoma,(or Montana, or Michigan)if not Disneyland? Every style imaginable has been "impoted" from its place of origin to some place else...hey, check out the huge English Norman style McMansions they're building in Montana...

As for 3/4" fairways being contrary to the playing of the game...sorry...but the game can be played many ways...if you like the ground game, fine...personally, I like to hit it high...less bumps and rolls in the sky...never the less...at the time, the ground game evolved to suit the conditions and the landscape...back when fairways were normally mowed at 3/4" there was a ground game too, but I suppose everyone thinks its an early 1900's style making a modern day comeback...

5 examples of how the field of play has been altered???

More sheep grazing...the push mower...the horse drawn mower, the power mower...flat tees...the continual lowering of mowing heights...especially on greens...irrigation...and most recently, I mowed the fairways yesterday...I bet they were firmer and faster than today....darn it!!...I shouldn't have altered the field of play!

Narrowing it down to one course...Augusta National is nothing like it was 45 years ago, nor is it anything  like it was 30 years ago...nor is it anything like it was 10 years ago...watch an old video of Palmer putting at Augusta and he hammers his putts...they roll and then they die. The fairways are mowed lower, the rough is allowed to grow...gee, I think we could have a huge list of how the "field of play" at this one little course has changed since 1930...

Pat, I figured you understood that golf course maintenance had changed considerably in the last 25-45 years and has had a major impact on how the game is played. Apparently I was wrong.

[George Pazin]

Kostis' idea doesn't sound bad in theory, but I don't think it would have much impact in practice unless the greens were kept commensurately firm. Watch any telecast of the big boys and you'll see them routinely stop balls hit out of much heavier primary rough, because the greens aren't firm enough (don't know if that's by design or accident of Mother Nature), or lack the interesting contours that might, heaven forbid, actually kick the occasional approach shot away.

Waaaaaay back in 2000 , I recall one Tom Doak commenting on the lack of firmness at Valhalla. It seemed firm to me (jduging by telecast), but he pointed out that you almost could't make a green firm enough if it's bent grass and going to survive at the speeds they want for the big boys. Makes me wonder if firm and slow wouldn't be an occasional better test for the boys than fast and soft.

My layperson/TV watcher's view of high level tournament golf is that the 3 things that affect scoring most are 1) wind 2) rock hard greens and 3) difficult contours on greens. Not much anyone can do about #1, but #s 2 & 3 seem in increasingly short supply these days. Heck, they dried things out last year at Shinney and even the purists were in an uproar! All but maybe a half dozen of us stubborn guys, that is.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Joe, you can make fairways presentable at higher heights, but you have to get the whole maintenance package together ... with less fertility and a lot less water, too.  The way most clubs fertilize their fairways today, there is so much growth in the 2-3 days between mowings that 3/4 inch fairways would be nearly an inch by mowing day.

Links golf has been different from the beginning because sheep mow the grass quite short.  I was AMAZED what conditions we played Cape Kidnappers under before we built anything; the grass was probably less than a half inch, although not uniform, and the surface was rock hard because there was no irrigation.  (But there was a lot of sheep dip to avoid.)

But 1/2 inch fairways became standard in America less than 25 years ago, though I am sure the Oakmonts had them long before that.  5/8 used to be the standard for country clubs, and 3/4 for lots of places.  [Until recently, there wasn't a cultivar for bluegrass fairways that could take mowing at less than 3/4.]  

The higher heights also accounted for occasionally getting a "bad lie" in the fairway ... today the only bad lies are in sand-filled divots.

Undoubtedly most people, if given the chance to vote between the two, prefer their fairways tighter.  And most are willing to pay for it.  But it is one of those assumptions about how golf should be that makes the game expensive, and everyone agrees that the expense of golf is not good for the growth of the game.

[Brent Hutto]

My home course has wonderfully tight fairways, especially nowadays after a half-million bucks worth of upgrades to the drainage so they aren't tight and wet all the time. Just about everyone who plays there comments on how they like them tight and I agree (even though for my hacker's iron game a little cushion might be more forgiving). So I guess I'm one of those willing to pay for that sort of definition of "good maintenance" since that's where I choose to play.

That said, I would gladly trade playing playing on brownish, 3/4" long, less fertilized fairway graas in return for not seeing 200+ houses built hard up against half the holes on the course over the next couple years. The money to meet modern expectations of green, tight, year-round perfect fairways and brutally fast greens has to come from somewhere. At some private clubs it's mostly out of the pockets of the members. At upscale resort courses it's from green fees of $150 and up. At higher-end public and non-equity private club like mine it generally comes from making the golf course the stepchild of a housing development.

In my ideal world there would be infinite choices, I suppose. People who want those tight, perfect lies could choose courses that either cost a fortune to be a member or that are lined by half-million dollar houses. People who want a good core routing without the psudo-Augusta mainteance practices could choose a course that runs on a lower budget but still delivers on the traditional golf values like the "firm and fast" so loved on this forum. And there would plenty of affordable courses that are a little scruffier but still worth playing.

But it seems that over time the assumptions of super-green fairways with super-fast putting greens and perfectly groomed bunkers have a way of driving out the other alternatives. All you end up with are A) very expensive courses that are nicer than any PGA Tour venue from 1950 and B) courses that try to be like category A but either go broke trying or settle for a half-assed imitation of the big budget maintenance results.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig,

Well Pat, just what do you call a links style course in Oklahoma,(or Montana, or Michigan)if not Disneyland?
Would you identify these alledged "links style" couses in Oklahoma and Montana, or are they just made up examples ?[/color]

Every style imaginable has been "impoted" from its place of origin to some place else...hey, check out the huge English Norman style McMansions they're building in Montana...
Perhaps you haven't heard of the Hearst Castle, but what has home construction got to do with golf courses ?[/color]

As for 3/4" fairways being contrary to the playing of the game...sorry...but the game can be played many ways...if you like the ground game, fine...personally, I like to hit it high...less bumps and rolls in the sky...never the less...at the time, the ground game evolved to suit the conditions and the landscape...back when fairways were normally mowed at 3/4" there was a ground game too,

Exactly when was that, and where was that ?

I think you have the games and their evolution reversed[/color]

but I suppose everyone thinks its an early 1900's style making a modern day comeback...

5 examples of how the field of play has been altered???

More sheep grazing...the push mower...the horse drawn mower, the power mower...flat tees...the continual lowering of mowing heights...especially on greens...irrigation...and most recently, I mowed the fairways yesterday...I bet they were firmer and faster than today....darn it!!...I shouldn't have altered the field of play!

You've listed the methods for cutting grass, not how the field of play has been altered.  Lowering grass heights is but one example.  What are the other four ?[/color]

Narrowing it down to one course...Augusta National is nothing like it was 45 years ago, nor is it anything  like it was 30 years ago...nor is it anything like it was 10 years ago
Exactly how is it different.  How was the course different in 1960 versus 1975, as you cite above ?[/color]

...watch an old video of Palmer putting at Augusta and he hammers his putts...they roll and then they die.
That's how the greens putted when it started to get hot.
How did those same greens putt compared to today's greens in October ?[/color]

The fairways are mowed lower,

They are ?  What are their heights and when were they changed ?[/color]

the rough is allowed to grow...

Is that just for the tournament ?[/color]

gee, I think we could have a huge list of how the "field of play" at this one little course has changed since 1930...
I asked you about TOC.  Could you address the changes that course has experienced over the last 25-45-75 years ?[/color]

Pat, I figured you understood that golf course maintenance had changed considerably in the last 25-45 years and has had a major impact on how the game is played. Apparently I was wrong.

You said that the club and the ball were responsible for the changes, yet, if we look at golf from 1940 to 1990 any maintainance practices that were altered weren't altered due to the club or the ball.

As to maintainance having a major impact on how the game was played over the last 25-45 years, I don't see it, and I didn't experience it.  I didn't play any differently in 1960 then I did in 1970, 1980 and 1990, and if I did, it certainly wasn't due to changes in maintainance practices, if there were any [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

What courses had bluegrass fairways in the 1960's and 1970's ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

After reading the following it seems that 3/4 inch would tend to cause the best players some trouble and that height was close to the minimum available until the '80s.  

Excerpted from the USGA's website for instructional purposes:

Today's Fairway Conditions

     The most typical fairway height of cut today is 1/2 inch. An appropriate management program combined with a mowing height of 1/2 inch produces a lie with a minimal amount of grass to be trapped between the ball and the clubface on a well-struck golf shot.
     Mowing heights and management strategies at the other ends of the spectrum produce different types of lies and different levels of playability. For U.S. Open conditions, "We do not desire any grass between the clubface and the ball," reports USGA Director of Championship Agronomy Tim Moraghan. The absence of grass between the clubface and the ball offers the skilled player the best opportunity to control the spin and trajectory of the ball.
     As fairway height increases above 1/2 inch, there is a greater likelihood that grass will be trapped between the ball and the clubface. The chance for "flier" lies is greater at taller mowing heights.

Mowing Technology

     Mowing technology has improved significantly over the past 40 years. Old tractor-drawn 5- and 7-gang pull units of the 1960s and '70s were capable of mowing fairway turfgrass at just below 3/4 inch. Lower mowing heights were not possible with these machines because the bedknife would drag along the ground.
     The next mowing advancement was the 9-gang self-contained unit, with 9-bladed reels that rotated based on the ground speed of the machine. The cutting units were ahead of the tractor for the first time ever. These machines cut the grass without bending the blades with the tractor tires. This produced a higher quality clip, but the mowing height still was limited to just below 3/4 of an inch.
      In the early 1980s, another major advancement occurred with the development of the first hydraulically driven reels with either 5- or 7-gang reels drawn by a tractor. These mowers could cut the fairways at 1/2 inch, but the tractor was ahead of the reels, causing some bending of the grass blades due to the tires.
     In the late 1980s, the first self-contained 5-plex units were developed. These mowers have cutting units ahead of the tractor, similar to the green triplex mowers. Today, these units are made with more durable materials to improve longevity. A grooved front roller has replaced the solid front roller, further reducing the bending of the turfgrass prior to mowing. Articulation of the cutting units also is highly advanced to reduce scalping injury to the turfgrass. Most 18-hole golf courses today have two 5-plex self-contained mowers that easily stay ahead of play with their speed. Mowing at 1/2 inch or even 3/8 inch is easily done with these 5-plex machines, and their cost is now more justifiable to practically all types of courses with either lease or purchase plans.

Turfgrass Species

     The most popular turfgrass species used on golf courses today are hybrid bermudagrass, zoysiagrass, seashore paspalum, creeping bentgrass, Poa annua, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass. All these species except Kentucky bluegrass and zoysiagrass can be mowed well below 1/2 inch and can provide incredibly smooth and tight surfaces.

[Sean_A]

I would say the vast majority of clubs around me (Worcester-Birmingham) have fairways no less than 1/2 inch and more like 3/4 inch most of the time.  A dry period in high summer is the only exception (quite a rare exception) when one might find the grass less than 1/2 inch.  Right now the courses are starting to turn.  Greens are not holding for shots from the rough.  Rightly so.  However, I rarely play greens which stimp at ten.  8 is more like it.  I am finding that many places I play are slowing the greens down, but they are still firm in the summer months.

The combination does usually work.  You don't get many guys shooting in the 60s-and I am talking about courses that will max out at 6500 at most!  Often, the yardage is not much more than 6200 yards.  It is essential to hit fairways from May to October, otherwise you are in the lap of the gods.

Ciao

Sean

[Craig Sweet]

First, no Pat, I won't identify "those link style" courses in Montana and Oklahoma for you. I won't play your game.

Second, each "advancement in mower technology "altered" the playing field....so has irrigation, modern agronomy,the chainsaw, and may other tools that are used daily on golf courses. As someone that works on a golf course I can tell you that the objective is consistancy. Without it, the playing field is altered...daily...weekly...etc.

Third, the "altering" of the playing field at Augusta over the years is  well documented. You know that, but you like to argue.

So, when I see Palmer and other 60's and early 70's era players hammering their putts on Augusta's greens it's because the weather was warm?? Give me a break.

Lastly, I did not say the club and ball were responsible for the changes. I said maintenence practices have evolved and changed the game as much, if not more, than ball and club advancements.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig,

First, no Pat, I won't identify "those link style" courses in Montana and Oklahoma for you. I won't play your game.
It's not a question of playing a game, it's a question of supporting your statements, which you're reluctant or incapable of doing.[/color]

Second, each "advancement in mower technology "altered" the playing field....so has irrigation, modern agronomy,the chainsaw, and may other tools that are used daily on golf courses.

How have any of the above items substantively altered the playing conditions at TOC ?[/color]

As someone that works on a golf course I can tell you that the objective is consistancy.

Who established that objective ?  And, more importantly, in what what condition is consistancy determined  ?

I would imagine that there is a broad spectrum of acceptable conditions, largely determined by Mother Nature, not man.[/color]

Without it, the playing field is altered...daily...weekly...etc.

So, we should expect sunny, 80 degree weather every time we tee it up at TOC ?[/color]

Third, the "altering" of the playing field at Augusta over the years is  well documented. You know that, but you like to argue.

NO, I just like it when someone can support their statements, no matter how wild they might be, with the facts.  You seem unable or unwilling to do so.[/color]

So, when I see Palmer and other 60's and early 70's era players hammering their putts on Augusta's greens it's because the weather was warm??

How familiar are you with Ormond or Common Bermuda ?

How do those greens putt when the grass is dormant versus in the growing season ?[/color]

Give me a break.

Why ?  [/color]

Lastly, I did not say the club and ball were responsible for the changes. I said maintenence practices have evolved and changed the game as much, if not more, than ball and club advancements.

If as you say, the game is now aerial, how can that be possible ?  Air offers far less resistance then turf.

If we only look back 10 years, tell me how maintainance practices have changed the game as much, if not more then the ball and equipment, as you allege ?[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Chicago Golf Club had bluegrass fairways until about 1990, to go along with their quick-coupler fairway irrigation system.  It's one of the reasons the membership stayed relatively small.

A lot of courses in the Midwest had bluegrass fairways in the old days, I believe, before irrigation allowed them to keep the Poa annua alive in the summer months.

[Cliff Hamm]

As I read this thread it would seem that most feel that 3/4" would lower maintenance costs hopefully lowering the cost to play. Good. High handicappers would benefit while low handicappers would have more difficulty.  From my perspective even better.  Some older courses may play more like intended.  If this were to be the norm it would need to include a whole maintenace package - tree removal, wider fairways, less fertilizer, less water, firm fairways and greens.  The end result is more affordable golf that is environmentally better.  What's not to like?

I find it hard to argue that having longer fairway grass would not be a significant improvement to the game even if it had nothing to do with players currently hitting the ball farther than ever At the same time this will never happen as most love their  cars big and their golf courses pristine.

BTW watching today's tournament (now on 1st hole of playoff) Sergio the usual head case, Singh seems not to care and Furyk has fire in his eyes.  I'll bet on Furyk

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cliff,

You're laboring under a false impression.

Low handicap golfers adjust better to different playing conditions then high handicaps do.

Just for fun, could everyone get a ruler out and measure 3/4 of an inch.  Mark it on a piece of paper and take a good look at it, then let me know what you think.

Tom Doak,

In what year did Chicago convert to Bluegrass ?

[Tags:]

Tags: