Courses whose lights really come on when firm and fast.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom/Patrick,

Isn't that why it's called the ideal maintenance meld?

Firm and slow may be the calling card for a lot of greens - Jeffersonville and Schuylkill come to mind.

[TEPaul]

"Tom/Patrick,
Isn't that why it's called the ideal maintenance meld?"

Kyle:

Yes, definitely. The "Ideal maintenance meld" is designed to be course specific, and very much the opposite of a "one size fits all" maintenance philosophy.

I think we've had about enough of a "one size fits all" maintenance philosophy in this country in the last 50 years or so. In that era and in that "one size fits all" American maintenance philosophy the ground game with all its beauty and excitement became virtually extinct and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that just isn't right for good golf.

[ForkaB]

Pat

By your criterion, Olympic(Lake) would play better slow and soft rather than fast and firm.  I disagree.

Rich,

Why do you feel it's necessary to go to an extreme with respect to achieving the conditions that are best suited for the architecture of a particular golf course ?

There's far more to course conditions then Slow & Soft and Fast & Firm.

Patrick

I know that and knew it even before Tom Paul told you, since I taught him everything he knows about fast and firm-- although the poor boy really hasn't completely grasped the concept......yet (we still have hope for him....).

The question was and is (just to simplify it for you), "Do you think that Olympic (Lake)--having lots of doglegs and unusual slopes (e.g. reverse cambers)--play better "fast and firm" or not "fast and firm"?

Thanks, in advance.

[Rick Shefchik]

I haven't seen anyone bring up rough in this discussion, but it seems to me that courses that are lined with 4-6" thick rough to do not necessarily light up when the fairways and greens are firm and fast. Your 100 yards of rollout can be reduced to 5 or 10 if you land close to either side of the fairway, and at that point, you aren't in a position to benefit from, or even try to play for, firm and fast conditions. You're just hacking.

Or is it not generally possible to grow that kind of rough coupled with the kinds of firm conditions discussed here? I'm thinking of some of the excellent Midwest parkland courses I know, and can't quite picture them getting their lights on and growing their usual rough, too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

It's been a while since I played the Lake Course at Olympic so I'd have to defer to the wisdom of others who are more familiar with the golf course.

TEPaul,

I have to give you credit for coining the phrase that's behind the concept of the "maintainance meld" and for targeting the concept of determining and targeting the "ideal" maintainance meld.

Sadly,
It's a concept that few understand and even fewer employ.

[TEPaul]

"Sadly,
It's a concept that few understand and even fewer employ."

Patrick;

All things in good time AND all good things in time, my man!

As for saying that few understand the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" for courses such as yours and mine----how hard is it to understand that the ideal playability that you're attempting to consistently achieve is potentially at least 40-70 yards of roll-out on drives, about 20-30 yards through open approaches and greens that just lightly dent to a well struck 9 iron from the fairway?

I know you think most all memberships are idiots but the above "playability" is easy enough for even idiots to understand.

Of course they also have to realize it can only be done when weather permits.

Defining the "ideal" playability (maintenance meld) for any particular course is a snap. The hard part is to get clubs and memberships to understand and accept that the necessary maintenance practices to get there could take a few years of transitioning their grass and in that transition period there probably will be some turf loss.

[JESII]

What I was really looking for was which courses are presented on terrain that really enhances the experience as you move up the firm/fast chart? Of the early list I would agree with pretty much all that I've played, PV, Merion, Shinnecock (although to a lesser degree than the others), HVCC.

Rick, I would also suggest that the 4"-6" rough lining real firm fairways should not be there. My own personal maintenance philosophy (purely philosophical, not licensed to practice  ) would be to maintain the entire golf course with the same mentality. My sole issue with the manner in which the USGA sets up its courses for the US Open is the amount of water it puts on the rough to get the height and lushness it does. I much prefer dry crusted up fairways and rough. I like the idea of a ball running off-line that just will not stop.

Pat, I think each course does have its "IDEAL", and I would disagree with Tom Paul putting any sort of number as far as roll-out goes because one player may hit the ball much higher than another and so 75 yards of roll for one might be 25 yards of roll for another. The point of the question was (and while I have not played those 3 north Jersey courses you mentioned, I bet they would be great at their "IDEAL") which courses demand an exponential increase in focus and attention when they get UP?