"The ideal maintenance meld" problem #27!

[TEPaul]

We've talked some about the "ideal maintenance meld" and what it means.

Primarily it means those maintenance practices that are "ideal" to the unique (and different) design intents of any PARTICULAR golf course.

In this way it should be seen that the "ideal maintenance meld", and the necessary maintenace practices to achieve it  on an older classically designed course could and probably should be vastly different from the maintenance practices on a modern aerially designed golf course!

A lot of the "ideal maintenance meld" on a classically designed course involves enhancing the ground game and so firm and fast conditons are necessary on that style and design intent!

But that may not be true or even effective on a modern aerially designed course!

But just to concentrate first on the "ideal maintenance meld" for the classic ground game designed courses (in the context of firm and fast only).

The idea is to bring all the available options that that course was designed to offer back into function and effectiveness!

But even that's complicated! To make all those options (both ground and aerial) necessarily usable for players but particularly the  very good player you need to tweak the maintenance practices of firm and fast to a degree on different areas of the course!

By that I mean even if the ground game is available to a good player why would he use that ground game option if his aerial option was extremely reliable? Naturally he wouldn't use the ground game option even though it was available.

So the only way to make him consider the ground game is to decrease the RELIABILITY of the aerial option to the point that he'll consider and use other options!

There's only one way to do that, and that's to firm up the green surfaces to the degree that his aerial option becomes just unreliable enough to him that he'll consider other things!

And I think I even know what that degree or point of green firmness (not talking green speed only firmness) is! I think it's when the green only lightly "dents" to the aerial approach instead of "pitch marking" and bringing up dirt!!

The only reason I'm posting this again is it seems even this apparently "ideal condition" on this type of course could be problematic!

That's because not all the designs of even classically designed courses (ground game option) have holes that offer a ground game option architecturally!

So what about those holes that don't? What about the firmness of the greens on those holes?

I think it's wrong to make the green surfaces on those holes more receptive to the aerial shot (which might likely be the only option) and thereby somewhat INCONSISTENT with the green firmness on the rest of the course!

But maybe that's the only way!

Obviously another way would be to set pins in places where the ball does not need to stopped quickly (or sucked back).

The other thought would be to just stick with the same firmness throughout (not that reliable to the aerial shot) and force good players to spin the hell out of their shots for maximum control and effective shots on those particular holes. I don't know that today's good players are as good at that as they used to be simply because they really don't have to be (greens surfaces have generally been over-irrigated and receptive for years).

And then the bigger problem is the less good players who don't even know how to spin their approach shots for maximum control on firmer greens and frankly don't even use the types of balls that can do that even if they knew how to do it!

This is all part of the concept of the "ideal maintenance meld" for any particular type of course again recognizing how different maintenance practices may need to be!

This is "the ideal maintenance meld" problem #27 and like all problems it too must have a solution although at the moment I have no idea what that would be?

Do you? Other than just forgetting about the concept of the "ideal maintenance meld" altogether!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Your problem #27 presupposes that a particular hole location should always be accessible.  

A front pin on a firm green with no run-up option might not be, unless one spins the ball incredibly well, as you suggest.  

I don't see what's necessarily wrong with that.  Take #15 at Lulu for instance.  With the "bunker buildup" there, a pin in the front is not something you'd want to mess with, and your thinking becomes where to "miss best".  One might be better off slightly left of the green than on the back with a slick downhiller, but that's what strategy is about.  

Why should a all-carry front pin be any different than an inaccessible hole location "tucked" just behind a deep bunker in the left rear of a green that requires one to either challenge it directly (with high risk of failure), or find the best "miss"?  

Just because it's the front of the green doesn't make it any different in my opinion.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
The good player might use the ground game if the wind is present. The good player will also fashion an aerial shot that is a "fly-over" of the terrain below, basically using the ground game route, only from above.

The "depth of dent" is related to green type. The difference in texture between USGA spec and soil base greens causes the ball to spin well while only leaving small pitch marks on the former while achieving the same effect with the latter requires a softer surface, thereby producing deeper pitch marks. The amount of thatch is also a consideration.

I think it relates to Steve Curry's green speed formula. Go to the green which best represents the quandry of firm/soft and resolve the equation there. Use this around the whole course and if there are some minor differences in stick/no stick, so be it, otherwise it will become a superintendent's nightmare.

[A_Clay_Man]

Wonderful to see the inventor or conceptualizer question the validity of the concept.

There is no doubt that if one green was mush and the next green was rock, you'd hear bitching from here to next sunday. But how else can Golf defend itself against the onslaught of Techno, mind and physical advancements? I say 'lets hear the bitching'. There is no doubt that the colors of said surfaces will be different and it will be up to the players ability to notice such miniscual changes. I once refered to it, or suggested a different mowing pattern for the differences in firmness. I was sumarily thrashed by Brad Klein with sarcastic suggestions of having Billboards, and the like, on the course. I still say it would be the most effective way to convey that "here is something completely different" tread carefully.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I'm not "presupposing" anything exactly in speaking of various  ramifications of the "ideal maintenance meld" on any kind of golf course!

I'm only trying to imagine various reactions and potential complaints from varioius types of players and to keep perfecting the "ideal maintenance meld" concept on any particular type of course to make it the best it can be!

The overall goal or the concept of it is to get all the options any type of course could offer into some kind of a "balance" whereby those options can and will be used as much as possible! But the "balance" is necessary in some applications as some players will not choose certain options even if they are available! Really poor options are the worst but not far behind that are options that can be good but just aren't used!

Essentially that's all the "ideal maintenance meld" is about. But it's not only about degrees of firm and fast and green surface firmness or reliability either! There can be much more! Bunkering, for instance and all that can be for any type of style of course! Mowing patterns and such too--there can be any number of things to consider!

But the interesting thing is that all of it basically falls into the category of "maintenance", not architecture!

The reason I thought of this at all were two things!

1/ NGLA when it was in a maintenance mode the likes of which I'd probably never seen before except Seminole once but that was before my interest in golf architecture and I just never put two and two together, and,

2/ I've seen a number of courses that have done some very good "architectural" restorations and the necessary maintenance practices to make those courses and their restorations work as well as they could just didn't even remotely follow!

At first I thought these things were mistakes but when I started talking to those in the clubs that were in control about it I realized almost to a man it was simply something they never thought of!!

But when you mention how necessary it is for maintenance practices to "meld" into the particular architecture and its design intent, they all seemed to say; "Oh My God, you're right about that!". Later they all seem to say things like; "What could be more logical?!"

[David_Elvins]

TEPaul,

You raise some interesting points although I am not sure what the focus of the tread was.  So if my random ramblings, arent quite on the mark, I apologise.

One of the things I am thinking of here is the island green.  It would appear to me that the ideal maintanance meld for an island green is soft.  I mean it would be funny to see Sawgrass play so firm and fast that players were bumping and running it onto the 17th green (I am sure Mickelson could) but it aint going to happen.  The IDEAL mainanance meld for that hole is a relatively soft green.  The length of the hole however does not mean that the green needs to be very soft.  This is different to an island green on a Par 5 hole.  Here the ideal maintenance meld is a VERY soft green that can be held by long iron and wood shots.  If the green is firmed up at all, then the player must lay up to hit a wedge in and the strategic design (second shot option) of the hole is lost.  

Now, I think it would be very hard to argue against the concept of universal green conditions (firmness and speed) across an entire course.  Therefor, what, I think happens on some courses is a sort of "lowest common denominator" effect.  That is, if one green is required to be soft (because it is on an island, or is fronted by a large water hazard), then all greens must be the same softness, whether it is in that hole's interest from an ideal maintenance meld point of view or not.
Therefor if a course has an island green (or the like) then the maintenace meld that this hole REQUIRES can possibly have a negative effect on the ideal maintenance meld of upto 17 other holes on the course.

You, or other people may have played courses where this has happenned.  I havent, I am just hypothysising.  Could the RTJ led trend of modernising older courses by placing water hazards close to greens have had the effect of altering, for the worse, the ideal maintenance meld of the whole course?  I dont know, maybe someone can answer that.
---------
One course that did spring to mind when I read the topic, and
I know it is uncool to mention it on this site, was Augusta National.  Although weather conditions have not always allowed, I think they have made a reasonable effort, for the Masters tournament, to have firm greens despite the number of hazards that front greens.  What factors allow them to be able to do this?

[TEPaul]

DavidE:

Now you're starting to see it all--primarily that the "ideal maintenance meld" needs to be those maintenance practices that ideally suit the design intent of that particular type of golf course! And that they can be very different course to course!

Certainly TPC Sawgrass could not really be considered a ground game course when one considers a hole like #17! It would be madness to have a maintenance practice that consistently has very firm green surfaces there!

Incidentally one of the best examples I've ever seen of the most "unideal maintenance meld" was Bay Hill this year.

Maintenance practices had made those greens so firm the aerial option was not really working at all! And the ground "through the green", particularly the approaches was so soft that wasn't working at all either!

Apparently the tournament set-up had done a beautiful job of negating almost all the options that golf course had to offer!!

That certainly wasn't lost on the players and even made Palmer admit the problem!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

For once I'm confused.  I think it's self-defining that the ideal MM would vary from course to course, depending on the architecture, but what I thought you were referring to in your initial post is the case where a course that would 80% accommodate very F&F conditions might have a few holes that did not permit anything but an aerial approach.

Merion might be a good example, for instance.  Most holes will accommodate a running approach, particularly if one drives to the correct, most dangerous areas for preferred angles so it would seem ideal to keep the greens at the "dent point" you outlined above.

Yet, you have holes like 8 and 13, which simply require an aerial approach under any circumstances.  Coupled with a front hole location, they would play exceedingly demanding with ultra-firm greens.  

Are you saying they should be maintained differently, or are you in agreement with me that they should be consistently maintained across the board and some hole locations might just not be "accessible" at certain times and it's then up to the golfer to find the right place to "miss"?

Or, are you suggesting something else, or just asking for other's ideas on this conundrum?

[Dan Kelly]

A provocative thesis (not one I'm prepared to support, but one I'd like to hear you better-qualified guys bat about):

Holes like 8 and 13 at Merion, which (I'll take your word for it!) REQUIRE an aerial approach (on a course whose basic design allows and/or encourages the ground game), are, today, sore thumbs, which, in keeping with the modern evolution of technology and maintenance, and to foster the Ideal Maintainance (sic) Meld, should be redesigned to allow the ground game.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

On the latter part of your first paragraph I agree with you but I did post this thread (with that particular question in mind) to see what others thought!

You very well may think that the MM is "self-defining" as necessarily varying from course to course but you probably aren't that aware how different you are from the everyday club Green chairman and member and such!

Why would you think it so "self defining" anyway when most of America is populated with golf courses that have not been that way in about fifty years?

The whole idea of "one size fits all" (maintenance-wise) has been the bugaboo of far too many golf courses for a long time!

[Joe Hancock]

Dan.

Did you take any classes that taught you how to use all those commas like that? Wow....

Just kidding,

Joe

[TEPaul]

Dan:

No way holes like #8 and #13 at Merion are candidates for redesign for some kind of ground game option! Those are holes that should be consistent with the green firmness on the rest of the holes of the course too (that do allow ground game run-up shots) and to play those two holes well a player will just be required to hit a great shot with lots of spin and do the best he can!

The deep dark secret, unfortunately, is that a lot of these balls out there today just don't spin and have the control that the balls used in the early days did!

Obviously that too will have to be explained to golfers over the next fifty years it takes most golfers so long to figure things out! Obviosuly the far easier option to them is to just dump a ton of water on everything!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How would you explain the apparent conflict in your theory that exists at a course such as NGLA  ?

I would cite holes # 1, 3, 4*, 6, 7*, 8, as holes that for many pin positions, were designed to be approached aerially.

Does your theory eliminate options ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Sure, I'd be happy to try to explain it!

But first, why don't you explain to me what you think my "theory" is you're referring to and explain how and why you think there's a conflict? Then I'd be happy to try to explain it!

[Steve Curry]

Hey All,

They often call BHCC Curry Concrete.  Golfers despise firm greens, golf 101, champions adapt!  Though the average golfer complains the greens are too firm most are chipping to the pins anyhow.  I am the type who takes risk hitting to a firm green, hope for just the right shot and deal with the consequences.  A really good golfer should consider laying up if the pin is inaccessible and then chip tight and make par, a good score, no?


We have one green here that isn't receptive to run up shot (it was rebuilt).  People seem to be driven to read the yardage and hit said distance, though the ball continually goes past the stick, my fault.

Steve

[TEPaul]

Fellows:

The post above is from Steve Curry, super at Berkshire Hills. The same Steve Curry referred to in Jim Kennedy's post above in his mention of the 'Steve Curry green speed formula'.

If you think about it surely the solution to this thread's (referred to as "The ideal maintenance meld" problem #27") posed problem would probably be to apply the very same "Steve Curry green speed barometer" formula to the firmness of the green surfaces as Steve apparently applies to his course's greenspeeds! That was the recommendation of Jim Kennedy and it seems to be a logical and good one.

And it's very interesting to hear from Steve himself on this thread and how he handles the firmness problem on his greens!

I've coined a few phrases in my time on here but the one that should logically be the most important to golf would definitely be the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer"!

It's logical and commonsensical, it's course specific and appears to completely solve the problem of allowing A STIMP NUMBER to push green speeds faster and out of control on any golf course and cause problems and ideas of "softening", "recontouring" and "redesigning"!

The "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" doesn't even relie on a stimpmeter really, just identifies that part of a green on the course Steve might want to keep pinnable or usable and uses the speed just under where that area would go over the top and that sets the limit of speed on the greens on the entire golf course! And presumably for the rest of time!

The hell with the "maintenance meld", the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" is the far more valuable term that this site should try to push to go global!

It doesn't even use a stimp number and is complete course specific!

[Joe Hancock]

TEPaul,

AMEN!

Joe