[Troy Alderson]

With all this talk of firm and fast, I realized that F&F is subjective.  Many golfers today might actually think today's conditions on US golf courses are F&F.  I think F&F must be defined quantitatively.  Each course must define some parameters for the course that show F&F to the golfers of that course.  Greens and approaches... tees and fairways... roughs...  Of course this means that the color green must not be a factor during drought seasons and the golfers must come to understand that brown turf IS NOT DEAD.

Is there merit to this?  Or do we continue to fight for decades to come over F&F playing conditions?

Troy

[TEPaul]

"I think F&F must be defined quantitatively."

Troy:

I've been saying that for over a year now and on here sometimes.

To define F&F quantitatively you've got to quantify bounce and roll-out of the golf ball in two distinct areas, and in my opinion you have to specifically quantify it in yards. The other area is the green surface.

To me a course in good F&F condition, what I call the IMM would be something like this:

1. LZs and fairways 40-50+ yards of bounce and rollout

2. Approaches 20-30+ yards of bounce and rollout depending on a shot's trajectory.

3. Green surfaces that lightly dent to a well struck 9 iron from a good player from the fairway----eg no suck back. Pitch mark analysis is the key to the ideal degree of green surface firmness.

I played a couple of courses this year in this F&F conditon and it was just so interesting to play. One of them was Oakmont. It had the most ideal MM I've yet seen. And it wasn't even brown but that my friend costs money---lots and lots of money.  
 

[LBaker]

TEPaul,

At Hvcc, we have F&F conditions and it doesn't cost lots and lots of money to make the course green.  I would like to know how you know that green grass costs a fortune to manage?

Lindsey  

[TEPaul]

Lindsey:

It doesn't take that much money to keep a course green but to keep it as firm and fast and a light green like Oakmont, Aronimink, Merion etc were in August with no rain takes a lot of syringing and that takes a lot of man-hours and that costs.

[RJ_Daley]

How about this as a method to measure actual firm and fast?

Take something similar to a potato gun.  Have a chamber that can expell compressed air, into a breach that has a golf ball loaded as a projectile.  Have a guage that measures up the PSI that can be applied to the projectile.  Have it so you can vary the PSI and dial it in.  Have a barrell that the golf ball shoots out of.  

Point the device at a fairway at a controled distance and specific angle.  Say on an angle into the ground of 45* and 10ft from from the muzzel to the ground.  Shoot the thing off at whatever PSI is needed to achieve the average drive/speed of a golf ball hitting the ground if it were a shot that would have gone 275 in the air and came down on a 45* angle.  Then, from that point where it hit the ground, measure the distance traveled by the ball in height of bounce, and the distance it goes before coming to rest.

Now for the greens, tone down the PSI speed somewhat, increase the angle of the dangle, and repeat the measurement.

It seems to me that would be a potentially quantifiable method to measure F&F.  

Tom, we all actually know it when we see it.  The lack of appreciable ball marks on a green that just took a nice 9 iron in, leaving no ball mark, or the run of a ball down a fairway after a nice drive.  Yet, we don't really have a number.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom, we all actually know it when we see it."

RJ:

Maybe you do but that's not exactly the same thing as communicating it to people who really don't understand it at all.

I don't think anyone needs any potato guns or PSI, all they have to do is just watch a golf course and they can tell in ten minutes.

But again, it's not just recognizing it, it's communicating it to the super and to memberships. If you tell him you'd like to see 50 yards of roll on the LZs, 20-30 on the approaches and a light dent on the green surface from a really good 9 iron from the fairway whenever weather allows and as soon as possible when weather allows you'll have gotten on the same page at least.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Good golf course maintenance isn't going to be measured by quantitative methods or statistical formulas. The science of turfgrass management has, in many ways advanced the conditions of our golf courses. But, IMO the science has gone to far as more and more researchers and the like try and turn golf course management into some sort of repeatable science project. Supers don't need to be out stimping fwys or dragging pentrometers around, they just need to be out there paying attention to the conditions and making the appropriate decisions. All this talk about coming up with some type of formula to measure F & F is nuts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

You're correct.

I'd rather keep the term "F&F" as a general, desired condition, rather than a quantifiable goal.
Mostly due to the whimsical nature of the factors that affect the attainment and retention of F&F.

The problem with "each club" determining what F&F means to them is that they may not be ojective, qualified to assess, or knowledgeable.

And, whom, at each club, would set the standards and measure the progress and the attainment of the ideal goal ?

In the ultimate, only the superintendent, who's charged with the care of the golf course can determine how best to achieve and retain F&F.  Micro managing the superintendent is rarely a good idea, especially when those doing the micro managing are unqualified to do so.

Going from L&G to F&F is no quick journey.

It's best to understand the steps necessary to achieve F&F prior to embarking upon the journey, and it's best to let the person most qualified to measure the progress of the journey, lead the way on HIS terms.

Give him the direction and the funds, and then get out of the way.

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ,

I like your proposed invention a helluva lot better than the Stimpmeter.  

[TEPaul]

DonM and Patrick:

What the hell are you guys talking about?

Nobody needs some potato PSI stimpmeter or whatever the hell is being proposed on here to determine if a golf course is in a conditon of ideal firmness (IMM).

All a super needs to do is go out on the course and watch some golf balls for Christs Sakes. What's the danger or problem in doing that?

[Craig Sweet]

Its funny, but in all this talk about firm and fast conditions NO ONE has said anything about the health of the turf....you can have firm greens that show little or no pitch marks, you can have fairways that roll 40 yards, and you can call it the "ideal maintinance meld" or whatever you want, but you are saying NOTHING about the health of the turf....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Perhaps you missed my comments about the superintendent's role in this.

TEPaul,

It's not that simple.

The green committee and board have to "buy into" the project first, and then it's up to the superintendent to embark upon the objective, WITH the committee's and board's support.

[LBaker]

Patrick,
The membership will know about F&F before the superintendent starts the process.  The course is going to have visible stress and minor turf loss.  A vote among the greens committee, board of Gov., etc. would have to be made to go to this type of conditioning.  The budget has to be revamped.  Absolutely the membership will be educated.  Come on.

Craig,
It's proven that turf is much healthier on a firm and fast golf course.  Turf is healthiest when tiddering life and death.  A Superintendent that manages F&F knows turf better than a L&G super.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

It's not that simple.

The green committee and board have to "buy into" the project first, and then it's up to the superintendent to embark upon the objective, WITH the committee's and board's support."

Patrick:

Obviously a super has to get a green committee to buy into firm and fast. What I said is if a super, or anyone else, wants to determine what ideal firm and fast conditons ARE IN PLAY, all they need to do is go out on the golf course and watch the ball, and yes it is just that simple Patrick!!

[Adam Clayman]

Craig does come from climes that will test the overall principle of F&F.

However, there is a difference between unhealthy turf and turf that has a brown or yellow patina.

The aspect of maintenance that I don't get is the practice of watering just before play in the morning.

In regions of high ET's it's best to wait until twilight to try to get an unpredictable bounce.

[Craig Sweet]

Firm and fast is a nice term, and may even be the ideal playing condition, but it is not as simple as "turning off the water", nor is it as simple as having a gaggle of maintinance workers "syringing" all day long....

Lindsey, I'd becareful making such a broad statement regarding "firm and fast" and turf health....at your course that is the case, but at the muni down the street the conditions might be firm and fast and the turf in poor condition....

Maintinance practices, and money, as well as a comitment to the final product is necessary...otherwise you end up with brown turf in piss poor condition...

[Craig Sweet]

Adam...I think the muni I work on approaches firm and fast in July and August....however....we put 700,000 gals. of water on the course every evening to keep the grass alive...out here it is pretty light until 9:30...10pm....our irrigations kicks on at about 9:45pm....fairways get about 20 minutes per station and greens a little more....by 6AM we have golfers on the course and the irrigation is JUST finishing up....

Given additional resources we might be in a position, with time, to change that....but we would have to drastically change the quality of our turf....health wise that is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The membership will know about F&F before the superintendent starts the process.  

The course is going to have visible stress and minor turf loss.  A vote among the greens committee, board of Gov., etc. would have to be made to go to this type of conditioning.  The budget has to be revamped.  Absolutely the membership will be educated.  Come on.


Lindsey,

The majority of the membership won't have a clue.

They have neither the interest nor the inclination to delve into the issue, let alone be educated on it.

Memberships tend to be results oriented, prefering to skip the labor pains and just enjoy the newly arrived addition.

They rely on the committees and board to run the club and make the decisions for them.

Ask them what Fast & Firm means and they'll tell you it's the quality of the women at Rachel's.

Some clubs send "state of the club/project" letters in an attempt to keep members in the loop.  Others just do the work without much in the way of fanfare.

There are exceptions to every rule.
There are clubs with highly active memberships, clubs who watch every penny, and clubs where the membership couldn't care less.  But, in general, a genuinely educated membership is hard to find.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,

It's not that simple.

The green committee and board have to "buy into" the project first, and then it's up to the superintendent to embark upon the objective, WITH the committee's and board's support."

Patrick:

Obviously a super has to get a green committee to buy into firm and fast. What I said is if a super, or anyone else, wants to determine what ideal firm and fast conditons ARE IN PLAY, all they need to do is go out on the golf course and watch the ball, and yes it is just that simple Patrick!!

Watch the ball do WHAT ?

Under what conditions ?

At what time of year ?

In what general weather pattern ?

How often ?

At what time of day ?

You've got so much to learn, Grasshopper, and I only have so much time.

[Doug Siebert]

DonM and Patrick:

What the hell are you guys talking about?

Nobody needs some potato PSI stimpmeter or whatever the hell is being proposed on here to determine if a golf course is in a conditon of ideal firmness (IMM).

All a super needs to do is go out on the course and watch some golf balls for Christs Sakes. What's the danger or problem in doing that?

Well, that same argument works against the stimpmeter as well.  Just because the stimpmeter has been abused by some doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool in the right hands.  Your perception of "fast" versus "too fast" may well be different than mine, so without numbers it becomes subjective.  We can still argue over whether 11 or 11.5 is the limit for "too fast", of course, but at least it puts numbers on it so others who weren't there that day to observe can chime in with their opinions.

Works the same way with firmness.  What's "too soft", "firm enough" and is there a "too firm"?  We can stand alongside a green and watch approaches come in and argue over whether the green could benefit from some additional firmness.  If a shot is hit by Tiger versus me, even if it appears to be pretty similar in the air could do completely different things once it lands and that might affect our perceptions of the firmness of the green.  If we know its a 23.4 firmness factor, we can ignore the fact that Tiger somehow stopped it in five feet while it took my ball 25 feet to stop when deciding whether the green is firm enough.

It might even provide a standardized way to determine when the PGA plays lift and cheat.  If their standardized test causes the ball to plug, or to pick up enough mud as to increase the ball's measured weight by 5% or more, they put that rule into effect.  Though based on some of the jumbo sized globs of mud I had attached to my ball when I played last week and didn't clean off and still hit close to the hole, I think the pros ought to quit whining and play it as it lies so long as it isn't plugged!

[TEPaul]

"Watch the ball do WHAT ?

Under what conditions ?

At what time of year ?

In what general weather pattern ?

How often ?

At what time of day ?"

GOLFCLUBATLASERS, this is what's wrong with some clubs and some people in them. What is this "Twenty Questions" time? One suggests something that's not exactly rocket science like trying to get some firmness on a classic golf course and some big mouth has to ask twenty different questions about how it's going to be determined.

I've suggested a good goal would be 40-50+ in LZs (fairways), 20-30 in approaches and green surfaces that lightly dent to a good 9-iron from a good player from the fairway.

It's a goal. It can be achieved when weather and conditions permit. It's not going to happen when it's just rained 1 1/2". The idea is to get the course back to that firmness playability as quickly as possible. Maintenance needs to transition the grass towards a playability goal, and that one seems like a reasonable one to me. Hey if some club wants to set a goal to a bit more or a bit less, so what?

If the ball runs 60-70 yards one day on some fairway or 20 on another you don't need to freak out and get concerned. The ideal firmness bounce and roll is just a goal the super can sort of work his grass towards.

"Through the Green" areas do not need a stimpmeter or this firmness meter I hear the USGA is thinking of coming up with.

My dad who was a good competitive amateur and one I call a "transition" player (from the old ground game golf to the newer aerial era) used to say about teaching the game and how to play it----"Let the ball be your teacher".

The same is true with a maintenance program to get some of these over irrigated golf courses back to their ground game component to function in play. Just let the ball be your guide---eg go out there and watch the golf ball of your players. Watch it bounce and roll along the ground.

That's what our guy has been doing for the last few years. I'm sure that's what HVGC's Scott Anderson did to tranistion his course over to F&F (he and they were one of the very first over twenty years ago). That's what Merion's Matt Shaeffer does---eg watches his course to see how golf balls function on it in play. That's what NGLA's Bill Sallenetti does, John Goesslin, Alan Easter, John Zimmers etc, etc. That's what supers need to do to maintain their grass towards a functional firm and fast program.

Patrick, you can think of more reasons and more questions than anyone I've ever seen not to do the things you apparently would like to do . Why is that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

That's what our guy has been doing for the last few years.

I'm sure that's what HVGC's Scott Anderson did to tranistion his course over to F&F (he and they were one of the very first over twenty years ago).

That's what Merion's Matt Shaeffer does---eg watches his course to see how golf balls function on it in play. That's what NGLA's Bill Sallenetti does, John Goesslin, Alan Easter, John Zimmers etc, etc. That's what supers need to do to maintain their grass towards a functional firm and fast program.

TEPaul,

I could have saved you all of that typing in your response.

In case you've forgotten, I advised that the best course of action was to give the superintendent the authority and the funds to achieve F&F and then get out of his way.

Do you notice a similarity, a consistancy, in who's doing the measuring ?  It's the superintendent, not some half assed member/s.

The superintendent understands the turf better than anyone else, and, if given the tools and the support he can achieve F&F conditions without member micro management and meddling.

Your method would have every huckleberry measuring roll and critiquing daily play.

My method removes the members from the process and lets the superintendent do his job, UNENCOMBERED, hence, he'll achieve the goal sooner.

Patrick, you can think of more reasons and more questions than anyone I've ever seen not to do the things you apparently would like to do . Why is that?

It's a fail safe device, it prevents people from going off half cocked and half assed before understanding many of the undiscovered issues that will affect the outcome.

It's better to address a problem before it arises rather then address it for the first time when it arises.

[Craig Sweet]

I'm not sure why we have to measure anything. Eventually the superintendent is "managing" for the stimpmeter or the fairway stomper and is no longer thinking healthy turf first....

[LBaker]

Criag,

Let's get something striaght.  F&F superintendents are managing soils first then turf.  If your soils, by incorporating organic agents, have good ph, organic matter, mineral and nutrient levels, the turf will become self sufficient to a certain extent.  THe idea is to give the plant what it needs to become stress tolerant on it's own.  This might be hard to believe but that's my program and it works.  

The turf is very healthy if the nutrient levels are where they're supposed to be.  Brown or yellow turf is not indicating bad management or unhealthy turf.  Actually, if the turf is lush and fat, it's more susceptable to stress and disease.  That's a fact!

 Patrick,
Maybe the muni down the street doesn't have the irrigation, good help or motivation to grow healthy turf.  I thought we were discussing private clubs?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Maybe the muni down the street doesn't have the irrigation, good help or motivation to grow healthy turf.  I thought we were discussing private clubs?

We are.

But, before a golf course can be morphed from L&G to F&F
several things have to occur.

Fairways have to be widened vis a vis fairway lines and tree removal, irrigation systems realigned and additional funds infused into the operating budget.

I don't care what club you're at, those are all big items by themselves, that get even bigger when combined.

If going to F&F was so easy, every club would have done it by now.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()