[LBaker]

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.  

Why do the fairways have to be widened?  Tree removal?  Just leave everything the way it is.  THe golfer will have to use different strategy to play the course.  

Have you Played a F&F course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why do the fairways have to be widened?  

Because, over the years many, if not all, fairways have been narrowed considerably.  By irrigation systems, tree plantings, and green committees.

If you retain the narrow fairway and go to F&F, balls will end up in the rough.
Balls in the rough will not stop on F&F greens.
Balls in the rough will end up behind trees planted long after the original course was built.
And, it won't take long before the membership puts an end to that experiment, because, most members are results and fun oriented, and playing F&F on narrow, tree lined fairways will result in a backlash against those conditions.

That's why the issue of F&F must be looked at in a broader, more global context.

Tree removal?  Just leave everything the way it is.

You can't if you want F&F to be more than a fleeting experiment.

THe golfer will have to use different strategy to play the course.

And what strategy is that ?

That the golfer, a 2 to 12 to 22 to 32 handicap will learn to hit drives with laser guided accuracy to fairways that repel and direct any slightly deviant balls into the rough, bunkers or hazards ?

Width is critical to the success of transitioning to F&F conditions, as is cleaning out the corridors of play, ergo, tree removal.

It's a package deal, omit one, and the project is doomed to failure in the long run.  

Have you Played a F&F course?

I have.

Have you ever sat on the governing boards of any clubs ?

[LBaker]

no, I have not sat on a board.  

What I mean about change of strategy is instead of using the big drivers, use a three wood.  Bump and run, low shots, etc.  

Let's agree that it depends on the property what needs to be done.  

Memberships need to be educated throughly not just committee members.  That would be the superintendents and green chairmens mission.  

Thank you Pat.

[Troy Alderson]

"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.  
 

TEPaul,

"Quantify" may have been the wrong word to use.  If a club wanted F&F conditions and they were willing to listen to the Superintendent, in general what would their request look like?  

Actually measuring ball roll, etc is too much.  The "measurement" IMHO should be visual and documented in the club house that this is what F&F should look like on this golf course.

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

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.

Don,

You are right to a point.  I was not looking for numbers, but visual ques and documentation of F&F guidelines that could use for differring types of golf courses.  I am looking for old school clues for F&F for the golfer.

How's the project in Texas coming?

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

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.

To All,

This is what I am talking about.  Visual guides to help determine if a course is F&F.  If the ball does not bounce on the fairway, it's not F&F.  If a ball leaves a crater on the green, it's not F&F.  This is not rocket science, it's knowing when to turn off the water and when to water, it's knowing when to fertilize and not, and it's knowing how to manage the soil.

I think Mr. TEPaul has the right idea, visual clues as to how F&F the course is.  But, it must be documented by the people in charge to have any merit.

Craig,

Get off the health issue.  We know the turf has to be healthy.  I am not asking a course to dehydrate and starve the turf, just lay off a little more.

Lindsey,

Craig knows what he is doing and talking about, you are beating a dead horse by stating the obvious to him.  I understand that different courses have different needs and conditions.  Welcome aboard.

Troy

[Craig Sweet]

Lindsey...I agree...firm and fast supers are managing the soils first. I am just pointing out that there may be some on this site, and out there playing golf, who think all firm and fast conditions are the same and it is all good for the turf and it requires little more than "turning off the water".....especially when compared to lush and wet...that just ain't the case.

[Craig Sweet]

Troy...you can't discuss firm and fast with this group, or any group without first discussing the need for healthy soils/turf....and everything that means....$$$$$ etc.

You use the word "subjectivity" in the thread title....what do you think will happen the first time you show the membership two photos...one of a green and lush course and one of a yellow and green course?

Once you have educated people as to what has to be done and what resourses are needed to maintain firm and fast THEN you can discuss the means for measuring.....or not measuring.

[Kyle Harris]

If anything, Lindsey's point about soil maintenance might be most germaine to this discussion.

Maybe we're obsessing over the grass too much, and not enough over what is just under the surface?

How much does thatch contribute (or perhaps more correctly, take away) to firm and fast conditions?

Absent frequent verticutting and aeration how does one manage thatch?

As for the title of the thread, F&F is extremely subjective. The Ideal Maintenance Meld for a golf course is based on the subjective analysis of the shot demands of the course. If a membership wants their course to challenge the aerial game, a softer course is the IMM, if not - then firmer.

[TEPaul]

"If a membership wants their course to challenge the aerial game, a softer course is the IMM, if not - then firmer."

Kyle:

I'm not so sure I'd say that. In my opinion, the IMM for any golf course is to highlight basically what it's design intent is.

If you want to really challenge a membership's aerial game perhaps softer LZs and firmer green surfaces would be what is called for. But I'd think even a firmer and faster course throughout would still challenge the aerial game if the greens were firm.

To me the key to the IMM on most classic courses is to dial down the receptiveness of the greens to a particular degree.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

no, I have not sat on a board.  

It's an education experience, to say the least.
Each special interest group lobbies through their emissary to have the course play to their particular needs.  It's a difficult balancing act for the superintendent if he's not supported by a strong board and/or president

What I mean about change of strategy is instead of using the big drivers, use a three wood.  Bump and run, low shots, etc.

How many club golfers possess those skills ?
The club pros would benefit in that lessons might increase, but, the natural reaction to a change in conditions that the golfer finds difficulty in coping with, is to lobby against them, and to insist on a return to the former conditions, where the golfer feels more comfortable.

This is a process that needs the unyielding and unanimous support of the green committee board and president, for without that, devisiveness can cause a reversion to L&G  

Let's agree that it depends on the property what needs to be done.  

I think all would agree that it's site dependent, but, if you examine the general trends over the last 50 years, fairways
have been narrowed considerably, and in order to properly accomodate F&F, in general, they have to be widened

Memberships need to be educated throughly not just committee members.  That would be the superintendents and green chairmens mission.

It's certainly the responsibility of the club leadership, green committee, board and president.

Most clubs discourage members from interacting with the superintendent, and my experience has taught me that that's a sound policy.  The green chairman should be the intermediary between the super and the membership, otherwise, 400 members will think they're his boss, and chaos will reign.

It's certainly not an easy or quick task  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()