What's so good about firm and fast?

[Jimbo]

Okula: I second the nomination.

TX: You could just forget about hiring the backhoe, sell your thesaurus, forget about the USGS research, and buy a $10 probe, adjust the time on your sprinklers, and do a little handwatering.  Then, take the savings and throw the crew a party.

Jimbo
Pragmatist/Former Hydrogeologist

[Tim Weiman]

Dan Kelly:

Thanks for your comments. Whenever I start a thread, I hope some good will come out of it. Honestly, I was beginning to feel I goofed and hijacked my own thread with the title "What's so good about firm and fast?"

Anyway, I agree with your observation that very little is done through major media to promote firm and fast. To the contrary, lush Augsta green is praised and often the brown conditions of British Open venues is treated as somehow inferior.

Then, you add what Steve Wilson called "concrete and pudding" and no wonder advocacy of "firm and fast" in the US is still quite limited.

Tom Pauls write about the commitment to firm and fast at some elite clubs. I'm happy to hear Tom's approval, especially when it comes to the work my friend John Zimmers is doing at Oakmont. But, I'll be more impressed when the major media start giving this concept its due.

Thanks again for picking up what I was trying to bring out. Now if only I could figure out whether selecting provacative titles does any good!

[TEPaul]

Steve Okula, JHancock, Dan kelly:

Great posts today--really good ones! I think we're starting to come together on this or at least we're all a bit more aware of where each of us is coming from on this.

Joe Sixpack??

Look, I sure don't want to come across like I don't care about what Joe Sixpack wants in golf--I do care a lot about that. But honestly I really don't know what he wants--I depend on some of you to tell me what he wants. I hear things like he's just part of the 99% who are basically the unwashed in golf and he would resist any consideration about what's interesting in golf architecture and maintenance--like firm and fast conditions on courses that are designed for that.

So what am I supposed to think? If I hear he couldn't give a damn about the beauties of firm and fast conditions on good architecture why would I beat my head against the wall trying to convince him?

But if you tell me he might be interested I would do anything to help to try to educate him to the things he may not know but might be interested in.

My overall feeling about golf and its architecture and probably maintenance conditions is there's a lot of difference and I actually look at that as a good thing.

People like my good friend TommyN seems to think that hopefully and eventually all golf and its architecture should be the same--strategic and of a particular style or type.

It's a noble thought I'm sure but I don't believe that will ever happen and I even believe it doesn't need to, and have said that to him a number of times. But TommyN is a real purist and that's OK too, I'm sure. I think difference in golf architecture and even the conditions of it may be a good thing as long as people get what they think they want after they open their minds--if that's what they want to do.

"Golf and it's architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What are your thoughts about Charles River and what was posted on that other thread?  That's the uphill battle I've been talking about.  Here you have a prominent club that's always played F&F, then all of a sudden it's lush and green and 90% of the members are going ga ga over it and don't want it changed back  
Mark

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

I can't speak to the situation at Charles River, but wonder if we could say:

a) preference for firm and fast is an acquired taste
b) opportunities to acquire this taste are limited in the US

My enjoyment comes from many experiences across the pond rather than anything I've experienced in the States.

During my one visit to Whistling Straits, I thought the course offered some links like shotmaking opportunities, but none of my friends even considered it. Hitting a six iron for a 150 yard shot and landing it fifty yards short just isn't something they have ever done.

[Steve Lang]

TXseve,

I nominate that post for The Most Pedantic Ever.

...THANKS, gee whiz...Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

...Hey it was lunchtime, ... this is really basic sh.. in the real world of engineering, nothing trivial about physical causality... imagine that F&F could be defined , verified and reproduced on will by a little practical application... ooops that wouldn't be donnish!!! You sayin that the folks here or Supts. can't learn beyond Water Sprinklers for Dummies... that would seem to be the case... that ain't friggin subtle.


 Congratulations on being the first person ever to suggest glaciation is relevant to golf course irrigation.

...I guess its all dirt to you, I'm glad I didn't talk about particle size distributions or soil analyses... or Clay-brains!

A "commonsense approach" combined with  "...nested level piezometers.."  If only we knew!

.....Exactly, my GCA comrade... if only you knew your water balance, I'd wager you could become a hero to the 1% and grow it to 5%... wouldn't that be something?

I never met the GCS who goes out with a backhoe to determine irrigation requirements.

...perhaps more architects should, and take their augers with them before they obliterate access of surface waters to natural drainage features...

A good superintendent will note the evapo-transpiration rate, use a hand-held soil probe to check, refer to his own experience with the site, consider the desires of his bosses, the paying customers, and apply water judiciously.

...doesn't sound like there's many good supts. from the F&F threads of the last several weeks... that hand probe approach is sort of like licking your finger and holding it up to the wind... better than nothing...

I've ben a GCS for 20 years and never used the word "vadose".

...you haven't???  you've never been interested in groundwater contamination???  Have you never had a gasoline spill or lost some oil to the ground and wondered where it went???

I have used effluent water a lot. the USGA isn't taking the approach you describe because it would either befuddle or alienate everyone who needs to make a living in the golf industry.

... I can accept that.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I just can't answer that on Charles River because I don't know the course but in a couple of weeks I think I might have a better idea.

But I'm not the one to ask about that--Ed Baker and Dave Miller are--they know their stuff and they are members.

Tom

[Steve Lang]

Okula: I second the nomination.

TX: You could just forget about hiring the backhoe, sell your thesaurus, forget about the USGS research, and buy a $10 probe, adjust the time on your sprinklers, and do a little handwatering.  Then, take the savings and throw the crew a party.

Jimbo
Pragmatist/Former Hydrogeologist

JImbo,
Guess former hydrogeologist says it all... tired of hollow stem augers, flicking through cuttings with your penknife and logging borings, interpolating miles of isopleth contours for clients with little information to calibrate all those assumptions and trying to develop wells?  I don't blame you...

Do you prefer draft or bottle?

[Steve Lang]

TEP

...look closely...

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Good thread.  Some observations:

1.  Fast and Firm is an ephemeral condition, which comes and goes with the weather, the skills of the superintendent and the predilections of the greens committee.  On any course.  Anywhere in the world.  There is no good or great course of which I am aware that plays F&F (as this DG defines it) more than a few months of any year.

2.  Even in those places where F&F is more common (i.e. GBI), the vast majority of golfers prefer green and lush, just as in the US.  Where do you think the burghers of St. Andrews take their golfing holidays?  Machrihanish?  Carnoustie?  Dornoch?  No.  They go to Spain or Portugal or Central Florida or Myrtle Beach, ride thier carts, drink their beers and are as happy as pigs in slop.

3.  The reason that the august list of clubs TEP metnioned are trying F&F is the same answer to that age-old question as to why dogs lick their balls, i.e. "BECAUSE THEY CAN!"  They do not have to worry about pissing off their customers or about where the money is going to come from if they need to increase the maintenance staff.  Yes, they also probably have a higher proportion of "serious" golfers too, but as Ed B has said about a similar club, don't underestimate the predilection of even "serious" golfers at good ole' traditional clubs to like that green and lush stuff on the ground.

4.  F&F sorts out the men from the boys, in golfing terms.  While it can flatter the geezer who suddenly is hitting his drives as far as in the days when he was wrestling Betty Lou in the back seat of his father's Bentley, it also means that that same geezer is now going to have to hit his second shot from a tight lie.  Its surprising how much harder it is to get a 5-wood airborne with an aging sweeping swing when your ball isn't teed up on an inch of grass.  The bigger hitters are going to have to be not just long, but straight.  Hitting it 320 but seeing the last 30-40 or that consisting of the pelota bounding into the gunge is not a pretty sight.  Dan Kelly was right about the need for central "hazards" for a course to really take advantage of F&F.  This is, perhaps, a limitation at Merion, e.g.  Of course, as TEP has said, the green complexes get very complex when F&F is in full flow.

5.  To me a realistic objective for any course, anywhere, is to try to incorporate many of the effects of F&F, if not F&F itself.  Things such as shaving green sides, particularly at the bunker surrounds.  Underwatering the approaches to greens that allow, architecturally, bump and run alternatives.  Setting up central "hazards" or bottlenecks to make the bombers think a bit.  Thinning out and underwatering the rough so mishit balls will roll further away from the preferred line of play.

6.  Finally, of the many very good and widely travelled players I know who regularly play on links courses, I know of none who would want a daily diet of F&F.  As links change with the seasons, so does the experience of playing them, and if there has been an overnight rain and the course is playing a bit softer and longer, you just play it as you find it.  You don't go checking the weather reports to find a dryer course to play on!  Anymore than you delibverately hit into the Devil's Ashole just to see what it is like.  Or do you.......

End of rant

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I think # 4 may be the culprit.

The hard distance ball doesn't take well to firm greens, from the fairway and especially the rough.  
Nor does it perform well for pitches and chips.
It elevates the required skill level beyond the players ability.

Lush conditions can eradicate the need for skill, hence, the popularity of lush, green, soft, spongey golf courses.

Water can camoflage, and is some cases is a superintendents defense, agronomically and politically.

Added to this is the perception that GREEN is beautiful, as evidenced every year at The Masters.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I'm not a soil or turf expert, but I would guess that several factors would determine if firm and fast is even possbile. For example I doubt golf courses in my neck of the woods - where clay is often found - could possibly play as firm and fast as a sand based links by the sea.

Firm and fast may be an unrealistic goal, perhaps some superintendants can speek to its practicality in various locations. Personally I'd be a satisfied with semi-firm and medium slow or not soft and fairly fast. Depending on temps, rain, soil, etc. you may have some softness that is unavoidable. I would be super happy with simply having the option of playing a pitch and run at the courses that were designed for that option - like Ohio State, Lost Dunes and many others.

[Matt_Ward]

In my mind it's quite simple -- is the bounce of the ball a fundamental part of the game? If you answer yes then you understand the nature of why "firm and fast" is important.

If you answered "no" then you believe otherwise.

The marriage of the air and ground game is essential to the development of the highest level of shotmaking expertise  AND it adds to the enjoyment of all levels of players.

Many players of standing can play point-to-point golf. You look at a specific target and hit at it with the knowledge the ball will stop quite quickly. HELLO! That's boring and utterly predictable.

The public at large is ignorant of what golf can and should be. The lush nature of courses is appealing because the "green is good" mentality is pushed by a range of influencers in the game.

Clearly, there are soil types and parts of the country where the "bounce" cannot be so easily incorporated. I often find courses in those areas to be LESS compelling than those that do. I'm in south Florida now on business and it really drains my interest in the game when you play on bermuda fairways which act like shock absorbers for nearly every shot you hit.

If you believe in the "bounce" then you believe in firm and fast. Those who argue otherwise see golf, in my opinion, as a different game from what I understand it to be. Case closed.

[Slag Bandoon]

 Infusion of luck/unluck.  Amplification of land/ball effects.  It's funner to watch the ball roll than fly - more variables and suspense.

[Lefty Mace]

Matt
You understand the game well, as illustrated by your love for prarie golf and links golf. I feel for those who live Florida who are cursed by their local, those in middle America and those who are stuck with those parkland courses in the East.

Have you played Red Mike?

And what are your favorite British links for F/F?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

That was a good post of yours--you hit most of the salient points!

Just one point on a major misperception of Firm and fast! No one who understands this stuff is advocating that firm and fast is a condition that transcends seasonality and rain. It just doesn't happen when the course gets wet naturally but the point is to let the course dry out naturally and get back to firm and fast on its own. There is no reason to have soft lush conditions when the weather is good. Recovery rates from natural wetness is very variable but that's just the way it is. This isn't supposed to be a condition for everyday, every month etc, but one that should be when the weather permits! That is if the club and course is dedicated to firm and fast.

Matt's right for certain architecture, the bounce of the ball was more than half the game and now generally it's a small percentage. No reason not to bring it back as much as possible on some architecture that's designed for it.

My suspicion about one of the real future obstacles to firm and fast conditioning isn't really going to be the concern about losing a lush green look (as most say) it's going to be something you said in the middle of your #4!! That is that on really good firm and fast conditions "through the green" less skilled player really do have a hard time getting the ball in the air. I have no idea how to overcome that inherent obstacle!!

But for good players the best way to bring back the ground game option in NOT just to firm up the course "through the green" and on the approaches, it's to ALSO dial up the firmness of the green surfaces!!

You can have firm conditions and the runup approach options available to good players all day long but they will never think to use it until you dial down on the RELIABILITY of the aerial game shot to the green to the necessary extent! That's when the balance of decision making becomes apparent and they start to try what they think will be best or least worst!!

Somewhere in that conditon and balance is the "ideal maintenance meld" where all the options are not only available but start to be used, and not so much because of preference but because of what golfers think is necessity!

Tom MacWood is also very right that generally clay based or dense subsoiled golf courses will have a much more difficult time achieving firm and fast conditions "through the green". It can be done--because it's already been proven but it takes research and sometimes a complex remedial process--but it can definitely be done--but it costs, of course!

[Matt_Ward]

Lefty Mace:

The Links at Red Mike Resort in Ray, SD is an interesting layout. The Stephen Kay course though is not as firm and fast as Wild Horse when I played it although it is not soft by any means. I played the course about four years ago and I don't believe many raters from any golf publication have been there because it so remote.

I like the course in certain spots -- the long par-4 15th and the devilish par-3 17th are two of the stronger holes you can play -- especially when the breeze picks up.

Can't really comment about courses overseas because of limited exposure.

Let me also add that I agree that from the standpoint of practicality the idea of firm and fat cannot be duplicated in areas of heavy clay and the like. Ditto when playing bermuda areas during the season. For that reason I really can't stand playing golf in Florida for the most part. When you play in the Sunshine State in the summer it's almost always the point-to-point game.

Let me also mention that many courses in the Northeast are still very SLOW to understand the meaning and benefit of F&F. I played Garden City GC last year and the course was simple overwatered beyond any doubt.

I also cam back from a recent trek to New Mexico and a variety of superior courses -- Paa Ko Ridge, UNM / South and Twin Warriors were also well overwatered given the fact of their location where less than 10 inches of rain falls from the sky.

F&F is the perfect blending of the air and ground games. Golf is still a great game when the bounce is not present but in my mind when the two are combined together you have an experience you'll never forget.

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Thanks for your enjoyable post.


Matt Ward:

Speaking of enjoyment, you reminded me of the most enjoyable golf shot I played in the last five years, if not longer.

It was all about bounce.

After a well placed tee shot I was feeling rather cocky about my approach to #13 at Whistling Straits. I had about 115 yards to the green, pulled out a seven iron and struck the ball absolutely perfect. It landed about 50 yards away and then gradually tumbled right into the middle of the green.

My very American playing partner thought I was nuts, especially after I declared I had already had so much fun playing the hole that I couldn't give a damn about making my birdie putt. And I didn't.

Walking up to the 14th tee, my partner shook his head and said "I never heard anyone say they had too much fun".

[A_Clay_Man]

One of the dychotomies that I have noticed that has to deal with F&F conditions is that when the tour sets up a course it usually makes the local super stress over whether he will be able to bring the course back come monday morning. This is one aspect of the pro game that has not been emulated by the golfing public. Why do yoy think that is?

[MainelyJack]

I don't care which condition "through the green" exists. However, I like to see consistency on a golf course and not have some firm and fast and then slow and lush. I believe that the configuration of your greens should have a lot to do with the condition you try to create. My course in Maine has nines that were built 40 years apart. The front has greens with moderate slope, but are generally very puttable from any direction. The back is a different story. Larger greens, considerable sloping and you keep the ball under the hole on every damn one of them or suffer the consequences. The easy solution at my course is a bulldozer and/or dynamite, but I am in the minority on that at the moment. Our GCS keeps the greens F+F for both sides so we pray for rain a lot.