[Ed_Baker]

Most of us agree that F&F playing conditions enhance the best examples of golf architecture. Obviously, the older Golden Age courses accept fast and firm very well because the ground game was more or less designed in to them because that's the way the game was played in that era and maintenance practices created f&f by default..

But just as we have had endless debates about excessive green speeds on the old classics with very contoured greens that were designed for much slower speeds it occured to me that F&F could be over done as well, particularly on courses with small or shallow greens.

I think most of us would agree that the proper green firmness results in a slight dent for a ball mark with a well struck short iron, no mud,no dirt,no turf destruction. That green condition usually produces like and kind firmness through the green as well, making for a very consistent and fun course to play.

Do you think F&F worked at Dye's TPC Sawgrass?
Do modern architects design with a F&f maintenance pardigm in mind?
Does a green have to be at least _______ ( insert the number)of clubs deep to accept f&f?
Do most greens that accept f&f have to have an open front allowing for run up shots?

[cary lichtenstein]

I played a fast and firm course the other day in Florida because the drought is prohibiting watering. Every green I hit required a chip back, sort of made for an interesting, but a bit of a trying round.

[BCrosby]

Ed -

You raise a good point.

With f&f, the depth of the green matters. Which means that the best approach angles are those that maximize green depth. Which means it matters where you position your drive.

But if there is no depth from any angle...or if the greens are round and all angles are the same, f&f doesn't add much interest. There is no payoff for dealing with it correctly vs. someone who doesn't. But the bigger worry is that you have a set of dull greens.

Bob

[Ed_Baker]

Cary,

That's what I was getting at, if f&f is overdone it would get pretty frustrating hitting decent shots and constantly chipping back, unless of course the greens were 4 clubs deep..

Bob,

Right on sir, hence my question to the archies, on a new course if f&f is the desire of the client it would seem that there would have to be some design considerations.

I actually was amazed at the first few rounds of The Players that f&f did seem to work on a target golf course, but they didn't over do it.

[JESII]

Ed,


In principle, I agree with you, Bob and Cary, but in reality I think every hole offers some strategic opportunity to help the thoughtful player get it in the hole in one less stroke...so long as they execute.

In tentionally playing into a front bunker is not ideal, I agree whole heartedly, but when the back rought is the other option, at least you have the choice.

I say all that because I think firn turf is healthier than soft turf and therefore should be the goal as often as possible.


*disclaimer: I have never successfully grown a blade of grass, so take that into account with my last sentence there...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Baker,

Shame on you !

Have you never heard of TEPaul's "Maintainance Meld"

That's the key to all courses, new and old, large and small.

The architecture and the maintainance of the course have to be in harmony in order to produce the best and most enjoyable playing conditions/experience

[Joe Hancock]

Is the context of this discussion one of assuming that the golf ball has to land on the green and stay on the green?

Joe

[Ed_Baker]

Joe,

Yes,that's what I was getting at from the design point of view,we know that f&f works well on the older classics with all kinds of ground game options. But last week at the Players the t.v. guys were touting f&f conditions on one of the premier target, modern aireal, designs, where you pretty much have to fly the ball to the green to score. The greens softened up on the weekend and the scores dropped like rocks.

The point I was trying to make was that it seems to me that maintenance meld should be considered when designing a new course, which brings a whole bunch of additional dynamics that complicates the architects job. Climate,E.S.A's,maintenance budget after grow in, ect.

Or does the architect just say, " look, I got you the best golf holes possible on the site and you figure out how you want to maintain it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

I consider green depth for all things - increasing it a bit for downwind, downhill shots and reverse slope greens, all of which tend to release spin and increase roll.

I think that depth can be shallow, as long as there is a relatively flat and open approach area for the running approach.

That said, I wonder how you necessarily equate new courses to aerial design.

I hate to take your excellent topic, but if any of the other gca's who participate here would care to estimate how many of their greens are open fronted allowing run up shots if desired, I would love to hear it.

Out of over 1200 greens designed, I would say my % of open front greens approaches 85%, with over 1000 fitting that mold, and with most of those 1000+ set low enough to realistically allow a running approach to some portion of the green.  Most of course, are open a bit more to one side or the other, and some have openings a bit narrower than others.

I will wager that the other half dozen gca's will have similar %, but will wait to hear.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

Shallow greens combined with real firm green surfaces is obviously a real potential problem in play, particularly with most levels of golfer. Most courses have one or two or so holes that require an aerial shot and green surfaces that are too firm create real problems in play for many golfers particularly if they happen to be shallow to the line of play.

This reality is perhaps the biggest obstacle to otherwise ideal green surface firmness that's one of the primary factors of the Ideal Maintenance Meld. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. But I'm working on it---we now have what I call the green surface firmness fudge factor where those greens may be a bit more receptive than the others to approach shots but virtually identical to the others for putting and chipping and recovery shots.

It's all about "pitch mark" analysis which is one of the sexiest things one can get into, don't you think? I mean come on, Eddie Baby, wouldn't you just love to be sitting next to some sexy blonde beauty at a dinner party and be able to get into a really cool in-depth "pitch mark" analysis discussion with her? If I could find a sexy blonde beauty who would do that I'd divorce my wife and marry her.

[Ed_Baker]

Jeff,

Thanks for the great response. With the overwhelming percentage of open front greens in your body of work then most certainly f&f is very viable on your courses.

Would you say that f&f enhances your design intents ?

Tommy Paul,
The only time a blonde beauty would be seated next to me at a dinner party would be if Helen Keller was the hostess.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

F and F is really out of our control, or should I say is really more in control of the super.  We discussed this at ASGCA a few weeks ago.  Even though we design open front greens, current maintenance really doesn't let them function that way in too many cases.

It could, of course, and about all we can do is give them a CHANCE to attain it, by designing:

The irrigation to water the green separately from the approach (almost standard now)

Ammend approach soils, by adding sand and tiles out in the approach to keep it dry.

Direct some or perhaps most green area surface drainage to a side outlet swale rather than the front - and preferably away from the cart path to avoid drainage problems there.

[Tony Ristola]

If a course is firm and fast the fairways serve as an extension of the green, and you should judge your approach accordingly. I was fortunate to have played one course as a junior that had no fairway irrigation, was baked to a fine golden hue in the summer, had smallish push-up greens and no fronting bunkers. You simply had to judge the amount of bounce if you didn't have the guts to fly the ball to the target. It wasn't far from the Ocean either, so we had a bit of wind from time to time.

The huge problem is when greens are not deep, are somewhat firm and fast and the fairways don't allow a ground game approach.

I'm not a huge fan of shallow greens, but the odd one in the right place adds variety.

Jeff,
I'd say most of my greens on 2 and 3 shot holes allow a bounced in approach. Largely influenced by having spent a fair bit of time teaching the game...oh so many years ago. That and knowing good golfers won't knock it into a hazard fronting the green too often.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()