[Sean_A]

The quote is lifted from Flynn's "Analysis of Layout" which was published in the USGA Green Section Bulletin, October 1927. The piece is also included in Shackelford's "Masters of the Links".

Adam's copy of the mentioned quote is the real thing - word by word.

After the last sentence Flynn continues:

"In the first case, when all greens are watered a constant condition prevails, but in the case of the run-up approach the ball hits and is liable to bounce anywhere.

In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach and this can best be brought about by the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it."  

I understand the quote, but like Rich, I disagree completely.  The way to solve the problem of greens being too receptive (this was the original problem, no?) is to encourage the growth of grass which can take less water to stay healthy.  In addition, perhaps some more considered thought should be given to the height of the grass on the greens!  Rich is right, watering the approach to match an already (presumably soggy if it is no decision to make between the aerial and bump and run shot) green is no proper solution at all.  Of course, Tillie doesn't qualify what "generous use" of water is.  So in truth, none of us really knows exactly what the man meant because the quote doesn't provide enough info.  

Ciao

Tom

I don't understand where you are coming from.  It is quite clear from the quote that Flynn is speaking of approach shots and watering to them to help foster a ground game by making the result more predictable.  I agree in so far as sure, the result is very predictable if the ball plugs.  I don't think for a second that Tillie meant this when he stated "generous use".  In truth, none of us knows exactly what he meant, but "generous use" of water is not usually associated with encouraging the ground game.  And if what you say is true about watering landing zones from the tee, then it is clear that Flynn  knew that watering grass makes a course slower and therefore more emphasis is placed on the aerial game for both distance and and accuracy.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

Be my guest and think whatever you want. The explanation of what Flynn was after is pretty clear.

Furthermore, what did Tillinghast have to say on the matter? The article (articles) being discussed here are Flynn's from the 1927 Green Section.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

You are just a love-sick puppy dog when it comes to Flynn.  Stay in your own fantasy world if you wish to, but please try to not selectively quote your object of desire, particulalry when he says exactly the oppposite of your interpretation in the very words of his which are on this thread.  (In case you are still clueless, what exactly does "cement hard approaches" mean to you?).  Maybe he said what you think he was saying somewhere else, but not in the snippets and Adam and Eric have provided.  Maybe when the book finally comes out you can make your case more intelligble to those of us who think you are making up interpretations of what you think Flynn meant, rather than looking honestly at what he actually wrote.

Cheers for now

Rich

[TEPaul]

I should add that while Wayne and I have been aware of this fairly novel irrigation prescription on Flynn's part for some years now, it is not exactly something I'd recommend or support maintenance-wise at any time---either back then or now.

I think it seems somehow too clever and certainly something that is unnecessarily inconsistent with expected bounce and roll "through the green" (and by that I mean from tee TO the green (which would in this case includes approaches)).

But there is no question at that time Flynn and others were extremely concerned about the distance a golf ball would travel and they were looking for ways to limit it figuring that the USGA probably wouldn't any time soon.

This localized watering in tee shot landing zones and such (other than in approaches) was a way to slow down the distance the ball traveled, that's for sure.

In a way The Creek Club (which is a relatively short course) today is basically considering doing somewhat the same thing by sticking to their rye grass fairways that generally don't promote as much tee shot bounce and rollout as bent grass can and does. But they are treating their approaches entirely differently be going to other types of grasses and firming them up much more than tee shot landing zones simply to promote a far more functional run-up, and run-in approach shot.

I wonder if the likes of Goodale or Arble are capable of even understanding what The Creek may be attempting to do in this vein because it's basically the same thing William Flynn was suggesting back in those 1927 articles and for the same reasons!  

[TEPaul]

"Maybe he said what you think he was saying somewhere else, but not in the snippets and Adam and Eric have provided."


Richard:

There's no maybe about it. That's exactly what he meant and meant to say and did say and this defensive rant of yours is PRECISELY the reason one generally needs to both read AND consider ALL of what someone said and wrote on various subjects that can be and are connected instead of making completely uninformed assumptions on what you correctly refer to as SNIPPETS of information.

This has nothing to do with idolizing or glorifying Flynn. It pretty much has to do with the fact that people like Wayne and I are apparenlty more aware and more informed about the things Flynn did and thought than Eric or Adam or Sean or particularly YOU.

And because we are I don't think it's that appropriate for you to be accusing us of living in some dream world when it comes to Flynn.

If you took the time to review this thread I doubt even you could fail to admit how illogical and petty you've been on this thread with what you've said to date.  

Feel free to suggest that perhaps Flynn shouldn't have gotten an "A" in English class but that really isn't the point here, is it?  

[Sean_A]

Tom P

I think it was me who wrote earlier in this thread that a better way to promote f&f conditions is to encourage the growth of grass that doesn't require so much water to remain healthy.  Using water as a means to control distance may sound terribly clever to you, but it doesn't to me.  Are we to blame Flynn for all of the soft, flabby courses which continue to thrive in the States?  Its not terribly difficult to understand that water is necessary for golf courses, but there are many degrees of what is considered necessary.

Its time you come to the realization that other folks on this board are experienced enough to have some understanding of ideal conditions and that the concept of the IMM has been around for much longer than your sudden realization of the fact 10 or so years ago.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

I'm sure there are better or other ways to control or provide F&F condtions (or the lack of it) on golf courses and on particular areas of of golf courses but that's not exactly the point of this thread, is it?

This thread is about what William Flynn was suggesting in the quotations offered on this thread. And I stand completely by my explanations of what he was suggesting and where and how and why.

Perhaps some just don't get it, don't understand it or don't agree with it. That's fine by me. I was simply explaining what he was saying and suggesting and how and why.

If somebody like Goodale wants to respond that Flynn can't write very well or I can't read very well, then that's fine too. But it doesn't change the fact that what he was suggesting is what-all I explained above.

Of course, the component pieces of the IMM have been around for years. The IMM is nothing much more than a rerun prescription of how those component parts need to be treated in combination for a particular effect in play with particular types of golf courses and their architecture.

I didn't exactly invent that prescription because to my knowledge a club like HVGC and Scott Anderson has actually been doing it for at least ten years before I ever mentioned it or thought of it.

But the fact is back then it was simply unpopular and almost wholly misunderstood. Too many golfers thought those maintenance practices on that inland course were just odd and weird and didn't look right or play right.

Today, a whole slew of courses have come around to doing now what HVGC has been doing for well over twenty years.

About 10 or more years ago I went over there and really talked to them. I even asked Anderson if I could take his maintenance practices and propose them to my own club. To me amazement he actually said NO! When I asked him why he said because to do what he'd done a membership has to do be brought around to understanding it to getting behind it and he wasn't going to let me propose it to my club until that could be accomplished at my club. At his club that process took years and was carried basically by two guys, the second one being JESII's dad. The first one was Linc Roden, a guy who spent literally decades being considered by almost everyone as way out in left field. But he hung in there and now his time has come and bigtime. To me that really is sort of poetic justice. Roden was the guy, in my opinion, who came up with the modern era prescription for F&F and maybe up to 30-40 years ago. All I did is try to add a catchy term to it about ten years ago so people could understand better how important it is to have a particular mix of maintenance practices that only serve the purpose of playing into a particular type of architecture.

Then it got coalesced one time when I went to play The National's Singles tournament and the whole prescription occured to me via playability.

The IMM is simply a term I invented to make the explanation of the entire prescription easier for clubs to understand via the maintenance and playablitly logic of it.

But if someone like you wants to keep telling me I'm not the inventor of it, that's fine with me too. I'm not claiming to be the inventor of it. All I really did is invent a term that explains it in detail and why the playability works so well for multi-optionalism. The word "meld" was purposely used to explain how important particular considered maintenance practices are to particular types of playability. How could anyone deny that had been almost completely forgotten about in post WW2 golf in America? This country virtually lost the entire ground game for about forty years for God's Sake!

I don't want to claim to be the inventor of F&F playability---all I want to be is one of the promoters of the IMM and its maintenance and playability mix which promotes a F&F playability mix of a particular ideal.

[TEPaul]

"Its time you come to the realization that other folks on this board are experienced enough to have some understanding of ideal conditions and that the concept of the IMM has been around for much longer than your sudden realization of the fact 10 or so years ago."

Sean Arble:

I don't think that's true. I personally know maybe a couple of hundred people now who are capable of understanding the ideal conditions and the concept of the IMM.

Maybe you and Goodale understand it and maybe you don't. Whatever you do or don't understand you aren't much different to me than probably a whole lot of people in that vein.

But again, this thread isn't exactly about just F&F and the IMM. It's about what Flynn was specifically proposing and where on a golf course back in 1927.

While I understand precisely what he was proposing and why and how I've already admitted above a part of it was not exactly something I'd recommend today. The fact is I believe in an ideal of F&F in something of a consistent offering in the entire "through the green" area and another type of ideal F&F condition on the greens themselves.

But even this is designed for a particular type of golf course and golf architecture.  

[Sean_A]

Tom P

I am sure I don't know what your point is.  You claim you are only trying to explain the quote, yet go on about reducing distance in the fairway is the reason Flynn wanted to water fairways.  This may very well be true (and if true misguided imo), but I can find no mention of this in the quote.  Flynn does mention trying to cultivate the run up shot by generous use of water.  I can only assume he is trying to make the approaching areas more consistent with green speeds.  Sounds like a good plan to me.  However, I wouldn't have thought the best way to do this is by generous use of water.  

There is nothing more or less than this to my point(s) other than I have been around the block a few times where f&f is concerned and so have some experience with the issue.  It could very well be that you and I disagree about what proper f&f is - I don't know.  I tend to think that courses should go with mother nature - in other words, the goal shouldn't be to present a course in exactly the same condition day after day.  That may mean there is no roll at some times of the year and 100 yards roll at other times - so be it.  I wouldn't try to artificially reduce the run unless the health of the grass was at stake.

It is often said about links that they are better in winter than in summer because the ball doesn't roll so far.  I have never understood this idea.  Granted, it is different, but I couldn't say it is better.  I like the variety of conditions presented - that is the fun of letting mother nature take its course so long as the grass isn't allowed to die.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Flynn does mention trying to cultivate the run up shot by generous use of water.  I can only assume he is trying to make the approaching areas more consistent with green speeds."

Sean:

Why do you assume that? Do you also assume that he's trying to make approaches as puttable as greens? I don't see that Flynn has said a single thing about green speed in this article. What he is talking about is greens that are  apparently too soft because they are so constantly watered, and combined with unwatered approaches that are so firm in summer conditions the combination of the two only promotes an aerial shot in America.

"However, I wouldn't have thought the best way to do this is by generous use of water."

You probably wouldn't have thought the best way to promote runup and run-in shots through approaches is by the generous use of water simply because basic commonsense makes it patently clear it isn't the way to promote run-up and run-in shots through approaches and that has been exactly my point.

This fact is not something that has changed between 1927 and today or today and 1927 or ever for that matter. Again, it's simple commonsense that makes it patently clear that the way to treat approaches that promote a decent run-in or run-up shot through approaches is not with the generous and constant use of water. Some use of water on approaches, however, does serve the purpose of making approaches somewhat less firm than the playablility of cement that Flynn mentions is the playability with some unirrigated approaches in summer conditions.

[Adam Clayman]

Admittedly, this has been illuminating on many levels. Thanks Boys!

Getting back to the mindset which is a guise...
 Certainly the standard, or what I like to now call The Westchster County, maitenance presentation, does not allow balls to travel "anywhere". The growing of long rough, in close proximity to putting greens, and, on the tee side of bunkering, is a guise whose time has come and should be universally exposed as simpler playabilty. Be it for the best of the best, or, the mid-handicapper.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()