[Jeff_Brauer]

The latter part of the "Why courses have to be so long" thread got me to thinking about how my designs would change if I knew firm and fast was a given.

Its early this morning, but my first impression was more and sharper doglegs with gnarly rough (to punish run throughs) making angles more important.  Of course, this would be aided by back tees making greater dogleg angles to be more difficult, and perhaps greater "swing" in the 300-400 yard areas, plus narrower fw there. (not that well thought out yet)

For the really long hitters, it appears that most greens would then have bunkers on the inside corner, at least the shorter holes that someone might drive.....

Any other thoughts to compliment my pre coffee ones?

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

Remember #4 at Kingsley? #6? #7?

They are not particularly long holes, but were designed for F&F. Crowns and ridges in the landscape, appropriately located to affect the driving patterns can be a fun way to design for the F&F methodology.

Joe

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Speed kills!  

I have long thought that if length was going to increase if you design holes where length runs out into trouble it takes the power out of the game.  I agree that doglegs, hollows with strange lies and greens & bunkers lacking edges create a lot of problem for players.  

However, is it possible to incorporate some of those features without making it nearly impossible for the higher handicap to get around.

I think Norman used many of these 'tricks' at Tiburon and at PGA West and it makes for some pretty unfriendly golf.  Where's Tommy N when we need him?  

What would the proper balance be for all ledvels of golfer?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,

design would be much more along the lines of contours to gather or throw the shot. Greens would become larger, open to the run in shot and the contouring also more pronounced as with F&F it is not wise to cut to low on the greens. I also think that dog-legs would be used that would require the longer hitter to shape the ball around them rather than try to cut across them.

[Joe Hancock]

WH,

The thing about F&F is it doesn't have to rely on overly short grass. F&F encourages big bounces when the ball hits the ground, but doesn't mean the ball has to roll forever, or until it butts up against something. It's about finding the right balance to maintain playability.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Bill C:  I agree with your point.  Some architects seem insistent on using short grass around the green to punish a marginal shot, but never to help one.  If I'm going to have a green fall off on the right into trouble, I sometimes like to have a helping contour just short of the green on the left for the little guy ... the big boys fly it to the green so they don't get the help.

[Jimmy Muratt]

One of my favorite design features, and a must on firm & fast courses, is when the fairway is cut right up to the edge of fairway bunkers.  There is no need for a ribbon of rough around bunkers.  Closely mown areas right up to the edge of the bunkers make them effectively play larger than they actually are, and when the conditions dictate a bouncing ball along the ground, this is an even more important design feature.  

[RJ_Daley]

Most everyone above cites valid and enjoyable aspects of what features go best with F&F.  All I can add or reinforce in the discussion is width, variability of contour, and randomness of hazards.  

Anethma to F&F is narrowness, thick rough and no transition rough, flatness, and formula distances and placement of hazards.

The ball has to have places to bound that maintains rewards, interest, an element of surprise or variability of outcome not always predictable, yet recovery.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()