News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Policano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2008, 01:01:55 PM »
It seems that one way for f&f to be implemented is for the club to be run by one person who gets it. Rupert at Ballyneal promotes Brown more than UPS. As a result, one can play hickories and ground shots all day.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2008, 01:04:33 PM »
Considering many people in the golf industry predict more strict water restrictions will be imposed in many locales in the near future, drought or no drought, perhaps golfers will be FORCED to deal with conditions as Tom Doak describes at Atlantic City. Over time, this will become the norm... and golf will survive.
jeffmingay.com

Peter Nomm

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #77 on: January 01, 2008, 01:07:49 PM »
I can speak directly to Tom's comment about the difficulty of trying for firm and fast conditions.  We made that our goal 2 seasons ago and have only made small improvements to date.  Once the water was slowly reduced, we began to find "hot spots" scattered all over our fairways (areas where either not enough sand existed or too many rocks were present).  We changed over 60 sprinkler heads to part-circles, and moved several others to more efficiently cover our turf.  In addition, thatch build-up from keeping them soft for several years was signficant, and thatch is not magically reduced overnight.  

Our fairways are over 40-acres of bent grass, so you can imagine the amount of time and effort involved.  Our superintendent has worked directly with an agronomic consultant from the USGA (2 annual visits as well as regular calls) and we are only now beginning to see improvements.  We anticipate another 3 - 4 years before the desired level of F&F conditions are achieved.

I think convincing the superintendent, greens chairmen, and members was actually far easier than actually reaching the goal.  It can be done but it is not easy.

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #78 on: January 01, 2008, 01:12:08 PM »
Unfortunately, what you all say is true regarding firm and fast.

Our club plays firm and fast for a couple weeks in november, and a couple in April, before and after the rains. Because we are located in a housing development, the people on the course want their "back yard" green, with no patches of brown, and the higher handicap members want nice fluffy, mat-like lies to hit from.

Complaints about the "greenness" of the golf course are 2 to 1 homeowners to golfers though.

Plus, we have winter rye in sacramento, which dies in our extreme heat unless it is handwatered.

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2008, 09:26:07 PM »
Tom Doak,

The same organization that could effect a rollback can also affect F&F.

Almost every club I know uses the regional USGA agronomy service.

If the USGA came out with position papers and their follow up reports after visiting and consulting/advising clubs, advocating that water use should be diminished, it might happen sooner than you think.

That report carries a lot of weight at the local level.

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #80 on: January 01, 2008, 09:29:14 PM »
JES II,

You're not looking at the problem in the context by which I'm framing it.

It's GENERATIONAL.

The GENERATION in high school and college play a different game than my generation or my dad's generation did, and architects must take that into account when designing courses for the current and future generations.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #81 on: January 02, 2008, 08:39:03 AM »
Pat,

You are not looking at my answer as it pertains to your concerns...young guys try to kill the ball...as they develop their games they bring the ball under more control...in doing so, they sacrifice distance...

Davis Love was ridiculously long when he came out and he dialed back because that type of yardage is not required...Kevin Tway may well be a good bit longer than his father, but I'll make a bet right now that his first year PGA Tour driving distance stat is lower than what it might be today...

You are correct that today's kids hit the ball a hell of alot further than kids did 20 years ago but they still have to get it in the hole...I'd worry more about making them control their ball with defenses at the green that make birdies and pars tough from miss hit 320 yard drives...

Matt_Ward

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2008, 02:36:57 PM »
Tom Doak:

As a close observed of the NJ golf scene I concur with your comments on the notion of water being applied to existing courses in the Garden State.

Few course -- and I do mean very few courses -- really engage in anything close to how people define firm and fast on this site.

Why the resistance?

Your answer was spot on. Many don't see the "value" in going brown and many don't want to see the kind of upheaval you referenced happening.

I'm not saying that there won't be pressure from outside forces (likely government when droughts persist or water conservation efforts intensify).

Green is still the rule because for many people -- no doubt ignorance is indeed bliss -- the idea of fairways being brown or hard for their feet -- is a foreign concept.

I can still visualize playing a famed NJ course (name left out intentionally) and taking a veal cutlet size divot even after 10 days of no rain. The fairways were soaked to keep them verdant green at all times.

F & F is still a good ways away from happening at many courses -- likely not just in NJ but probably throughout the USA as well.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back