More comments on Down Under Maintenance Meld

[NAF]

I remember once reading a quote about Mexico. It was, "Mexico, so far from god, so close to the United States".  After having a few days to digest my trip to Australia I started wondering about the maintenance structure down there.  Why is Australia so close to perfection and yet so far from what we have in the United States?

Although firm and fast has been argued on this site before and now the Victoria greens controversy will probably "water" down the situation more, can we ever see down under maintenance exported to America.

The best I ever saw my home course in New Jersey this year was during the drought when it turned brownish.  It played fast but the members were grousing over the loss of Kermit coloured fairways and the capricious nature of bounces.  My ? is have we been Augustified to the point of no return?  Do Americans have no chance of seeing firm, bronzed courses due to what we see in golf magazines?  Are PGA pro teachers afraid to teach their members how to play this type of golf (bump and run) and with enough exposure would members learn to enjoy it?  Is it the new target golf design that sinks this maintenance meld i.e. carry bunkers in front of greens etc?

Just some questions I am throwing out.  I feel this is like a second renaissance for me.  The first was going to play the great links and heathland courses of Britain.  The second is seeing how these courses were meant to be played down under.  It is almost like I don't want to go back to green, slow and nothing but aerial target golf.

So are we doomed to green???...

[TEPaul]

Naffer:

I don't think we're doomed to green here in the US, at least not to the extent we once were. I'm beginning to see classic courses that were more particularly designed to incorporate fast and firm conditions returning to fast and firm conditons. The best of them on LI's East End is evidence of that return.

But again, when we speak of the "ideal maintenance meld" PLEASE keep in mind that it means those maintenance practices and conditions that work best for the way any golf course was designed and that can vary dramatically from course to course, type to type and style to style!

In this way it's obvious that some modern aerially designed courses (the carry bunkers fronting greens that you mentioned) does not require the same kind of "ideal maintenance meld) that an older ground game design would. For the modern style you mention firm and fast might not be so necessary.

The important thing about "maintenance meld" is to understand in as much detail as you can what kind of design you have and then apply those maintenance practices and conditions that make it work and play best. In this way clearly you can see that a modern aerial course would logically call for more receptive green surfaces to aerial shots than an older course might. And the same might go for the "through the green" sections of an aerial course too.

"Maintenance meld" is not supposed to be completely synonymous with firm and fast condtions UNLESS the golf course was designed to incorporate them!  

The important thing is for clubs and supers to make the distinction between the differences of types and styles with their maintenance practices instead of the "one size fits all" mentality we've been living with generally in this country with ALL courses for about fifty years!

But I think those distinctions are beginning to be made more now and many more of the courses that really need to firm up are firming up.

[JohnV]

While looking for a good definition of Maintenance Meld, I came across this old post. 

Tom, do you also feel that the Ideal Maintenance Meld includes consideration of the weather conditions at any given point? 

For example, when stronger winds are expected it might make sense to slow down the greens.

[Peter Wagner]

While looking for a good definition of Maintenance Meld, I came across this old post. 

Tom, do you also feel that the Ideal Maintenance Meld includes consideration of the weather conditions at any given point? 

For example, when stronger winds are expected it might make sense to slow down the greens.

JVB,

I think rapidly changing technology in different areas is making it easier for golf course supers to have the best of both worlds: green and fast.  Take your weather point for example.  Most courses now have highly accurate weather stations tied to their irrigation systems and computers.  This technology has become REALLY cheap and it gives the super one more tool to strike the balance of green versus speed.

Ditto the above for weather forecasting in general.  Since the beginning of computer science, weather forecasting has been one of the toughest problems to map and model.  There have been huge breakthroughs in the last 5 years to allow very accurate weather forecasts.  Everyone used to make jokes about the stupid weathermen on TV because they always got it wrong.  Have you noticed that all the jokes have stopped?  Our supers are able to use this more accurate info for the course's benefit.

Another area of advancement is turf technology and all the new variations of grasses.  Los Angeles CC is about to provide us with an example because this summer they are closing the North course to regrass to a new Bermuda variation.  The goal is to have greener grass but still firm and fast.  LACC's hope is that the course will look better AND play better and IMO, they have a good chance to make that happen.

So, I believe we are entering a time when green doesn't have to mean slow and soft. 

As an aside, I don't understand the word 'meld' as it applies here.  Melding from what to what?

- Peter

[TEPaul]

"Tom, do you also feel that the Ideal Maintenance Meld includes consideration of the weather conditions at any given point? 
For example, when stronger winds are expected it might make sense to slow down the greens."



JohnV:

Sure I feel the IMM needs to take into considertion weather conditions. You mention strong winds. I think even in strong winds all greens will play OK if they are around 10 or less and that's a pretty sporty speed anyway. But IMM isn't just the speed of greens, it's also the FIRMNESS of them and that's somewhat trickier to adjust for playability and it only really effects approach shots and such anyway (not really putting and close chipping). With firm and fast playability, I think testing firmness isn't that much more difficult than testing for green speed with a stimpmeter. To test for ideal green surface "firmness", in my opinion, a really well hit 9 iron from the fairway by a skilled player needs to create a slight and findable "dent" on the green surface. If a shot like that produces no visible dent the greens are probably too firm and aerial shots become almost non-functional as an option and obviously that is not ideal.

But the other side of the F&F philosophy is to get into a program where the course is back to F&F as quickly as possible after a major rain event (maybe and inch to and inch and a half in 24 hours). With my course, for instance, 3-5 years ago it would've taken about 10 days to get back to F&F after a major rain event like that (if we even did get to F&F at all) but today after a F&F program that's taken 3-4 years we can be back to F&F after a major rain event like that in 2-3 days.

This is the type of tracking that F&F maintenance programs need to get into-----eg rapidity of return to F&F playability after a major rain event.

But in a general philosophical sense, particularly with the old style classic architecture that generally offers more bounce-in or run-in architectural options the real deal with the IMM is to try to get the bounce-in or run-in option into a form of shot-choice "balance" or "equilibrium" with an aerial option right to a green surface.

It's when playability (shot options) gets to the point where most players need to really think about which of a spectrum of shot-types (bounce-in or aerial) to even select is when you're nearing the IMM, particularly with green surface and approach firmness! (if you have super receptive greens, good players, for instance, will never think twice about anything other than an aerial shot).

Also whenever I talk about F&F with anyone I always remember to make a distinction between green surfaces and "through the green" or for some reason most everyone thinks I'm only talking about green surfaces.

[Bill_McBride]

Shivas, don't you think that a lot of that is that supers water their greens to make sure they are green, not beyond the point they are firm hopefully, but the natural drainage is typically down the front of the green onto the apron?

Then you get that condition you're describing, where fairways and greens are nice and firm but the aprons are sticky for runup shots.

I don't know how supers can avoid this, but wouldn't it be wonderful?

[TEPaul]

" I can't tell you how many courses I've played over the years that seem to be able to get their fairways running, and even get their greens firm and fast, and BLOW THE WHOLE DANG SETUP with overwatered aprons due to inattention to that critical link-point between through the green and the green itself."


Shivas:

Most of these clubs that are getting into some real firm and fast maintenance programs, like my own, are beginning to apply many of the maintenance procedures they use on the greens to the approaches instead of the way it used to be done which was treating the approaches the same way as the rest of the fairway.

We're talking a lot more sanding and aerating and probably lower cuts in the approaches.

But it is true, to create that IMM shot option "equilibrium" or "balance", the bounce and run-in function of approaches is the lynchpin of the IMM! Without that there will be a total IMM strategic/multi-option/playability disconnect between fairways and greens.

[Peter Wagner]

Shivas, don't you think that a lot of that is that supers water their greens to make sure they are green, not beyond the point they are firm hopefully, but the natural drainage is typically down the front of the green onto the apron?

Then you get that condition you're describing, where fairways and greens are nice and firm but the aprons are sticky for runup shots.

I don't know how supers can avoid this, but wouldn't it be wonderful?

Bill,
We have this issue at my home course and it's fixable, or at least  I think it is.  You have to fine tune the drainage in the runup area and one of the ways we *think* it will be fixed is by using a machine called a WaterWik.  This thing cuts a deep V-groove in the soil and back fills it with gravel and you cover with soil and turf.  You can direct these V-groove channels to your drainage system and then hopefully your problem is solved by pulling the water away from the area.

We just approved the expense and I am hoping for great results this summer.  I'll let you know what we find out.

- Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Shivas, don't you think that a lot of that is that supers water their greens to make sure they are green, not beyond the point they are firm hopefully, but the natural drainage is typically down the front of the green onto the apron?

Then you get that condition you're describing, where fairways and greens are nice and firm but the aprons are sticky for runup shots.

I don't know how supers can avoid this, but wouldn't it be wonderful?

Bill,
We have this issue at my home course and it's fixable, or at least  I think it is.  You have to fine tune the drainage in the runup area and one of the ways we *think* it will be fixed is by using a machine called a WaterWik.  This thing cuts a deep V-groove in the soil and back fills it with gravel and you cover with soil and turf.  You can direct these V-groove channels to your drainage system and then hopefully your problem is solved by pulling the water away from the area.

We just approved the expense and I am hoping for great results this summer.  I'll let you know what we find out.

- Peter

French drains are a good solution but there is often a green "stripe" where the drain line is underground as water then accumulates underground.  I guess that' preferable to soggy aprons.

[Peter Wagner]

French drains are a good solution but there is often a green "stripe" where the drain line is underground as water then accumulates underground.  I guess that' preferable to soggy aprons.

Bill,
I think the idea is to cut many channels side by side to create this drainage.  You might have 10 V-grooves in one area placed close together.  You will still get color variation but it would be less of an issue when spread across a larger area and as you note, this is preferable to soggy conditions.

The best solution is found in the original architecture that would have accounted for the problem area on day one.  But I think even the best architects out there make small mistakes like this that have to be addressed after the fact.

Look at the bright side:  it gives us something constructive to do!

- Peter

[Grant Saunders]

Shivas:

Most of these clubs that are getting into some real firm and fast maintenance programs, like my own, are beginning to apply many of the maintenance procedures they use on the greens to the approaches instead of the way it used to be done which was treating the approaches the same way as the rest of the fairway.

We're talking a lot more sanding and aerating and probably lower cuts in the approaches.

TEPaul

While I appreciate the benefit this lends to the playability of the course I also feel this is going against the goal of affordable golf.

Aeration and topdressing are expensive procedures and lowering cutting heights brings with it the need for more mowing, more fertiliser, more chemicals (fungicides, pesticides and herbicides), and ironically more water.

The concept of the ground/bump and run game on soils that are not inherently sandy is achievable but at an enormous cost.

As on the other thread "soil does indeed dictate the architecture"

[Paul_Daley]

Hi Naf,

An interesting thread. To get partly to the bottom of it, one needs to examine how much is the will of the superintendent and his/her maintenance meld; how much is grass type; how much is weather patterns; how much is locality. In Australia’s case, all our capital cities of the states and territories are on the coast, apart from Canberra. It follows, therefore, that nearly all our top courses are built around population bases. Okay: being an island continent, it follows that nearly all our golf is played in windy conditions. Check out the good record of Australian golfers in the Open Championship, and it’s easy to see why. Okay: windy courses dry out the fairways, that’s a given. A key ingredient to our fast-playing courses is Australia’s all-year golfing weather. Unlike the US, where regions get blanketed out for extended periods, we’re not subjected to wildly climatic fluctuations. That must go some way towards promoting firmer, drier fairways. Our courses are simply open for longer periods, giving them greater opportunity to be presented as desired. The next ingredient is grass type, and many Australian courses are laid out with natural couch, or a pre-determined introduced couch. Couch comes in many varieties and, at last count, 10,000 species have been identified within Australia. Like Pamela Anderson in Baywatch, couch thrives on hot weather, and demands 19+ Celsius degrees to spring to life. But in winter, when couch’s inclination is to retreat towards dormancy, the grass can be dull and mattered, producing, paradoxically, even faster fairways than in summer when couch is at its peak. Another ingredient is our uniquely blended courses, albeit, fully heathland, partly heath, links-like, headland, coastal-but-not-links, other blends, too. Playing a UK links is an unforgettable experience in regards to having any semblance of ball control, but when tackling Melbourne’s Sandbelt heathland courses in summer (with an active hot northerly in tow), the playing conditions are aligned. Visually, the vegetation doesn’t allow the courses to resemble links, but they sure play like them, in regard to shot requirements and fast-playing nature. And whether it’s Royal Adelaide in Sth Australia, any number of courses in Western Australia, or Peterborough and Barwin Heads in Victoria, the geologic advantages of sand-based courses must surely play its part in determining the opportunity for fast-playing courses. Considering all of the above, perhaps it is insufficient to merely wish for a fast-running course; to do so without the nature’s inherent advantages, may be asking for trouble. That said … a good start is to simply turn of the water for a period. The problem is, I presume, that most US golfers equate brown tinge with bad super form. The Big “A” in April has way too much influence over taste. If so, there’s one Herculean education process required across the way.