What's Wrong with Firm and Fast of the 1950s?

[Jerry Kluger]

I have belonged to two courses that were built in the 1950s and they were both designed with the understanding that they would play firm and fast.  Most of the fairways are sloped to one side or the other, and the greens are at least partially open in front allowing for a ground approach shot.  My belief is that the architects were dealing with far less sophisticated watering systems and they did not envision the lush fairways and soft greens which are so prevelant today. 

The fact is that these courses, which were built in what I view as the Eisenhower/Hogan and later Palmer era, are generally viewed as unexceptional  from a design standpoint.; the question I am posing is whether this is deserved or not.  They are solid designs which recognized maintenance and playability, to accommodate superintendent and player needs.  Golf was coming of age and the new golfing world might have been turned off to the game if every green had deep bunkers and required aerial shots which would be rejected by the firm greens.

Also, are the maintenance practices of today detracting from these designs and would today's golfer embrace these courses if they were played under firm and fast conditions?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jerry - good post.

One of the unexpected things that's come from my time here on golfclubatlas is a better appreciation for the modest public courses I play.  I think for a while I didn't give them near enough credit (in other words, I wasted my time wondering about and wishing I could play all the great/expensive/private courses out there instead). Now I better see all the interest and fun and challenge of these usually shortish mom-and-pop courses (and find that I don't score any better on them than on much longer, modern courses).  But I don't think I'm the only one who under-appreciates these type of courses -- unfortuantely, I think many of their owners/operators do too; and I think that manifests itself in an attempt to spiff up and update and glamorize these courses, usually by trying to get better conditions...and the irony, of course, is that -- as you suggest -- they probably play better and were meant to play better in all their understated simplicity and modest maintenance practices. 

I guess we'd all do better to better appreciate what we have instead of what we don't (or, more accurately, what we think we don't).

Peter   

[Jerry Kluger]

Peter: it's not just the mom and pop public courses that I'm talking about.  Some of the upscale private courses built in that era were built with the idea that limited maintenance options were available.  RTJ came along and made some more demanding features but other designers, such as Alfred Tull, who designed many courses in the Mid-Atlantic, did not make aerial shots a requirement of playing one of his courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

Color TV is the culprit.

In the early 1950's it was strictly black & white.

Once color TV came into existance, firm and fast, vis a vis no water, was on its way to obscurity.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: Are you saying that a course which plays firm and fast cannot be green? What about today's players - will the golfing public, whether at a public or private venue, accept firm and fast conditions for their own course?  The members at my club have no interest in the ground game and would not accept firm greens.  When the wind blows and the greens firm up, even the pros today have a hard time accepting the condtions and adapting to them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

Fast & firm is largely illlusury at many locations.

I can't imagine courses in Washington, D.C. or Florida being F&F in the summer.

And, yes, I'll jump on the plank and state that you can't have F&F on strictly green grass for lenghthy durations unless you have a huge budget.

As to the acceptance issue, I know clubs that are striving to achieve F&F, and "green" isn't the foundation of the pursuit.

On the other hand, other clubs that strive for "green" will never be F&F as long as "green" remains their goal.

What most higher handicaps don't realize, (and they're the majority of any membership) is that F&F helps them get to more greens in regulation.

That F&F adds yards to their game, making them longer ( a good thing for higher handicaps)

But, with the PGA Tour on TV every week, when each week has the "mowing pattern of the week" highlight, it's a tough current to swim against.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I didn't start playing until the 70s  but I do remember firm and fast conditions at these clubs in that era - you're right, in the summer they weren't green but they certainly posed different challenges than what we see today. Where did RTJ come in with respect to those conditions. My only memory is some work he did at Baltusrol - what about his other courses - did he only do high end courses with big budgets to keep everything soft and green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

I don't think RTJ had anything to do with "green"

His career began when "brown" was beautiful.

[John Keenan]

Pat

I thoroughly agree with your statement that high handicappers benefit from firmer courses. Besides the obvious roll on drives the ability to run balls up onto greens versus using highly lofted wedges for aerial shots.

Admittedly it would take a bit of time to get use to F&F but I think the HH would be far more happy. As an 18 Hdcp I can state that I enjoy the ability to run a ball onto a green with a 9 or 7 iron versus trying to "throw darts" with a wedge.

John

[Rich Goodale]

John

I'll disagree with you and Pat in that my experience is that firm and fast makes higher handicap golfers play much worse--IF the course is well designed.  I've seen it year after year in Scotland, when the courses turn brown the hackers can't handle it.  Sure they hit it farther, but on a well-designed course that just makes the ill-aimed shot go further into places golfers do not want to be.  As for hitting more greens in regulation, that is a joke, in that to hit a firm and fast green in regulation you either have to be able to spin the ball or have have an elevated sense of distance control and how the ball acts while rolling along the ground.  Hackers have neither.  On the other hand, when courses are slow and soft and any old indifferent shot can stick on a green, the hackers can't be beaten.  When it is fast and firm, they crumble.  Trust me.

Rich

[John Keenan]

Rich

Interesting argument and I see your logic.

I guess why I still stand by my position is that once the HH gets a feel for what is happening it is easier for them to run balls onto the green they will be able to do it easier than flying  a wedge. They may not have a tap in for birdie but least with a run up the next club taken out is a putter .

On the drive you make an good point and that is hard to argue with. A drive that rolls off may well get you into some trouble.  Once again with experience they may find that the 3 wood gets them less flight distance but ends up with better results.

I would suspect your comments are aimed at  Yanks who are over for a golf trip. Curious if the average HH local player has the same issues? I would suspect (ok hope) that they would learn what works and what does not.

As a HH I find a more enjoyable round when it is HH and I can depend on running the ball up as well as getting some extra yards from the roll.

John

[Lou_Duran]

Richard,

I mostly agree with your analysis, but would modify it based on a course's use of rough and presence of hazards and trees.  From the standpoint of the average player, courses with an abundance of these play easier when soft.  Hard (firm) greens are more difficult (and frustrating) for most golfers, but women and old men in particular.

I remember back in the 70s when the Scarlet course at Ohio State would firm up, holding a green with the softest balata ball required a crisp, strong hit from a good lie.  Even Div. I college players had a hard time breaking 80 when the wind and the rough were up.       

[Jerry Kluger]

I believe that high handicappers simply don't hit that many greens in regulation.  I read a summary which I believe showed that regularly breaking 80 did not require hitting more than 6 greens in regulation per round.  In any event - high handicappers simply don't hit many greens and today's courses which require an aerial game are far more difficult than those which allow for a ground game.  That doesn't mean that they won't try the aerial shot anyway, but the misses won't be penalized as much. 

Getting back to those courses of the 1950s - am I correct that most of them had sloping fairways and openings to the greens because of the maintenance abilities in that era? Many of them had trees, and many added trees, but does that make the design bad?

[Dan Herrmann]

Jerry - great thread....

Let me juxtapose your question.  What if a recent C&C course were significantly overwatered, thatchy, and s-l-o-w.

The course would play like crap.

One of the joys of a C&C course is the ground game that the conditions allow.

A former greenkeeper at my club used 27.5 m gallons of H2O last year.  Guess what, it played soft, slow, and - to be blunt - crappy.  The new guy is using a fraction of that, and guess what - it's firm, fast, and amazingly fun.

Same design, but the architect's vision is finally being realized.  Same thing course be said for your club, Jerry...

[Bob Jenkins]

Jerry,

I understand your question to be that you have courses designed as firm and fast but they became green and slow through the evolution following the 1950s. Did those courses built in the 1950s when firm and fast was common lose their character once "green and soft" became the norm?

I do not think there is anything wrong with Firm and Fast of the 1950s or any other time. What changed them was Toro and Rain Bird and the ability to be able to sit in a room somewhere on the course and control the sprinkling. No longer did the greens crew have to go out and water the course by hand. Once they had Toro and Rainbird, it was easy. Soak the hell out of the course and take advantage of the fancy irrigation system the club just paid for.

In other words, it became too easy to water a course and slow things down. Living up here in what to you guys is the Pacific Northwest, our courses are rather wet for most months of the year and we often pray for the opportunity of firm and fast.

[Jerry Kluger]

Bob: When I play my home course today and point out to the members that the greens have openings in the front in order to be able to run the ball up onto the putting surface, they simply ask "Why would you want to do that?" They just don't see that when the course was built they didn't have the ability, either because of money or staff, to water the course sufficiently to make the course soft enough for an aerial game.  My course also suffers from the pine tree planting craze of the 1960s, but the superintendent has cut off the branches up as high as 15 or 20 feet.  Still, you can wind up with a shot to the green from the rough with a tree or branch blocking you - I love to run it up onto the green from that position but most members have no idea or interest in that shot.

[John Keenan]

Jerry


Hopefully watch The Open will give then an idea of what is possible on an approach shot.

Bob

Interesting coupling of Toro/Rainbird with color TV make overwatered courses desired and far easier to achieve.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Keenan,

Don't listen to Rich Goodale.

You have to context his views within the environment in which he thinks/plays.

F & F in the U.S. is rare, and unless you're playing miniscule greens you don't have to spin the ball or calibrate distance to the inch.

Additional length off the tee results in more greens in regulation, conversely, hitting it shorter results in fewer greens in regulation.

Modern equipment has also narrowed the shot pattern, thus more balls are in play and longer, resulting in more greens in regulation.

[Sean_A]

John Keenan,

Don't listen to Rich Goodale.

You have to context his views within the environment in which he thinks/plays.

F & F in the U.S. is rare, and unless you're playing miniscule greens you don't have to spin the ball or calibrate distance to the inch.

Additional length off the tee results in more greens in regulation, conversely, hitting it shorter results in fewer greens in regulation.

Modern equipment has also narrowed the shot pattern, thus more balls are in play and longer, resulting in more greens in regulation.

Pat

So are you saying that f&f courses in the US play differently than in the UK?  If so, is this just a matter of f&f in the US isn't as f&f as in the UK? 

One part of your playing shorter results in more GIR theory which is flawed is the fact that often times in f&f conditions in the UK, one should sensibly layup, as well struck and aimed shots can often be punished.  The result is for a lot of players on a lot of holes, they don't feel the extra length is worth the risk.  I see it a lot.  Guys bash away on courses which are thoughtfully designed and are often in nasty spots even though they may have hit what they thought was a good shot - hence the reason many Americans don't take to links golf immediately - it takes a bit more patience and a lot more thought concerning where the ball ends up AFTER landing.  Furthermore, if given a choice between the kick in and fly in (from a good lie in decent weather), most folks will choose to fly the ball because its its more predictable and easier to execute.  Kicking a ball in still requires skill in where to land the ball and it also requires skill in controlling the run out - its a tough way to play the game and takes a load of practice to pull off. 

Its an ongoing battle Pat.  Folks know the ball goes a lot further in f&f conditions and so many try to create conditions (often times terrible rough) which help to mitigate extra length.  The result is that courses often play much tougher in the summer than in the winter with inclimate weather, but no rough.  This is why I am so impressed by courses that can keep things interesting in the summer yet control the rough effectively.  I was very impressed with Southerness when I saw bunkers miles up the fairway.  These obviously come into play during summer months and as recovery hazards for those who hit loose drives.  Consequently, this is also my biggest beef with many championship courses over here.  These "in between" bunkers are often utilized in conjunction with heavily bunkered landing zones, heavily bunkered greens and terrible rough.  One often feels there are very few options other than to hit and hope.  In other words, the balance has tipped much more toward the championship side of things rather than toward everyday play for members, guests and visitors.   

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I believe that high handicappers simply don't hit that many greens in regulation.  I read a summary which I believe showed that regularly breaking 80 did not require hitting more than 6 greens in regulation per round.  In any event - high handicappers simply don't hit many greens and today's courses which require an aerial game are far more difficult than those which allow for a ground game.  That doesn't mean that they won't try the aerial shot anyway, but the misses won't be penalized as much. 

Getting back to those courses of the 1950s - am I correct that most of them had sloping fairways and openings to the greens because of the maintenance abilities in that era? Many of them had trees, and many added trees, but does that make the design bad?

Jerry,

I remember a Golf Digest article by a statistician which suggested that the best statistical indication of scoring was GIR.  If I remember correctly the article suggested that a good formula was:

Score = Par + 24 - 2*GIR

Using that formula on a par 72 course would suggest that to shoot 80 would require 8 GIR.  Obviously this formula is only intended to be an average indicator but my somewhat erratic empirical results would suggest it isn't a million miles wrong.  The article acknowledged, by the way that better players who hit more GIR will also have better short games which obviously contribute to the score.

[Jerry Kluger]

Mark:

Maybe it was that formula that I had vaguely recalled.  Okay, so let's say you hit 8 greens in regulation on a par 72 course with a 72.0 rating and an average slope - it means on average you will break 80 and are around a 7 handicap. I don't know exactly what to make of it - on the one hand it does seem that more people should be 7 handicaps or less - on the other hand, touring pros don't hit necessarily hit that many more greens in regulation but they have fantastic short games to make up for it. (I know the rating and slope of the courses they play would also be much higher.)

Pat:

We don't see firm and fast conditions today in the US because of the watering systems which are available so that the courses can be soft and green which is what the members/public want.  However, when looking back at the 1950s and 1960s, the courses were firm and fast.  My original question was if there was anything wrong with those courses and those conditions back then? I think that the one thing you did see was a whole lot of tree planting, especially pines, which was in vogue but really not good for course conditions or appearances.  But putting aside the tree planting, what was so bad about those courses.  I think that today we admire the courses built many decades before then as well as the courses built in the last 20 years, but the courses of the 1950s and 1960s are looked down upon by us GCA types.

[John Keenan]

Pat

Despite Rich Goodale arguments I still feel a ball that is run up on a green has a far better chance (for the HH) than one that is in the air. On the drive a HH benefits from that roll given the generally shorter drive. Sadly I can speak from experience 

I received the following in an e-mail from The Bridges a Johnny Miller course (and not a good one) in Northern California. Seems lush and green is a good marketing tool as well:

"The Bridges Golf Club continues to maintain excellent course conditions even with the extensive heat and drought circumstances. The Bridges Golf Club is one of the few golf courses in the East Bay and surrounding areas able to use reclaimed water.  All other courses are being required to cut back their water usage by 30% often leading to dry and brown fairways."


Obviously dry brown fairways are bad and a sign of a less than excellent golf course.

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

So are you saying that f&f courses in the US play differently than in the UK?  If so, is this just a matter of f&f in the US isn't as f&f as in the UK?



Yes.

F&F in Boynton Beach, Florida is different from F&F in the UK.

Surely you understand climate differences and relativity.[/color] 

One part of your playing shorter results in more GIR theory which is flawed is the fact that often times in f&f conditions in the UK, one should sensibly layup, as well struck and aimed shots can often be punished. 

That has to be one of the classic bone head statements of all time.

I've rarely, if ever, seen a well aimed, well struck shot punished, unless a stray dog picks up the ball.[/color]

The result is for a lot of players on a lot of holes, they don't feel the extra length is worth the risk.  I see it a lot. 

Off the tee ?
Or, on the approach ?

Could you cite the holes you're referencing ?[/color]

Guys bash away on courses which are thoughtfully designed and are often in nasty spots even though they may have hit what they thought was a good shot - hence the reason many Americans don't take to links golf immediately - it takes a bit more patience and a lot more thought concerning where the ball ends up AFTER landing. 

Are you saying that Americans don't aim their shots at the intended target areas and don't listen to their caddies ?[/color]

Furthermore, if given a choice between the kick in and fly in (from a good lie in decent weather), most folks will choose to fly the ball because its its more predictable and easier to execute.  Kicking a ball in still requires skill in where to land the ball and it also requires skill in controlling the run out - its a tough way to play the game and takes a load of practice to pull off. 


Controlling the run out is one of random luck, that's why the best players in the world play the aerial game.  It eliminates luck or random bounces and replaces it with skill.[/color]

Its an ongoing battle Pat.  Folks know the ball goes a lot further in f&f conditions and so many try to create conditions (often times terrible rough) which help to mitigate extra length. 

Are you stating that the rough gets progressively worse on every hole as you drive farther from the tee ?[/color]

The result is that courses often play much tougher in the summer than in the winter with inclimate weather, but no rough. 

That's a seperate issue, but, answer this.
Would you rather approach a green from the rough 180 yards from the green or 150 yards from the green ?[/color]

This is why I am so impressed by courses that can keep things interesting in the summer yet control the rough effectively. 
I was very impressed with Southerness when I saw bunkers miles up the fairway.  These obviously come into play during summer months and as recovery hazards for those who hit loose drives.  Consequently, this is also my biggest beef with many championship courses over here.  These "in between" bunkers are often utilized in conjunction with heavily bunkered landing zones, heavily bunkered greens and terrible rough.  One often feels there are very few options other than to hit and hope.  In other words, the balance has tipped much more toward the championship side of things rather than toward everyday play for members, guests and visitors.

Then, you'd love NGLA.
There are a number of holes where increased distance finds bunkers in play. 

Maintainance costs have to be considered, but, I think much of American golf suffers from the limited mind set of placing bunkers in one area, the DZ, rather than staggering bunkers throughout the hole.

Course after course has a, or two flanking bunkers in the DZ and that's it.
I like those courses that give consideration to bunkering other than a limited area, the DZ. 

Take a look at NGLA on Google Earth and you'll see what I mean [/color]   

[Sean_A]

Pat

So are you saying that f&f courses in the US play differently than in the UK?  If so, is this just a matter of f&f in the US isn't as f&f as in the UK?



Yes.

F&F in Boynton Beach, Florida is different from F&F in the UK.

Surely you understand climate differences and relativity.[/color] 

One part of your playing shorter results in more GIR theory which is flawed is the fact that often times in f&f conditions in the UK, one should sensibly layup, as well struck and aimed shots can often be punished. 

That has to be one of the classic bone head statements of all time.

I've rarely, if ever, seen a well aimed, well struck shot punished, unless a stray dog picks up the ball.[/color]

The result is for a lot of players on a lot of holes, they don't feel the extra length is worth the risk.  I see it a lot. 

Off the tee ?
Or, on the approach ?

Could you cite the holes you're referencing ?[/color]

Guys bash away on courses which are thoughtfully designed and are often in nasty spots even though they may have hit what they thought was a good shot - hence the reason many Americans don't take to links golf immediately - it takes a bit more patience and a lot more thought concerning where the ball ends up AFTER landing. 

Are you saying that Americans don't aim their shots at the intended target areas and don't listen to their caddies ?[/color]

Furthermore, if given a choice between the kick in and fly in (from a good lie in decent weather), most folks will choose to fly the ball because its its more predictable and easier to execute.  Kicking a ball in still requires skill in where to land the ball and it also requires skill in controlling the run out - its a tough way to play the game and takes a load of practice to pull off. 


Controlling the run out is one of random luck, that's why the best players in the world play the aerial game.  It eliminates luck or random bounces and replaces it with skill.[/color]

Its an ongoing battle Pat.  Folks know the ball goes a lot further in f&f conditions and so many try to create conditions (often times terrible rough) which help to mitigate extra length. 

Are you stating that the rough gets progressively worse on every hole as you drive farther from the tee ?[/color]

The result is that courses often play much tougher in the summer than in the winter with inclimate weather, but no rough. 

That's a seperate issue, but, answer this.
Would you rather approach a green from the rough 180 yards from the green or 150 yards from the green ?[/color]

This is why I am so impressed by courses that can keep things interesting in the summer yet control the rough effectively. 
I was very impressed with Southerness when I saw bunkers miles up the fairway.  These obviously come into play during summer months and as recovery hazards for those who hit loose drives.  Consequently, this is also my biggest beef with many championship courses over here.  These "in between" bunkers are often utilized in conjunction with heavily bunkered landing zones, heavily bunkered greens and terrible rough.  One often feels there are very few options other than to hit and hope.  In other words, the balance has tipped much more toward the championship side of things rather than toward everyday play for members, guests and visitors.

Then, you'd love NGLA.
There are a number of holes where increased distance finds bunkers in play. 

Maintainance costs have to be considered, but, I think much of American golf suffers from the limited mind set of placing bunkers in one area, the DZ, rather than staggering bunkers throughout the hole.

Course after course has a, or two flanking bunkers in the DZ and that's it.
I like those courses that give consideration to bunkering other than a limited area, the DZ. 

Take a look at NGLA on Google Earth and you'll see what I mean [/color]   

Pat

Well, I do agree that f&f is a matter of degree and relative.  I absolutely do not agree that controlling runout is matter of luck.  Sure, as with any shot, there is an element of luck, but I think it is generally far more skillful to choose a landing spot and then determine the runout.  This is why good players choose the aerial route - its generally easier to predict and execute.  There are plenty of good courses over here that really don't play any shorter in the summer because the sensible player knows his limitations and accepts that a layup is the sensible option - thereby gaining no advantage in distance off the tee.  Beau Desert strikes me as a great example.  Many of the fairways turn at the landing zones away from harsh rough and trees.  Sure, if you can shape the drive well then Bob's yer uncle.  However, if you are offline with this aggressive play there is a good chance you will not see that ball again.   To be honest, I think Beau would benefit from tree/rough removal to encourage folks to risk the driver option, but I don't hold any sway at the club.   

So far as well aimed and well struck shots being punished, it happens all the time.  Its called over-clubbing - which happens to be a very prevalent mistake in f&f conditions.  Basically, guys don't properly estimate the runout - which is a skill.

I would generally rather approach from 150 rather than 180 - for sure, but it depends on the risks involved to get to 150.  I am saying that often times those risks are increased in f&f conditions because the runout has to be properly gauged.  Otherwise, on well designed courses, there is often trouble ahead such as bunkers, rough, blind shot, awkward stance, or simply a bad angle into the green.  So, the way your question was posed carried little meaning in this debate. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, I do agree that f&f is a matter of degree and relative. 

I absolutely do not agree that controlling runout is matter of luck. 
Then it's your stated opinion that the random/varied terrain has no impact on the roll of the ball ?

Sure, as with any shot, there is an element of luck, but I think it is generally far more skillful to choose a landing spot and then determine the runout.

But, there's more certainty and less luck in the aerial game.

This is why good players choose the aerial route - its generally easier to predict and execute. 

Then the same would have to apply to lesser skilled players [/color]

There are plenty of good courses over here that really don't play any shorter in the summer because the sensible player knows his limitations and accepts that a layup is the sensible option - thereby gaining no advantage in distance off the tee. 

Would you say that that's true of TOC, Troon, Prestwick, Western Gales, Gulane, Muirfield and Carnoustie ?[/color]

Beau Desert strikes me as a great example.  Many of the fairways turn at the landing zones away from harsh rough and trees.  Sure, if you can shape the drive well then Bob's yer uncle.  However, if you are offline with this aggressive play there is a good chance you will not see that ball again.   To be honest, I think Beau would benefit from tree/rough removal to encourage folks to risk the driver option, but I don't hold any sway at the club.

It sounds as though the culprit is doglegs, not F&F.
But, I'm not familiar with Beau Desert so I'm not qualified to comment.[/color]   

So far as well aimed and well struck shots being punished, it happens all the time.  Its called over-clubbing - which happens to be a very prevalent mistake in f&f conditions. 

Well aimed and well struck shots are called great shots.

Over-clubbing is far, far, far rarer than under-clubbing.
It's in the great minority.[/color]

Basically, guys don't properly estimate the runout - which is a skill.

After the first hole, why would they improperly estimate the runout unless the ground is inconsistent, which is one of the strongest arguments for the aerial game.[/color]

I would generally rather approach from 150 rather than 180 - for sure, but it depends on the risks involved to get to 150.  I am saying that often times those risks are increased in f&f conditions because the runout has to be properly gauged. 

But, the golfer has to go through the same mental exercise in determining club selection when playing the aerial game.  The runout game has a large aerial component.  It starts with the aerial game and transitions to the runout game.  If you know you have to hit the ball 150 to get to 180 you select your 150 club, it's that simple.

You're overcomplicating it[/color]

Otherwise, on well designed courses, there is often trouble ahead such as bunkers, rough, blind shot, awkward stance, or simply a bad angle into the green. 

I'm afraid I don't understand you on this point.
Are you saying that on well designed courses the features become more penal as you get closer to the green ?

Can you identify 5 courses with that configuration ?[/color]

So, the way your question was posed carried little meaning in this debate. 


Only if you didn't understand it.[/color]