Perfecting the Lie

[Greg Murphy]

All things being equal (cost, environmental impact, turf resilience, etc.,) what type of fairway lie should the designers and maintainers of a course strive to achieve? What is the gold standard? Dare I generalize to say, that most avid players value fairways that are dense, uniform, smooth and firm, i.e., fairways with turf that provides a “beneficial” lie that rewards the location of their past shot by providing an easier pad to launch their next shot.

Agree or disagree: a hallmark of good design and maintenance is the provision of a good lie for a ball that finds the fairway turf.

[JESII]

If I had one reward to choose after a good drive, I would select the preferred angle over the nice lie every single time...

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I'd prefer to see more golf courses get away from this fixation of perfect lies or perfecting the lie and go back to a bit more of what might be referred to as "seasonal" conditions. After-all that pretty much is the way of nature when it comes to turf.

[Jim Johnson]

A friend of mine told me about this little device the other day...

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2001/011105.pdf

Interesting how different cultivars produce different types of lies. Obviously, some cultivars are bred for certain lies in fairways such as a nice upright lie.

Any turf experts out there care to chime in?

[Bill_McBride]

Would it be possible to arrange for very firm fairways (for that extra 20 yards of roll), with nice tight turf for the iron shots and sort of fluffy lies for the occasional fairway wood?

[Dan King]

Greg Murphy writes:
All things being equal (cost, environmental impact, turf resilience, etc.,) what type of fairway lie should the designers and maintainers of a course strive to achieve?

Inconsistent.

Cheers,
Dan King

Variety's the very spice of life, That gives it all its flavour.
 --William Cowper

[Greg Murphy]

JES II,

You'd prefer an imperfect lie with better angle into the green over a perfect lie with poor angle into the green. It's not really an either/or situation is it? As well as "superior lie; inferior angle" or "inferior lie; superior angle", what about "superior lie; superior angle" and "inferior lie; inferior angle"?

Let's assume you can choose and maintain fairway turf  that I am suggesting the typical avid golfer wants, i.e., one that makes it easier to launch a ball high and/or spin it, which makes it easier (for those with the requisite ability) to "make shots" by controlling the flight of the ball and maybe just flying over green side hazards rather than skirting them. This offends our sense of strategy if we think of strategy as tacking one's way around a course. The more perfect the fairway lies, the more difficult it is to make angles really work. To protect angles, we can design so that we never get a superior lie from an inferior angle. This is often done with length of cut and hazards, but I suppose a fairway could be maintained differently depending on the angle (really just a finer gradation of fairway to rough) and even designed differently with differing fairway cultivars used depending on angle. I doubt that has ever been done but it is an interesting possibility.

On the other hand, as you suggest, on the odd hole you might want to give players a choice - superior lie but inferior angle (are you good enough to take advantage of the lie to fly the hazards?) or superior angle but inferior lie (would you prefer the option of getting to the green with a low shot, taking the hazards out of play?).

[Greg Murphy]

TEPaul,

I agree players put waaaaaaay too much emphasis on conditions. The course where I play most of my golf once had "winter rules" into mid-summer. Ridiculous. Absolutely, let conditions vary with the seasons. But in "prime time" which could last months at a time and if it's a matter of knowledgeable design (through turf selection, drainage, etc.) and maintenance choices, not money, is there any reason not to design and maintain so fairway turf provides relatively consistent and widespread "preferred" lies to reward players for finding the fairway? Isn't that what a fairway is supposed to do?

[Dan King]

Greg Murphy writes:
s there any reason not to design and maintain so fairway turf provides relatively consistent and widespread "preferred" lies to reward players for finding the fairway? Isn't that what a fairway is supposed to do?

Only if you want the game to become dreadfully boring.

Golf should be about occasionally punishing the good shot and rewarding the bad shot.

The idea shouldn't be to go out of your way to punish the good shot, but just to avoid trying to always reward good shots.

Avoid consistency.

Cheers,
Dan King

So many people preach equity in golf. Nothing is so foreign to the truth. Does any human being receive what he conceives as equity in his life? He has got to take the bitter with the sweet, and as he forges through all the intricacies and inequalities which life presents, he proves his metal. In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice. Equity has nothing to do with the game itself. If founded on eternal justice the game would be deadly dull to watch and play.
 --Charles Blair Macdonald

[Greg Murphy]

Dan,

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree the occasional good shot should be punished and the odd bad shot not punished. "Here, here" for variety, unpredictability and randomness. It's all about where you draw the line. A game that is totally unpredictable and random is a game of chance rather than sport. And I know you're not suggesting total randomness, just arguing against the blandness of uniformity. The surface areas of a course can run the spectrum from relatively high uniformity to the opposite, e.g., fairways ought to be more uniform than rough or sand. Your point seems to be that the spectrum needs to be blunted on the uniformity end, because there comes a point where a course's fairways may offer such a predictable and preferred surface from which to launch a ball, regardless of the course's many other dimensions such as hazards, uneven lies and wind, that the course is doomed to be dreadfully boring. I think that is taking things a bit far. I don't think golf is that easy of a game, that if the driver is on and the fairway lies are superior, it's game over.

But I think your vote is clear. If it were possible at no additional cost or effort to have "perfect" fairways (whatever that might mean, tight and dense to control the ball for the aerial game; firmer and thinner for better run and to make it easier to hit the ball low on a windy site) you would say good architecture should resist use of that tool.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Here is Harry Colt's view from 1912 (I quoted him in THE ANATOMY OF A GOLF COURSE, which is a good thing, because I don't have THE BOOK OF THE LINKS handy):

"I well remember an argument upon this point which I had some little time back at Sunningdale ... when someone came up to me and admired the state of the green, our of sheer contrariness I objected, and said that the lies were getting much too good.  My friend would not agree on the ground that if a good shot had been made, the player was entitled to the best of everything.  But surely this can be overdone, as what we want to do, amongst other things, is to extract the very best golf from a man, and nothing does this so much as difficult lies and difficult stances. ... This is generally the weakness of inland courses, and where they have been ploughed up and sown with seed the surface has in the past been usually levelled at the same time, and a number of small interesting details removed."


That's a far-out perspective for most people today, but I would agree with him that supplying a variety of lies and stances is more important to testing a golfer as making him hit long and straight off the tee, or for that matter "strategic" design over flat ground.

Sadly, this will never become something that architects embrace today.  Most architects want to see perfect conditioning on any course that has their name on it, simply because it's a reflection upon them.  And aside from that, I've had one or two clients (who shall remain nameless) vote for easy, ball-sitting up lies instead of tight and firm conditions, because it fit their own games better.

[Dan Herrmann]

Does serendipity play a role?

[James Bennett]

Would it be possible to arrange for very firm fairways (for that extra 20 yards of roll), with nice tight turf for the iron shots and sort of fluffy lies for the occasional fairway wood?

Bill

sounds like you want the best of three different worlds.  If we are fortunate, we can find this in our respective wives.  If we are unfortunate, we can get the worst of all three worlds. 

The worst of all three worlds?  In golf - no run, tight fairway wood lies and fluffy iron shot/short game lies.  In wives, well I think it is best to say nothing!

James B

[Greg Murphy]

Tom,

I wonder if the clients who wanted easy, ball sitting up lies instead of tight and firm conditions did so because it fit their own games better or because they thought it would be more appealing to their expected customer base and thus better ensure the viability of their course.

Presumably fairways ought to provide good lies, at least better lies than elsewhere on the course. When does good become too good? When does good become bad? What "type of game" does a golfer have who prefers the ball to sit up a bit, versus one who would rather the ball rest nearer the ground?

Would you ever say to a client: "I can provide you with hassle free, low maintenance, low input turf that holds the ball a bit off the turf over most fairway areas, or I can provide you with turf that basically holds the ground together so the ball can be played off the ground. I recommend the latter, though it won't come cheap."

Boy, if Colt thought things were too good a hundred years ago, what would he say now? I'm all for ruggedness and not too keen on pristine, but I'm not sure I'd like to go back to pre-irrigation days. And don't you think Colt's emphasis was more on the levelness of lie rather than the lie presented by turf?

Finally, if ideal fairway turf ought to be of uneven consistency, does the same apply to putting greens?

[Jon Wiggett]

Finally, if ideal fairway turf ought to be of uneven consistency, does the same apply to putting greens?

Greg,

why should the greens be consistant? Isn't it reasonable to expect the golfer to realise that in shaded areas the greens might be more receptive and slower and in exposed areas firmer and faster.

GCA & maintanance should be to try and present the best golfing experience. A GCA that comprimises this in any way other than budget constraints has not fulfilled this goal.

Now the only thing left is to decide what the best golfing experience .

[Sean_A]

Here is Harry Colt's view from 1912 (I quoted him in THE ANATOMY OF A GOLF COURSE, which is a good thing, because I don't have THE BOOK OF THE LINKS handy):

"I well remember an argument upon this point which I had some little time back at Sunningdale ... when someone came up to me and admired the state of the green, our of sheer contrariness I objected, and said that the lies were getting much too good.  My friend would not agree on the ground that if a good shot had been made, the player was entitled to the best of everything.  But surely this can be overdone, as what we want to do, amongst other things, is to extract the very best golf from a man, and nothing does this so much as difficult lies and difficult stances. ... This is generally the weakness of inland courses, and where they have been ploughed up and sown with seed the surface has in the past been usually levelled at the same time, and a number of small interesting details removed."


That's a far-out perspective for most people today, but I would agree with him that supplying a variety of lies and stances is more important to testing a golfer as making him hit long and straight off the tee, or for that matter "strategic" design over flat ground.

Sadly, this will never become something that architects embrace today.  Most architects want to see perfect conditioning on any course that has their name on it, simply because it's a reflection upon them.  And aside from that, I've had one or two clients (who shall remain nameless) vote for easy, ball-sitting up lies instead of tight and firm conditions, because it fit their own games better.

This quote seems to be mixing up two different concepts.  Fairway conditions and the lay of the land. 

So far as testing shots via lies and stances I agree with whole heartily as being more interesting than strategic design over flat ground.  Though the best is when a course can combine the two.  I always think there is room for some flatish holes on a course.  This sort of land really gives the archie an opportunity to be cunning - perhaps a breather hole of sorts to wake up the sleeping. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

"I wonder if the clients who wanted easy, ball sitting up lies instead of tight and firm conditions did so because it fit their own games better or because they thought it would be more appealing to their expected customer base and thus better ensure the viability of their course."

Greg - Of course they did.  But they understood that view so much better because they were their own #1 customer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,

Tom Watson once said that if a course needs good maintenance to play well, its probably not a good course, and I agree with that, and others, who say that our top end courses are striving too hard for perfection.  While I have no problem with supers trying to provide good fw, I struggle when clubs demand perfect bunkers, rough, and in one case, even perfect lies in the trees many yards off the fw!

I think a super ought to provide as good a fw as his budget allows.  In theory, if bad lies are actually desired in the fw, then I guess the entire play corridor should be fw.  Otherwise, whats the reason to try to hit it?  Serendipity plays a role, but I think trying for a good lie as super will still leave enough divots, etc. for players to occaisionally contend with.

The gold standard seems to be Zoysia.  As one golfer put it, playing off zoysia fw is almost like cheating, because the ball sits up so well.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Hey, I quoted Watson in the Anatomy book, too!

I agree with you about zoysia fairways.  I remember when we were interviewing for the Oklahoma State job many years ago (which I didn't get ) I spoke to several of their ex-players about fairway turf.  Bob Tway told me he didn't think zoysia fairways would be good for the team because they would get too accustomed to perfect lies and their ball-striking would get sloppy, and then they'd have a hard time competing on bentgrass or poa fairways where a slightly fat shot is a disaster.

[Chip Gaskins]

but a tight, skinny lie on bent grass fairways is a WHOLE lot hard to hit than a tight, skinny lie off firm and fast fairways...

(AS A PLAYER) i will take the good lie, screw the better angle

(AS A GCA Enthusiast) i will take the better angle versus the perfect lie...i can have it both ways, right...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chip,

I agree. I have a golf strategy book by either Watson or Irwin and both say tee shot strategy revolves around playing not for maximum distance, but for the levelest lie you can find.  I think Trevino has said the same thing in writing and I have heard him say it personally.  I suspect Jack would also say the same.

So, anyone who says they play for angle over lie disagrees with some of the best golfers in the world.  If it were me, I would rethink that position, because I think those guys know more than I do about such things!

Tom,

I did a plan for a never constructed driving range for another college golf team and the coach wanted at least some area of scruffy lies for the exact same reason.  He also wanted to try areas of Bluegrass and bentgrass in the south so his team could practice for northern tournaments before going, which I didn't think was possible.

[Dan King]

The fairway should increase the odds of having a more favorable lie, but not guarantee it in anyway.

Golf should remain as much a mental test as a physical test. Can you handle the test of hitting the drive of your life, right down the middle into the fairway, and find you have a poor or awkward lie? Such is golf, and should always remain part of golf.

Cheers,
Dan King

It's not whether you won or lost, but how many bad-beat stories you were able to tell.
     -- Grantland Rice