What happens when the Green Chairman "gets it", but,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

I think the Superintendent is the linch pin to the solution.

I'll explain why later.

[Jeff Goldman]

I agree that at a club with a decent-sized membership, possibly the best you can do is, as our Director of Grounds puts it, "firm as possible while still being green." 

I have had this discussion several times with him, and the question is always "how much brown will the membership accept?"

2 quick stories:  Our DoG tells a story of playing with board members at his former club, and being told very vociferously by a couple that they wanted the  course firmed up, and didn't care about some of it being brown.  "Great! how much brown can you stand?"  "What do you mean?"  "Well, how about if maybe 2 fairways of grass around the course were brown?"  "UGH, no way!"  "How about 1 fairway?"  "Ugh, no way."  End of discussion.  And these were folks who at least claimed to be F&F fans.

Second story:  During the South Course project, we had a grounds committee meeting on the course.  Since we were regrassing the fairways, they hadn't been irrigated, and were browning up pretty good.  Me, a buddy, and our Director of Grounds thought it might be a good time for taking a shot at it, and at least trying to begin the education process.  I played straight man - "Sam, how would the course play if it firmed up?  "well, its terrific for regular players because they get extra roll, while better players have to shape the ball to keep it in the fairway and in proper position."  "And what does turning the water off do for disease pressure?"  "Well, turning off the water significantly lessens disease pressures on the course."  "and what about the budget?"  "Well, it would allow significant savings in water use, fertilizer, etc., etc.."  "And how much brown would there be?"  "well, with our grasses, there might be a fair amount of brown scattered around the course, possibly as much as 10% of the fairways or more would look like what you see out here,"  Committee: "Ugh, no way, we can't let our guests see it looking like this." 

Possibly concrete F&F can be obtained at a golf club with relatively few members and a dictator-president.  However, I think "firm as possible while staying relatively green" is the best that can be done, and even that is a huge improvement over  "lush and flushed."  I have never had as much fun playing the courses as over the past couple years. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Your post highlights the problem.

"Green" is THE culture of golf in America.

Most playing golf today don't recall when every fairway had brown during the summer months.  So, they have no historical perspective as to how conditions used to be, when the fairways were brownish and the ball rolled.

Add to that the televising and viewing of the different tours and how those courses prep for up to a year or more to get the courses in prime condition for THE CAMERAS.

As long as turf is healthy, color is unimportant to playing conditions.

But, most golfers don't think in terms of playing conditions, they think in terms of aesthetics.

Now some bozo will say, why can't you have both ?

The reason is that the current culture of golf opposes both.

The notion of miraculously educating 400 golfers in unison is absurd.
It's not going to happen.
And, despite all the efforts in the world, some golfers want "green" as the color of play.

Chris Kane,

How many green committees have you sat on ?

[Chris Tritabaugh]

Firm and fast worked for us at Northland last year for a number of reasons. 

The first and most important was the green committee believed in what we were doing and they listened to and understood the reasons I gave for maintaining fast and firm.  With them on board it made it that much easier for the story to be taken to the rest of the membership.

The second and almost as important reason it worked, was my continuous efforts to educate the membership.  Both of my parents are educators and teaching is in my blood.  I worked tirelessly last summer to explain to the membership how fast and firm was good for both agronomic reasons and their enjoyment of the game. 

The third reason came after the fact, both last fall and this season, the golf course was better because of it.  While the previous two reasons were important to allowing fast and firm to take place it would have all been for not if the ends had not justified the means.  The beauty of fast and firm is that the agronomic practices required to allow a course to play this way, without significant loss of turf, are the same agronomic practices that produce healthier turf, better drainage, and in our geographic location help to prevent winter kill. 

"If you get it, you should be able to explain it to others who have a reasonable interest in the subject."

"But if you can't get even a groundswell of support for what you are thinking, you are probably not on the right track to start with."

I would wholeheartedly agree with both of these statements by Tom_D.  Fast and firm isn't just a belief or an idea it is something that can be done.  When it is done the golf course and all of the members benefit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

If what you and others say is true, then why aren't the overwhelming majority of golf courses fast and firm ?

Why are courses that are fast and firm in the great minority ?

[Joe Hancock]

Chris,

If what you and others say is true, then why aren't the overwhelming majority of golf courses fast and firm ?

Why are courses that are fast and firm in the great minority ?

Pat,

Maybe a part of that question is answered when you consider what society is like nowadays; "It's not my fault", "it isn't fair", etc.....so, when a ball  bounces somewhere they can't predict, it obviously isn't fair, and the way to make a golf course fair is to soften it with water, which also turns it green, among other effects.

Maybe....

Joe

[Chris Kane]

Chris Kane,

How many green committees have you sat on ?

Patrick Mucci,

0.

I await your explanation about why the superintendent is the linchpin to the solution.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

Chris,

If what you and others say is true, then why aren't the overwhelming majority of golf courses fast and firm ?

Why are courses that are fast and firm in the great minority ?

On a Superintendents website this past winter I asked how many guys out there were going fast and firm or "brown is beautiful".  It sparked a nice discussion eventually but at first most of the replies were along the lines of if you value your job you will make sure you have support for what you are doing.  Others flat out said they were not interested in fast and firm as it could result in the loss of a job. 

I was in a unique position of being a first year Superintendent at a course that was previously wet and soggy.  I knew what I had to do and from the time I first interviewed for the position I spoke of drying the course out.  I had the confidence to know that fast and firm would produce great results and I had a honeymoon period in which to make it happen.  Now just one year later Northland in much better for it.

I don't know why more people don't do it?  I can say it is a lot of work.  The education must be tireless, and the work on the course even more so, especially at the beginning of the process. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I don't think it will be as hard to do in the near future. It won't be long when water will be so closely regulated that a green chairman who has swung his membership around to a more lean and mean course today will be looked on as a hero down the road.
The savings to the club on fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides alone should earn him/her a plaque on the wall.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

Your paragraph in response was quite interesting and informative.

On a Superintendents website this past winter I asked how many guys out there were going fast and firm or "brown is beautiful".  It sparked a nice discussion eventually but at first most of the replies were along the lines of if you value your job you will make sure you have support for what you are doing.  Others flat out said they were not interested in fast and firm as it could result in the loss of a job.

Superintendents are employees, the club, their employer.

Job security is achieved/lost at the behest of the membership.

What the other superintendents were saying is that they weren't going to risk their jobs when their employer didn't share their view on course conditions (fast & firm)

While clubs don't fire members, they do remove them from office, hence a green chairman whose opinion substantively differs from the membership's is also at risk.  Certainly not to the extent that superintendents are, but, to the extent that they lose their chairmanship, and in doing so, they lose the noble goal they sought.

The answer to the problem of taking a course to F&F may be a genuine partnership between the skilled professional and the member designated as his immediate superior.

If that relationship, and the ideals they hold are in harmony, I believe the task of "converting" the membership to F&F becomes a possibility, provided both enjoy reasonable tenure.

What I find interesting is that many members will rush out and spend
$ 500 to buy a new driver that's alleged to give them ten more yards, but, if each member spent $ 500 toward the green budget, that would give the superintendent $ 100,000 to $ 200,000 to give them 20-30 more yards..... consistently.

[Chris Kane]

What I find interesting is that many members will rush out and spend
$ 500 to buy a new driver that's alleged to give them ten more yards, but, if each member spent $ 500 toward the green budget, that would give the superintendent $ 100,000 to $ 200,000 to give them 20-30 more yards..... consistently.

You have started many threads expressing your frustration about memberships who want their course set up as difficult as possible.  In my experience, such observations are correct.

Do you really think the members would want to pay to make their course easier?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I don't think Superintendents should involve themselves in anything other than an educational capacity, until the same people who will fire them later sign on for F&F.    

[Chris Tritabaugh]

Do you really think the members would want to pay to make their course easier?

Some of the really good players at Northland were very concerned about the course becoming too easy.  Even with a severe drought and no rough irrigation the course was not easier!

In my last post I used "I" a lot.  While the idea of fast and firm at Northland came from me the success was definitely because of "we".  Our green committee, other members in and out of leadership positions, my staff and myself.  It all has to be there for fast and firm to work.  Probably more reasons why you don't see more of it. 
I am telling you that it can be done.  Its hard work, it takes time but it works and when it does its wonderful.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What I find interesting is that many members will rush out and spend
$ 500 to buy a new driver that's alleged to give them ten more yards, but, if each member spent $ 500 toward the green budget, that would give the superintendent $ 100,000 to $ 200,000 to give them 20-30 more yards..... consistently.

You have started many threads expressing your frustration about memberships who want their course set up as difficult as possible.  In my experience, such observations are correct.

Do you really think the members would want to pay to make their course easier?

According to Shivas, making the course faster & firmer doesn't make it easier.

When I was involved in a project that would indirectly make the course firmer and faster, that was one of my selling points to get the membership to vote the funds necessary for the project.   Something about getting extra distance must have struck a chord because the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the project.  So, yes, I think members will pay more to improve the playability of the golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think Superintendents should involve themselves in anything other than an educational capacity, until the same people who will fire them later sign on for F&F.    

Jim,

You and I both know that this isn't something that's resovled in a day.

It takes a concerted effort, over time, before a membership can be convinced and converted, whether it applies to tree removal or fast and firm conditions, it's a lengthy process.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sometimes I think too much is made of the idea that you have to have a mandate before you start to make changes. In most cases change at courses occur when a new super comes in, but even then I’m not sure it’s wise to come in and announce some huge change. IMO, changing over to firm and fast is best done subtlety, not only because it’s better for the turf but also because if done gradually most will not even notice until they realize how much fun they are having playing golf.  No one likes mud on their ball, and almost no one like potted up soft greens. Players like the golf course dry and sometimes it’s best to just ease into it without all the proclamations.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

If you want to have firm dry conditions on a golf course you really need to have a pretty big budget, especially on an older golf course where there is almost always a good amount of organic matter build up on the surface. That organic matter will dry out on you and become very difficult to rehydrate, and you can quickly go from yellow to brown to dead. So your education program needs to begin with having the budget, the tools, and the staff in place to manage the turf on the edge.

But in answer to your question, I find that it is way easier to communicate ideas to a membership than it is to an owner. In the private club sector you have committees and meetings, and whenever you have a group of people making decisions as opposed to one person with absolute rule, you have a much much better chance of succeeding with sound logic and friendly persuasion.

The fast and firm concept for golden age clubs is probably more often as not limited more by budget constraints than it is philosophy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

Budget is not an issue in this case.

[Bill Brightly]

I wonder if "fast and firm" will grow in acceptance just like tree removal has.

I would venture to say that 10 years ago, tree huggers ruled the day. But now that so many courses have completed massive tree removal projects, the tree huggers are a small and (largely) silent minority. Trees come down now with hardly a wimper...

If more courses go to fast and firm, the word will spread among golfers, and it wil be easier for other courses to follow the trend. However, I think biggest initial resistance will come from superintendents worrying about the health of the turf. It is easy to get supers to cut down trees. F & F is clearly another matter...