"Firm and Fast" is it the new bandwagon?

[Grant Saunders]

Is the notion that courses are better if they play firm and fast in danger of causing the same amount of damage that the idea that greens must be fast to be considered good?

At the risk of upsetting some people on board here, I feel that many are taking this concept and applying it across the board to all courses as a measure of how good a course is.

This is essentially the same mindset that began when fast greens grew in the public perception of what quantifies a good golf experience. I can recall countless times hearing from golfers that this or that course was great simply because it had fast greens. This notion was then carried back to their course and pressure was applied to have their course meet this new standard of greatness.

I feel that the belief of firm and fast is now creeping more into the greater golfing public consciousness and people are starting to latch onto this new indicator of how their golf course stacks up against others. As was/is experienced with the fast greens idea, the saying about a little bit of knowledge making a person dangerous is very much in play here.

As many participants on here loathe the stimpmeter, there was great support for the firmness measuring device(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34027.0.html.) I see this tool providing uneducated people with so called data to direct the maintenance of the course they play.

Well, as a former Greens Chairman who pushed the former Superintendent to turn off the water, cut the fairways to a reasonable playing height and push the hell out of our sand top dressing program on old push up greens, I can say that the membership of our club didn't get it.  The average age of the membership was  60+ and they were quite happy sweeping the golf ball off of 1" turf. So much so that they voted me off the board as a sitting Vice President and incoming President.  Much to my delight, not before I could hire a new Superintendent who gets it too.

This post to me highlights the possible situation we are heading for. It is exactly the same mentality that that gained momentum with the push for faster greens.

Im am not implying that firm and fast has no place in golf, I am trying to get across that there is no one set of standards to apply to all golf courses. I am of the opinion that a golf courses conditioning/maintenance should be determined by the underlying structure such as soil types and contouring. Trying to maintain a course in a manner that is not in harmony with the land is just a recipe for disaster and it is normally the superintendent who suffers the consequences.

As I stated in another post, an understanding of architecture does not automatically make a person knowledgeable in the field of turf and agronomy.

[Mike Sweeney]

Is the notion that courses are better if they play firm and fast in danger of causing the same amount of damage that the idea that greens must be fast to be considered good?

Grant,

I don't think f&f is catching on all that much, after all Bruce Leland, as per his quote that you used, got tossed off the board of his club!

The problem with fast green speeds and modern grasses, is it makes people and organizations think about changing historic greens - Merion and the USGA contemplating changing the 5th and 12th greens for the 2013 US Open. If they change, they will not change back.

I assume you are a Super and are sensitive to Bruce's statement because the Super lost his job. With F&F, the Super can always reverse and apply more water. Along the way, he may lose a green or two in fine tuning the right balance, and in a perfect world, the Green Committee and membership would understand this, but that is obviously a utopian world.

Obviously Yale a Raynor course in the rocks and clay of Connecticut and Mountain Lake a Raynor course on sand in Florida will and should have different maintenance practices. As long as Augusta stays green, the British Open stays brownish and the US Open stays somewhere in between, I doubt there will ever be one maintenance trend that dominates golf. 1500 people on gca.com maybe, but not all of golf.

[Dan Herrmann]

It's not just playability, it's good for the turf.

We had 2.5 inches of rain overnight on Wednesday.  Due to our new watering program, the course was dry enough to have roll again on Friday. 

It would've taken a week to even get the course playable with last year's with "Soft and Slow" conditions.

Thatch reduction, better root systems - these are GOOD things - no?

[Andy Troeger]

Grant,
Interesting topic, although I wonder if you're not 10 years ahead of schedule with it. I think its very possible if firm and fast does catch on and become a big thing that it can be overdone. Links courses may benefit strongly from fast and firm conditions, but some modern designs with fronting hazards and narrow playing areas are not designed to play fast and firm. Could they be maintained that way? Certainly more so than some of them are now, but there would likely be a limit.

An interesting question that deserves its own thread might be whether a course that "could" not play fast and firm can possibly be good architecture. I will try to come up with a better phrasing/explanation here in a minute.

All that said, I tend to agree that firm and fast hasn't really caught on at most of the places I've played over the last few years other than at places like Black Mesa and The Kingsley Club.

All that said, there are posters on here that certainly appear to judge where they play by how firm the course is maintained. All one has to do is look at the conditioning vs architecture thread to see that. They are easily in the minority though with golfers that only want to play "green" courses that are well maintained by their own definition. To each their own, I'll play anywhere; I'm playing a lousy muny here in Albuquerque in a couple hours 

[Keith Phillips]

I suppose firm and fast can be taken to the extreme but what I most enjoy about the firmer fairways in Britain is their impact on the short game.  The variance between the green speeds and 'fairway speeds' seems far too great in the US, even on many outstanding courses that I have played.  On the links and heathland courses in the UK, green speeds may be one foot slower but fairways are at least three feet faster; this smaller 'differential' between green and fairway speeds makes putting and chipping far more interesting to me...my least favorite conditioning weakness is a shaggy apron in front of fast green...for my money we still have a long way to go to reduce watering and firm up our fairways

[Chris Tritabaugh]

It's not just playability, it's good for the turf.

We had 2.5 inches of rain overnight on Wednesday.  Due to our new watering program, the course was dry enough to have roll again on Friday. 

It would've taken a week to even get the course playable with last year's with "Soft and Slow" conditions.

Thatch reduction, better root systems - these are GOOD things - no?

Dan you are right on the money with this comment.  In my first season as Superintendent at Northland we made a very drastic transition from wet and soggy to fast and firm.  For lack of a better term, the course did not like it.  In an email to our membership about this time last year I used the analogy of turning a couch potato into a world class athlete.  At first the results are going to be ugly and the couch potato's body is going to resist the change but as time goes on a fitness and nutrition program is going to improve every aspect of the former couch potato's life.  It is no different with turf or for that matter the reaction of the membership.  This season the membership has seen a drastic improvement.  While last year was a drought and this year has seen plenty of rain the results are still there for everyone to see.  Rainfalls that in the past would have left the course soft and soggy for a week are now being accepted by the course and roll on the fairways returns within a day or so.

Fast and firm can and will benefit every aspect of a golf course.     

[Joe Hancock]

It's not just playability, it's good for the turf.

We had 2.5 inches of rain overnight on Wednesday.  Due to our new watering program, the course was dry enough to have roll again on Friday. 

It would've taken a week to even get the course playable with last year's with "Soft and Slow" conditions.

Thatch reduction, better root systems - these are GOOD things - no?

Dan you are right on the money with this comment.  In my first season as Superintendent at Northland we made a very drastic transition from wet and soggy to fast and firm.  For lack of a better term, the course did not like it.  In an email to our membership about this time last year I used the analogy of turning a couch potato into a world class athlete.  At first the results are going to be ugly and the couch potato's body is going to resist the change but as time goes on a fitness and nutrition program is going to improve every aspect of the former couch potato's life.  It is no different with turf or for that matter the reaction of the membership.  This season the membership has seen a drastic improvement.  While last year was a drought and this year has seen plenty of rain the results are still there for everyone to see.  Rainfalls that in the past would have left the course soft and soggy for a week are now being accepted by the course and roll on the fairways returns within a day or so.

Fast and firm can and will benefit every aspect of a golf course.     

Chris,

That is a very true, very wisely phrased post. The golf industry is better because of you.

Thank you,

Joe

[Rick Shefchik]

Northland is better because of Chris, too. I played it in June, and it is so much more fun to play now that the ball is bouncing as Ross intended. I remember playing there as a kid and knowing that there were spots on the course -- particularly by the third tee and the 15th green -- that were going to be soft and spongy all year. Not anymore.

If Northland is not as green all year long as members had become used to, it will be more playable all year long. The members I've talked to are definitely excited about the direction Chris is taking the course.

[Ian Larson]

1. The reference to loathing about the stimpmeter and the thread about the unnamed instrument to measure firmness is crap.....

Professionals in the  industry do not use these instruments as speedometers. The stimp and the thumper are used as tools to create consistency from green to green. Just because these tools exist doesnt mean firm and fast is taking over golf. They are getting a bad reputation as speedometers from many people on this forum and by all the uneducated members at clubs. They are solely tools to create consistency from green to green which is what the USGA and PGA do with them at the tournaments. For example, if all the greens are averaging a 12 on the stimp but the one green by the ocean is a 10, that green would get cut a second or third time until it stimps at a 12. In the same situation with firmness, if one green is softer than the rest according to the thumper that green will get rolled again until it achieves its firmness. As a superintendent and a volunteer at many tournaments raking bunkers or mowing greens I for one can say the USGA, PGA and the superintendent do a spectacular job using these tools the way they should be used and maintaining consistency from green to green. The problem with the tools is that they get abused because of lack of understanding by nonprofessionals.

2.  The thread about the greens chairman pushing the superintendent for fast and firm....

            a. If a fairway is at 1" the superintendent isnt doing his job and should be fired.
            b. If a superintendent is not topdressing he isnt doing his job and should be fired. Topdressing is used to dilute the accumulation of 
                organic matter. The rate and frequencey is determined by the rate of accumulation of organic matter.
            c. Everything that the greens chairman recommended was spot on and doesnt mean he was pushing the course to an extreme
                and making the turf stress beyond belief. That greens chairman should be commended, hes trying to bring that course back to an
                acceptable level of performance. The course was probably overwatered and the greens soft and spongey.

      .....there are alot of people out there "who dont get it"...at all.

3.  The firm and fast bandwagon.....

     Any good membership and superintendent should understand what is acceptable for that course and establish a baseline for a point of reference. Firm and fast at one club is just the oppesite at another. Firm and fast cant be thrown out there as a generalization and shouldnt be used as a standard of measure. Its all about consistencey and fair playing conditions according to that clubs specific baseline for course conditions.

               ......and I would rather play a course that is "firm and fast" anyday as long as its consistent.

[John Moore II]

I don't think Firm and Fast is a bandwagon any moreso than any number of other things. Courses at the turn of the 20th century were firm and fast, so perhaps its simply a return. Each course is different and each course must determine what set of turf conditions are best for that particular location. Firm and Fast can't work everywhere, but in most places, likely it is the most ideal set-up, even on many 'modern' courses.

[Grant Saunders]

Again, I must point out that I am not saying firm and fast is necessarily a bad thing. I am simply putting forward that what works for one course does not mean that it will automatically be applicable to another.

Many references are made to the fast and firm play to be found on the links courses of Britain and Ireland. What seems to fly under the radar of most people extolling the greatness of this playing aspect is that for the most part these courses exist in naturally sandy soils. It is the free draining nature, the structure and aggregate size of these soils that makes the courses play the way the do. This is coupled with appropriate turf practices that are achievable based on what is there to work with.

Unfortunately, many of todays courses exist on sites of varying soils types and topography. Heavy silty and clay soils are more common inland and I have even seen a golf course built on peat (the land was used as a golf course because it was too wet to farm. Go figure...). These heavy soils have a much different structure and are not free draining by nature and it is unreasonable to expect that simply turning of irrigation and some extra rolling can make these courses perform the same as ones built on sand. It is achievable, but only with substantial work and a large monetary investment. This is the point people need educating on.

The analogy of green speeds is a good one. The common perception that simply mowing the greens lower is all that is required to achieve faster greens has done much damage when forced into practice by clubs. I have seen a club insist on cutting greens shorter in the peak of summer when the irrigation system has been inoperable for 4 weeks. I have seen a club insist that greens be returned to pre renovation mowing height just three days after extensive coring. The resulting damage took 3 months to rectify. Clubs that "know better" most often get their way by majority vote as the superintendent only has one voice and the committee several.

1. The reference to loathing about the stimpmeter and the thread about the unnamed instrument to measure firmness is crap.....

Professionals in the  industry do not use these instruments as speedometers.

Ian

This is not the problem. Substitute the word Professionals with the words "course committees" and tell me how accurate that statement becomes .

[Dan Herrmann]

Does anybody think water will become more plentiful in the next 50-100 years?  I think firm and fast will become a de facto requirement.

I still think 2050 will bring fresh water rights as valuable as today's oil rights.

[J_ Crisham]

Firm and Fast- sounds like a girl I used to know

[archie_struthers]

 

How about firm and medium   ?

[Mike Sweeney]

Does anybody think water will become more plentiful in the next 50-100 years?  I think firm and fast will become a de facto requirement.

I still think 2050 will bring fresh water rights as valuable as today's oil rights.

It may cause more and more movement to each coast, but the economics of desalinazation are coming close to water from the sky and ground:

___________________________________________________

"A January 17, 2008 article in the Wall. St. Journal states, "In November, Connecticut-based Poseidon Resources Corp. won a key regulatory approval to build a [US]$300 million water-desalination plant in Carlsbad, north of San Diego. The facility would be the largest in the Western Hemisphere, producing 50 million [U.S.] gallons [190,000 m³] of drinking water a day, enough to supply about 100,000 homes... Improved technology has cut the cost of desalination in half in the past decade, making it more competitive... Poseidon plans to sell the water for about [US]$950 per acre-foot [1200 m³]. That compares with an average [US]$700 an acre-foot [1200 m³] that local agencies now pay for water." [4] $1,000 per acre-foot works out to $3.06 for 1,000 gallons, which is the unit of water measurement that residential water users are accustomed to being billed in."

[Richard Hetzel]

I just played Forest Dunes and they had FAST down to a science. Super fast in fact!

[Dieter Jones]

Interested to read the benefits which it has for the health of the turf by not overwatering. Is this true for all grass types including the hi tech strains developed in the past decades and used on many golf courses?

I Guess nature is pretty good at rebuilding from periods of extreme weather like droughts etc so I shouldn't be too surprised that a grass "suitable to the habitat" in which it grows would thrive with less water.

As stated by others firm and fast is not suitable for all courses (by virue of design factors) but if the design of the course suits / was intended for that type of play then F&F provides a more satisfying and stategic course.