Is a firm and fast course cheaper to maintain?

[Jason Topp]

I have heard contradictory assumptions on this issue.  Less water v. more work/chemicals to combat disease pressure. 

Does anyone have experience or evidence supporting either side of this issue?

[Jason Topp]

Here is one good article on the subject

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/2008feb104.pdf

[PCCraig]

I think it's finding the happy medium. Not every course in America needs to look like Chamber's Bay. But not every course needs to be overwatered and dumped with chemicals in order to look like "Augusta." In reality I would assume the first step is just not watering the course when it doesn't need it.

There is nothing like seeing a high end course watering it's course the same day a T-Storm dumped enough water to create standing water in some bunkers. I've seen it and it's bizzare.

Grass will naturally evolve over surprisingly short periods of time (years) and align itself with a consistent maintenance practice. Just water it less and let it mature into a more F&F experience.

[Jake Straub]

There is nothing like seeing a high end course watering it's course the same day a T-Storm dumped enough water to create standing water in some bunkers. I've seen it and it's bizzare.

Pat

I agree with your post except for the above statement, sometimes you may need to water in products/applications of materials that are being put out to combat that thunderstorm.  Believe me it is not by choice but it is by necessity. 

I will say that in the mid-atlantic region this year a soaking rainstorm is not helping the turf that is struggling because the roots are so shallow that as the surface dries out the plant begins to show signs of drought stress right away. 

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I agree with you completely however I think most of us non-industry guys don't understand all the permutations involved.  Just look what's happened to a lot of the non-sand based courses with this summer's heat and humidity.  See-the great courses on non-sand based turf thread....

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Short answer is NO.  My best local example is Merion.  Would anyone argue that Merion is as close to the "ideal Maintenance Meld" as any transition zone, park land on native soil course can be?  What Matt has done there and the playing conditions he offers is simply increadible.  It is also anything but cheap and he will tell you that.

[Mark Smolens]

Not a super, and don't want to offend any of them here, but at Harborside yesterday they were (once again) watering the mounds of 3 foot rough. What can possibly be the reason for this? If they were thinner and whispier, maybe you could find a ball in there. . . and maybe a round could take less time. Is either one possibly a bad thing? The jarring juxtaposition of watching the Am at Chambers Bay after 4.5 hrs at Harborside yesterday almost drove me off the wagon. . . that Kierin in the fridge was just calling my name.

[PCCraig]

There is nothing like seeing a high end course watering it's course the same day a T-Storm dumped enough water to create standing water in some bunkers. I've seen it and it's bizzare.

Pat

I agree with your post except for the above statement, sometimes you may need to water in products/applications of materials that are being put out to combat that thunderstorm.  Believe me it is not by choice but it is by necessity. 

I will say that in the mid-atlantic region this year a soaking rainstorm is not helping the turf that is struggling because the roots are so shallow that as the surface dries out the plant begins to show signs of drought stress right away. 

Thanks for putting me in my place Jake I'm not professional at this obviously! 

[Phil McDade]

Not a super, and don't want to offend any of them here, but at Harborside yesterday they were (once again) watering the mounds of 3 foot rough. What can possibly be the reason for this? If they were thinner and whispier, maybe you could find a ball in there. . . and maybe a round could take less time. Is either one possibly a bad thing? The jarring juxtaposition of watching the Am at Chambers Bay after 4.5 hrs at Harborside yesterday almost drove me off the wagon. . . that Kierin in the fridge was just calling my name.

Mark:

I think the obvious answer is that Chicago -- particularly the south side where Harborside is -- has received so little rain this year those mounds must need watering.

[Tom_Doak]

A firm and fast course is not always cheaper to maintain ... and the key question here is "maintain at what level"?

If you want it to look green, too, then the answer is no.  But if you don't care about green, then in some climates you can maintain a course firm and fast and VERY inexpensively as well.  Many courses in the UK and Ireland (not all of them links) are good examples, and only a handful of them spend anything close to as much as a "B" club in Philadelphia.

[Jason Topp]

A firm and fast course is not always cheaper to maintain ... and the key question here is "maintain at what level"?

If you want it to look green, too, then the answer is no.  But if you don't care about green, then in some climates you can maintain a course firm and fast and VERY inexpensively as well.  Many courses in the UK and Ireland (not all of them links) are good examples, and only a handful of them spend anything close to as much as a "B" club in Philadelphia.

Tom:

In what US Climates is it possible to maintain firm and fast at reasonable cost (assuming you do not care about color)?

[Jake Straub]

Pat

No problem, believe me I am not trying to put anyone in there place, just wanted to throw it out there as food for thought.

I think Sean makes an interesting point about older courses trying to play firm and fast and that it is not cheap.  It makes me think about how much money has to be spent in the short term and then long term to get a older course to play firm and fast consistently. I think that a greens maintenance program has to be carried out on the fairways to achieve this goal on older courses because of heavier soils.  I am thinking of the increase in sand costs so that fairways can be topdressed, increased aerification costs to remove any excess thatch, spoon feeding of fertilizer, hand watering of fairways, etc.  Albeit the right thing to do IMO, when does the course finally become cheaper to maintain?  Believe me I am all for firm and fast but it definitely takes a good bit of cash to do it in Philadelphia on a older golf course, IMHO.

[Pat Burke]

In my experience in socal, firm and fast is tends to be harder work.  The super needs to walk the thin line more, and all too often some of the lesser supers (or less "driven"), tend to play it "safer" by watering more.  Some of it is job preservation, occasionally it's less work.
Firmer conditions out here require some more supervision and hand work, and many clubs will not allow the super to do it (green is keen).

Funny, I'm involved with a couple of courses that have cut to the bone, maintain with (relatively) small budgets for this area, and are producing very good, and pretty good conditions.  We're heading back to the future, with less (over)watering, less manpower, and realistic expectations.  Should be interesting to see who survives the change

[Don_Mahaffey]

It gets expensive when you want F & F and glowing turf.
If you take color out of the equation, if course conditions are graded solely on golfing conditions, then f & f becomes a whole lot more practical.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

In what US Climates is it possible to maintain firm and fast at reasonable cost (assuming you do not care about color)?

Jason,

I have seen it done in some pretty unlikely places, even on zoysia in Austin, Texas.  In the south it's possible as long as you don't overseed; I have never seen an over seeded course that was fast and firm at any time of the year.  It seems to be easier in windy places as the wind helps harden off the grass somehow.  Certainly possible in the northeast and the northwest and here in Michigan.

[Phil McDade]

Any good examples -- beyond the obvious Bandon ones and a few others (Ch. Bay currently) -- of F&F courses here in the U.S. that don't particularly look green? Merion East has always looked green to me. A course that I played last summer -- Flossmoor in Chicago -- was pretty darn F&F in mid-summer, and still had a pretty green (I wouldn't say lush, but not tan or brown in any way) look. I've seen photos of some New England coastal courses, obscure ones, that look pretty tawny.

[Ian Larson]

Obviously firm and fast doesn't mean it needs to be brown. You can have a green course that is firm and fast. But what is being discussed here can only be discussed region by region. If a course is on clay and is in a region that gets rain...the super better be putting down a wetting agent before rains, and not a wetting agent to retain water but a penetrant that gets the water flowing far down into the soil profile. Using a retaining wetting agent is a dumb mistake made by the super. If your on sand, no problem. If you're in an area that doesn't get rain like socal, fast and firm is easy and not expensive. In both cases it always comes down to thatch and how much of it you have. Too much and you have a sponge that retains water and makes mowers scalp. Very little, water flows through and be managed easier while mowers can can down to heights to get some good ball roll. Socal is one of the easiest and cheapest places to get fast and firm conditions. The northeast and comparable regions are probably the most expensive.