[TEPaul]

On another thread about long par 3s and particularly about the playability of a redan style hole Shivas talked about various holes of this general style and how he thought they should play. The way he was describing how that playability should be seemed to me to be only considering one degree of ground firmness.

It only reminded me of how DIFFERENT a really good hole, really good architecture can play depending on the firmness of the ground as well as the speed of the green. There is such an enormous spectrum in how a redan style hole, for instance, will play depending on the degrees of that factor.

It also reminds me how differently courses can play, particularly the ones we admire, regarding the differences of this one factor. At my own club and it's impending restoration this is a subject I'm hoping can be intelligently and well defined. And I'm  hoping my club will understand what the entire spectrum does mean. The degrees of firmness.

I feel more each day when we talk about architecture this particular subject should be mentioned in conjunction with it when analyzing a golf course's architecture. I think raters should do the same.

I do not mean in any way that the firmness of the ground should be considered to be the architecture--not at all--that should and must be a separate consideration!

But it is just such and important consideration--it should always be considered and mentioned! And it's not just firm and fast vs soft and slow, the degrees of firmness is a very interesting subject in and of itself and a most important one with a large spectrum of playability.

I believe the speed of the greens and their own firmness and degress of it is an entirely different subject for another time but is one that's essential to factor intelligently into the degrees of firmness "through the green".

Considering these things and these degrees can have extreme differences in "playability". Matter of fact, I believe it can be done in such a way that you could almost have the best of both worlds, the best of both eras, in other words!

All the degrees of the ground game from yesteryear could be utilized for which many of these courses were designed and also degrees of the aerial game, if so chosen, for which frankly the older architect's might not have even imagined.

It could be a most interesting mix, meld, whatever! Another dimension of the "maintenance meld"!

[Willie_Dow]

Tom
As Links Chairman, Salters Point Golf Links - what ever that means - I have been advised to respect the "sand sieve analysis with USGA classification soil texture analysis & soil PH"
But the answers I have received vs particle size vs "gravel, fine gravel:  Sand fractions: Very coarse sand, medium sand, fine sand, very fine sand etc." sound like you might go in this direction.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

TEP,

I couldn't agree more that the conditions are often overlooked when considering architectural decisions.  Consider the placement of a dogleg on a Northeastern golf course.  

The perfect placement of a dogleg might yield the following results for the same player depending on the conditions:

Par 4 - 400 yds, dogleg right.

Wet weather - With little or no roll on the tee shot, the dogleg should encroach on the line of sight to the green necessitating a high fade for a right-handed golfer to approach the green (and it should hold the green in wet weather).  Shot #1 - 3 Wood 225 yds, Shot #2 - 5 iron 175 yds (high fade).

Normal conditons - With some roll the same golfer might find himself in the middle of the fairway with a variety of options including running the ball onto the surface through an opening directly in front of the green.  Shot #1 - 3 Wood 240 yds, Shot #2 - 6 iron 160 yds (straight & low).

Dry conditions - Hitting the same club in these conditions the golfer might find himself almost running through the dogleg but lets assume he is still in the fairway on the extreme left side and the green slants from left to right.  This requires a draw from that angle to hit it into the slope (for any chance of holding the firm, dry green).  Shot #1 - 3 Wood 255 yds, Shot #2 -  7 iron 145 yds (high draw).

This allows the same player to play a different hole every time he plays the course in different conditions.  Variety is not only "the spice of life" but also the genius of great architecture.  Different conditions should definitely be taken into account when making course architecture decisions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe the phrase you've coined is critical in the unkeep and play of a golf course.

Unfortunately, achievement of firmness may be the degree to which the membership is educated.

Some courses will pour one million plus gallons of water on their course each night because the membership likes it emerald green, or because a lot of water can hide a number of problems.

Before conditions can become firm, I think you need several factors to be in place.

1.  Mother nature must cooperate
2   A membership who understands the benefits of fast and
    firm, and is willing to support the effort to achieve same.
3  A superintendent, secure in his position, who is willing to
    achieve fast and firm with the usual accompanying
    discoloration and disatisfaction from a sector of his
    membership.
4   An architectual foundation or design that supports and
    rewards fast and firm conditions.
5   Political stability at the club.
6   A Golf Professional and staff who support fast and firm
     conditions, who can also school members in the play of
     shots meant for fast and firm conditions.
7   WIND

Even with the first six, you can succeed, the 7th is the icing on the cake.

[JSlonis]

Pat,

You are 100% correct on every point above.

The educated membership is the most vital key. If you look at a course like Huntingdon Valley in our area, they are the model to which other courses can strive to.  It seems as if they have adopted the attitude that their course should play a certain way, and most everyone has bought into the plan.

"Maintenence meld", the best coined golf phrase since.....

go ahead Pat....."the stymie"

[Mike_Cirba]

Willie,

Is Salters Point a real place?  I haven't heard of it, but I love the name.  Where is it?    

It sounds like one of those wonderful mythical courses we all dream about that gets little play, features one creative, wonderful hole after another, and where the wind and dunes collide to produce incredibly natural golf.

Good to see you hear.  Hopefully, you're sitting in Florida as the northeast weather seems to have taken a turn for the worse.  Not to mention that pesky groundhog who has foreseen six more weeks of wintry weather.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You are, as JSlonis said, 100% correct! Those are very good points that actually could be well used to create a "PROCESS" to determine what any course CAN acheive in this context! By "process" I mean an analytical procedure to determine what is doable on any given golf course!

I will never forget what Dave Wilber said in this regard on here about two years ago. That what is doable on a particular golf course may not be at all doable on a course across the street!! To determine what's doable an analysis must be done and probably a complicated analysis at that! Certainly the particular architecture is of importance but basic drainage issues are extremely important only exceeded by subsoil and subsurface conditions. This is so important and it must be known, determined and analyzed in detail as to what is inherently achievable and at what cost. There is just no other way. Some who may buy into this idea who think the "process" is as easy as simply turning down the water may be sadly misinformed and disappointed!!

Even with the highest hopes and the best educated membership a certain course may just not be able to acheive what another can or what a membership would hope they can!!

But given that firm conditions can be achieved on a golf course (or even extremely firm conditions), forget for the moment about whether the membership will accept the "look"; I'm finding that with most memberships (and certainly including my own) the question is not so much, at this point, if they will accept the look of a firm and fast golf course, it's that they don't even know what the "playabilty" of a firm course MEANS!! And they certainly don't know what the spectrum and the degrees of it mean.

I guess they just have never really seen it or they haven't seen it in so long they don't really know what it's about in the context of "playability".

This is I do know, though, that the courses that have managed to achieve it of late have memberships that absolutely love it, without exception!

In this statement I will take the likes of Huntingdon Valley and also possibly Oakmont out of the example. Although, I personally admire greatly what they have done, I recognize that those two courses maintain a constant "playability" that may be a bit extreme for most memberships!

The reason those two courses might not be good examples for most memberships, however, has much less to do with the firmness they maintain constantly on their courses "through the green" but almost everything to do with how that "through the green" firmness plays in combination with the firmness and speeds "ON" the greens!!

This is an extremely important distinction in my opinion! It very well may also be the best place to concentrate the real meaning of this thing I call "maintenance meld"!

Oakmont and Huntingdon Valley do maintain extreme speeds "through the green" but the firmness and speed they combine that with "ON" the green is so excessive as to be almost Open or Masters speeds on the greens.

Good and bad players alike can lose strokes in a heartbeat in the "firmness and speed" combinations Oakmont and Huntingdon Valley maintain on both, particularly "on" the greens, but if another course whose membership may not accept such intense conditions of playability the trick is to work with the firmness and speed "ON" the greens ONLY!

This is more than theoretical to me now! If the greens can be made less intense (but the firmness "through the green" is kept up) the opportunity is there to combine very fast conditions "through the green"  with more acceptable firmness and speed "on the greens".

This, in my mind, will give all golfers the option of the ground game and also very much the aerial game!! This to me can be considered the best of both worlds, the best of two eras in fact!

But first general memberships need to know what very firm conditions "throught the green" feel like and play like, not just look like! At the moment I think very few really know or understand what very firm and fast conditions "through the green" do feel like and play like.

And I also believe that if they did know, almost to a man they would absolutely love it! At least that's my experience with the memberships of clubs that have achieved it for them!!

And if these particular conditions can be achieved and in combination it becomes far easier to adjust the "playability" of the course. It can be multi-optional and more intense with these conditions and if you need to ratchet it up just ratchet up the firmness and speed of the greens a bit and you really have something!

There have been a number of players at my course that have complained that taking down some trees is going to make the course play so much easier---some have even said the course will be a whimp!

I tell them if you want to really know what easy and hard is all about just understand the spectrum of dialing up or down the "speed" of the golf course--both "through the green" or "on" the green, or any combination thereof! It's all about the "maintenance meld"!

To me it's all about the degrees of ground firmness!

On this topic I am analyzing natural rainfall but only as does a super like Don Mahaffey in Arizona who I had a great chat with about this recently. He factors in natural rainfall and very much adjusts to it in his ongoing maintenance practices.

[Willie_Dow]

Mike
Salters Point Links was a 9 hole layout in 1903.  It is now six holes with #1 green being shared with #5.  Mel Lucas and our Golf Committee are working to restore this course.  The task is fun, and the potential endless.
Location: Southern corner of Buzzards Bay, Dartmouth, MA.
Texture classification of soil: Sandy loam pH: 5.9
Lots of deep rooted fescue.

[DPL11]

Tom,
Membership coopertion is critical, and the majority of the club must be on board to commit to true hard and fast conditions. What I have found in the last 10 years as a supt., is that most clubs do not have the amount of quality or educated players that demand this approach. HVCC is probably the best golfing membership in Phila., and has made a committment to move in that direction, successfully. But, the majority of members just want a green, clean look to show off to their guests. I have been told more than once that the golf course is playing too hard for the "average" member, and we should look at making it playable for everyone. Until you get more people to subscribe to these conditions, which I do, it will be a tough battle for most superintendents.

[Don_Mahaffey]

This a good primer on the scientific approach to irrigation. What is important to remember, there is more to firm playing conditions then simply turning the water off. This article does a good job linking soil conditions, climatic conditions, system efficiencies, and turf species together, and explains how all affect irrigation scheduling.

 http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/PLANTanswers/turf/publications/water.html

[Bill_McBride]

At the CC of Fairfax (VA) where I played for 13 years before moving to Pensacola FL, we always semi-joked with our super, "Fast fairways and soft greens, not the other way around."  Since I left, they installed double row irrigation so I imagine it's worse now that then.  The course features a bunch of blind tee shots and elevated greens, so would have played a lot better with faster fairways and particularly approach areas.   Now Arthur Hills has done a re-routing and renovation plan so hopefully they'll get it right.

It is so disappointing to play a hole which obviously calls for a ground shot from 180 yards away, to hit the required shot and see it die shortly after the first bounce.  A good example is the new "Sportsman of Perdido," (formerly Perdido Bay for those who have played on the FL gulf coast) -- they have a beautiful 200 yd Redan which played exactly as described above.  And it was last fall when we hadn't had any rain!

[TEPaul]

I agree memberships do need to be educated and I think I've said as much. Even used the examples of Huntingdon Valley and Oakmont as examples of courses that have educated their memberships to a large and impressive degree. But their goals do not need to be the same goals as other courses!

I wouldn't expect many other courses to educate their memberships to that degree or even other courses to accept the playabilities of those two courses! And I think the greens alone is the answer to this!

But in an attempt to educate a membership and to deal with their eventual sentiments as to the difficulty of the course the firmness and speed of the greens themselves is the place to look and deal with the problem of difficulty (in scoring) more than the firmness and speed "through the green".

And the first thing to start with in educating memberships of the benefits of firmness and speed "through the green" is NOT to start with the way the course will LOOK but the way it will PLAY with that firmness and speed in that particular area!

There's a very simple reason for this that will become apparent in practically no time! I know it's true because I've seen it happen in enough cases and also the extent to which it succeeds with memberships. That reason is because it's actually harder for the good player to keep his ball where he wants it in very firm conditions and the less good player is more than happy with the extra distance he gets despite where his ball ends up!

Some may argue with that fact but I've seen it succeed too much already with general membership to question it!

The first step is to educate them as to what it plays like and the next step is to figure out how to achieve it and that certainly includes what it will look like! I maintain that lush green or light green (or even some browning) is of not much concern once they understand how well it plays ("through the green") when fast!!

[Steve Sayers]

The Green Committee at Lu Lu along with our Superintendent are in the process of developing a “drying out plan” for our greens and in turn the rest of the course (thank you HV CC for sharing your knowledge).  The playability aspect of a dryer course is a definite benefit of our plan, but we have taken this direction for agronomic reasons.  Basically we no longer want to manage our poa and deal with the inherent problems of soggy greens (anthracnose and other turf grass diseases, a shallow root base dependent on heavy watering, damage due to ball marks and ball marks “fixed” the wrong way etc.)

Membership support of this plan will be an issue, but given the near loss of a few greens last season, set up by over watering, and an ever increasing anthracnose problem it should be an easy “sell”.

It will be interesting to see how the drying our process changes the strategy for the course over the coming years.

[Craig_Rokke]

This is an interesting thread. But the randomness and unpredictability of the weather surely must sometimes
challenge the best laid plans.

Willie D.-Do you know why Salters Point went from 9 to 6 holes? Is your group able to go back to a 9 hole course with the restoration?

[TEPaul]

Steve:

I understand what you're saying and the anthracnose problem is a good reason to dry out your greens.

But understand what I'm saying here from strictly a "playability" standpoint. If you combine really fast and firm greens (greens that will be very hard to hold either off the approaches or with the aerial game) with the rest of the course that's either soft or very firm you're going to have a real problem with the "playability" of the course with your membership.

I would start with firming the course up "through the green" first and then bring the greens along next to that consistency that works well for the "playability" of all! If you start at the greens with firming things up too much you may have a situation that will not sell at all and for obvious reasons!

[Willie_Dow]

Craig

The '38 hurricane killed the 9 hole course.  Since then we have been living with a "goat" course.
With careful planning, working with environmental interests in mind, perhaps we can get back to nine.  In the meantime "Bingo, Bango, Bongo" is the best game with the grandchildren.
This doesn't lessen our desire to upgrade our land as is, which will make golf more fun for everyone.
The course conditions surely will not be consistent, however.

[TEPaul]

Willie:

The 1938 hurricane has to have been the most devastating storm I've ever heard of. When last in Fishers Island I was reading the history of the island and that storm did more damage than even imaginable.

The trees that were lost on the island was almost total. As for the golf course the tree removal was swifter and more instanteous than a million Bill Vostinak's with chain saws working in unision! Fishers Island's G.C. treehuggers must have really pissed off Mother Nature at some point in or around 1938!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

This is one of the many reasons why I favor Dictatorships at Golf clubs.

Education is a much simpler process, and vocal disenters are often directed to find clubs more suited to their tastes.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Generally speaking I agree with you, I'm sure, but my club is an old one and it would be easier, I guarantee, to educate the entire membership to the wonders of firm and fast, at this point, than to turn the club into one run by a dictator!

[Steve Sayers]

TEPaul:

I’m with you with regard to the “playability” issue and that firm greens and soggy fairways would be a disaster.  Without question a balancing act needs to be done with regard to green firmness and “through the green” firmness – hopefully we will find that balance as our “drying our plan” progresses.

With regard to “education” – it may be easier to extol the virtues of firmness from an agronomic position then a strategic one.

Steve

[TEPaul]

Steve:

With regard to "education" from an agronomic or playability standpoint it's probably hard to say which "education" is most effective.

If the course is green ("through the green"), although of a lighter hue and the playability is fairly firm I would think that would sell well with the membership. On the other hand, if the membership is willing to believe given no major subsurface soil problems that less water (firmer) creates deeper rootzone and healthier turf, then that's cool too!

[Richard_Goodale]

shivas

Can't go with you on your "soft fairways in position A" position.  Do you really want them to fertilize and irrigate the hump down the middle of the 4th at Rye, for example?  I agree in the need for SOME softness on the peripheries of a hole, more for speed of play issues than anything else.  However, inside the playing "ropes" as it were, there should be no substitute for firm and fast--except at those courses that are not diesigned imaginatively enough to allow for it.  For them, as I've opined before, the ideal "maintenance meld" may well be soft and pokey.  I also think that ground game entrances should not always offer a route to the center of the green.  Great approaches, IMHO, will give some added benefit to the golfer that can hit a hard crisp shot with a lot of spin and control.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()