[Patrick_Mucci]

Recently, I was having dinner at a country club after having played the golf course, when members of the Board approached me and asked for my opinion on an issue concerning their golf course.

They indicated that they had historically had tight fairways.

But, that there was a movement afoot to change the texture of the fairways such that it would become akin to the first cut of rough, because the ball sits up better in the first cut and is easier for the majority of golfers to hit.

At first, I was very surprised that a club that had maintained their fairways in one manner for decades would suddenly decide to alter their fairways to get a more "fluffed up" texture.

It would certainly decrease run = distance.

Then, someone mentioned that they wanted to copy the fairway texture that another club is perceived to enjoy.

While my initial reaction was against making a dramatic change in the playing surfaces of the golf course, I thought back to 45 years ago, when fairways weren't nearly as tight.

However, 45 years ago, fairways and roughs weren't watered to the extent they are today.

It seemed to me, that if the watering was dramatically reduced, this might not be a bad idea for a number of reasons, including costs to maintain, however, I seriously, seriously doubt that the water would be reduced.

Your thoughts ?

[henrye]

Pat.  Sounds very odd.  How short is the first cut? 

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

I remember playing with one of my grandfathers 50 years ago at the Father and Son tournament at one of his clubs, and he moaned to me about the fact that the Board had caved in to the demands of the technique challenged members, which explained the fairways which were as thick as deep pile carpets.  But, let's be honest......

....golf is a game of skill and most (maybe all?) golfers are seriously skill deficient, so crutches like fluffy fairways will always have appeal.  Alas and alack....

Rich

[Bruce Leland]

Well said Richard!  This issue seems to come up from time to time at clubs where the overwhelming majority of members are golfingly challenged and want to sweep the ball off very lush turf rather than strike the ball.

We fought this very issue at my home club when considering re-grassing our fairways with a new strain bent.  Ultimately, they were re-grassed and our current membership is quite happy with the results. 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If they decided to do something like that (obviously very much depending on the degree to which they raise the height of cut) I would definitely recommend that they get a ton of agronomic advice from multiple sources on the timing of it (how long they take to do it) including water usage or they just might find they will create for themselves some real agronomic problems with their grass and turf health.

Tell them to never loss sight of the fact that when one tries to change grass and it's condition and culture it does take time and probably plenty of it.

The first thing I'd ask is what kind of grass do they have on their fairways? Obviously that can make a big difference down the road.

[Jed Peters]

Interesting.

We've done entirely the opposite at my club--as a result of GCA members' input when we had an outing there last fall!

Maybe if they'd cut the water in half, and cut the mowing in half, they'd save money AND increase playability for the membership?

I can't think any membership that likes fluffy lies also wants to make the course longer....

[Jay Flemma]

Pat, I need more information.  Are they trying to make the course harder?  To attract a tournament?  Is there any agronomic reason for doing it?  Are there any more facts?  Answering Qs in a vacuum is dicey...

[Bill Brightly]

As Grounds Chair, I had the funniest day two weeks ago.

On a Sunday morning, second qualifying round for our club championship, I had to listen to the A players complain about the slowness of the greens. Their eyes seemed to glaze over when I reminded them that we had just  3 inches of rain at 4 AM, that I was surprised that we could even cut the greens, so of course they could not roll them. These guys really don't care, they want FAST greens and LONG rough.

After the round I saw my own 79-year old MOTHER, who asked if we could let the fairways get longer so she could sweep her 3-wood...

In the locker room I saw her friend who asked when we were going to cut the roughs down...he explained that they should be penal but not punishing (or visa versa, I forget...)

So I guess you are in a good spot when you have both sides complaining...

[Donnie Beck]

What effect would longer fairways have on tour players ? Would it cut down their spin enough to make any difference ?

[John Moore II]

I like the idea of higher fairways. It would do a number of things for the game. It would allow the course to be shorter, possibly lead to less water usage, less labor costs. All of which (and of course, this has nothing to do with the Private Country Club Mr. Mucci played) would reduce the cost to the average golfing consumer.

[Jerry Kluger]

We refer to the first cut as the "executive cut" as anyone, including a busy executive, can get the ball airborne.  That being said, I have remarked at how often today I have seen fairways cut as closely as most greens were cut 30 years ago.  The cost to maintain the fairways at those speeds, okay heights, must be enormous.  Let the fairways grow a bit and keep them firm - it's better all around.  The same thing with the green speeds, build more interesting greens and slow the speeds down. 

[jeffwarne]

I think slightly higher fairways would make it a better game.
Easier to maintain,less water, firmer.
Easier for higher handicaps, harder for lower handicaps, allow for a chance to actually chip out of a chipping area, rather than putt-which is the most often appropriate choice on super short (and often soft) fairways.
Would also make it less expensive to widen fairways.
Firmer would bring the ground game into play.

cheaper, better,and more interesting
an actual step forward (or back to when golf was more fun)

[Rory Connaughton]

We faced this request a few years ago as well from a well meaning older member that sought to sweep his fairway woods.  The problem is that the same member that wants to sweep his shots also wants lush green fairways not firm brownish fairways.  Once we reduced our water usage by close to 2/3, bounce and roll returned and there is little need to sweep fairway woods.

[Richard Hetzel]

If money is not an issue, have them rip out the fairways as they presently exist and plant zoysia, they will enjoy their lie more.

[JMorgan]

If the members want to play an aerial-only game, then I guess they should do it.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

It's a very good idea. We've already talked about it here in ATL because of our drought conditions. We figured we had no choice... until a tropical storm rolled through town last weekend.

BTW, Bob Jones thought the biggest change in course maintenance from his Grand Slam years was fw heights. And he made those comments in the early 60's. He is spinning in his grave over current fw heights.

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

To even consider this as an option will depend on the type of grass.  Did you ever see what long bent grass looks like    Send them out to the local muni where the grass is likely rye or blue and they can then experience this 

[jeffwarne]

Interesting in the era of "restorations", that few want to consider the conditions which were expected to exist when originally designed.

As far as the ground game, the ball runs and bounces plenty well  on slightly longer turf if nature cooperates and less irigation is required/used.

I for one can't stand super tight soft turf-and I'm a good wedge player.
Watching amateurs lay the sod over due to overly tight/soft turf is distressing at best.

perhaps instead of limiting grooves (which I think will be somewhat implemented by 2084),longer,firmer turf would put some element of judgement back in the game rather than dialing in exact yardages to dart boards.

[Adam Clayman]

I just played a MIke DeVries (Diamond Springs) course that had one cut throughout 3/4" (I think). It was enjoyable aesthetically, reminiscent of what  a TV viewer would expect the ANGC might have looked like, but, having one's ball lay down on every shot all day would be a hard pill for a membership to swallow if they have been use to tightly mowed grass.

I don't see why the cut couldn't be all tightly mown. It sure would put a premium on keeping one's ball within the confines of the course by increasing the roll out on every shot, save for the most aerial.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Donnie,
Tiger once gave an interview after a practice round at ANGC, one in which the fairways hadn't been mown yet because of the previous days rain. He said the extra growth (what could it have been, 1/4"?) made it very difficult to gauge, and get, the correct amount of spin needed to hold the greens.

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Warne,

It would seem that longer grass and dryer fairways should go hand in hand, but, I don't see anything on the horizon, other than increased costs and rationing, that would cause less water to be applied to fairways.

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,
Sadly, you're right.
Overwatering is often the cheapest way to maintain.
and even at the clubs with money, green is in.
It costs a lot at a high end club to go firm and fast-or almost nothing at a muni-interesting

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()