Is there any strategy in the professional game...?

[JohnH]

For crying out loud, I have a single row manual irrigation system via 1968 that runs like its on it's last legs.  I couldn't over-water my fairways if I tried!  It's been my experience that poa annua naturally has a short root system in the hot summer months not because of overwatering, but as a natural defense against drought conditions.  Would it survive infrequent, deep irrigation? No.  Would it survive frequent, light irrigation?  Yes.  Does frequent, light irrigation percolate deep in the soil profile.  No.  Thus the shallow root system.

My point about looking for a new job was a direct response to the idea that memberships in general would rather see lush turf than brown turf -- simple as that.  I wasn't commenting on my own maintenance practices -- their are too many experts here to do that.

[Mike_Cirba]

John H;

My sincerest apologies.  I obviously misunderstood your post, and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I agree with your basic premise that the average golfer has been taught that green and lush is the ideal.  However, I also agree with Tom Paul's premise that it's one of the things wrong with modern course maintenance.

[JohnH]

Mike,

No apology necessary.... I tend to get "standoffish"....  I guess I was bred a different way, because I don't see lush and green as negative.  I would like to say, although very difficult, it is possible to be lush and green and still firm and fast.....

[Mike_Cirba]

John H;

In any case, I'd like to welcome you here and hope you'll continue to contribute.  There used to be quite a number of superintendent's who participated here, and their contributions were always invaluable.

I'm sure yours will be the same.

By the way, anyone know where the hell Steve Curry and Mike Rewinski are?

[TEPaul]

Jeremy Glenn:

Thank you very much! That's exactly what I've been trying to explain to Pat, almost word for word, for a good long time now, but he seems to think those drying, ball influencing winds of Scotland are the only thing that would ever allow such a thing as a ground game option!

But there's hope, I think, as Pat has decided that Mother Nature, although probably of Scottish heritage (right Rich?), may be about to turn her favors on us Colonialists one of these days, and deprive us of our God-given American water rights and cause some benefical drought conditions that's the only possible argument we can take to our committees, boards, and memberships!

I guess it's just too much to ask or even contemplate that we may be able to get our clever little hands on our water taps at some point before that drought time comes! After all it's obviously not a good idea to ever even think of questioning MSU agronomy professors or Augusta's Syndrome that green and lush is good and all else is evil and UnAmerican!

Actually ANGC at Masters time is both green and firm and fast but the great American golf viewing public has apparently never made that connection. And although I would be one of the first to concede that there may be quite a cost to that ANGC Masters maintenance mix at times, at the very least it would be nice if Augusta might explain that to the golfing world one of these decades!

JohnH:

Amazing! What you said in the last paragraph of your last post is exactly what William Flynn proposed in one of his USGA green section reports in 1927--the very same year he made the remark about the eventual need for 8,000yd courses!

As some know, Flynn was fascinated by grasses and agronomy and recommended irrigated fairways to slow down driving distances but firm approaches and firm greens to make the option of the ground game approach or a really well executed aerial shot (requiring what they used to call lots of "side-spin" to stop the ball somewhere on the green as the aerial shot met the green surface) a toss-up to the player as to which option he would try!

Very much the same sort of toss-up choice a player might make today that we've been trying to propose on this discussion topic.

[Peter Galea]

As Mike O'Neil said the "dull green sheen" is what you get  20 minutes before the turf goes into drought stress. To do that you better have the right climatic conditions and be able to apply H2O shortly after that. If steps are not taken soon enough you end up with brown turf (translated~dead grass).

[TEPaul]

PeteG et al:

If what you said about a dull green or light green sheen on fairways being automatically true about dangerous drought stress and immediately impending dead grass, then I have some serious backing up to do!!

Honestly, I know very little about agronomy and I need to learn anywhere I can from valid and accurate analysis and opinion of others. All I'm trying to do is set a goal for seriously increased speed "through the green" only, on my golf course. The reason I say seriously increased speed "through the green" is far too often a full blown drive is apt to plug or even back up on our fairway (and approaches) and this is not always a result of seasonal or nature rainfall--it might be some of that but it's also a result of managed irrigation. I just can't see how that can be right or inevitable.

We have bent fairways of less than ten years of age! And the thing that just constantly confuses me is I here people like you saying what you did about dangerous drought stress and immediately impending dead grass and I hear a large number of other supers, and including our local longtime USGA regional agronomist saying something else.

Many of them say this color and speed I'm describing, (maybe I'm not describing it correctly), is really not that dangerous or indicative of immediately impending dead grass. So many have said that it is an indication of stress but stress that is not really that dangerous given that color. Some say it's even healthy! They do say the next phase if unirrigated would be some browning out but even that stage (browning out) is a long way from dead grass. They say even with browning the next natural rain or irrigation cycle will tend to bring the grass back to green again very quickly!

So what am I missing here? Are we possibly just talking about some other kind of grass strain (other than bent) that just reacts entirely differently to this managed condition?

The thing that's the most confusing is not just that people in the business disagree on this but the enormous extent of their disageement! It almost like at high noon one says it's midnight out and the other says it's high noon!

What I think I understand so far is to acheive firm and fast conditions the subsurface (subsoil) has to allow good water infiltration and plant root penetration. It all has to have some good depth to it for water infiltration and root depth penetration, in other words. I guess basically the water or moisture remains longer at a greater soil depth, the plant root then naturally seeks that deeper water through a deeper soil structure if the root can penetrate the subsoil well. And basically the deeper both can manage to do that the better it is and the healthier the plant will be.

Obviously, I understand that if you have a toothpick deep root structure, as I think JohnH said he had, you can't very well create firm fast surface playing conditions as the surface is going to have to be kept quite moist most of the time.

Logically this all seems to make sense to me as this really isn't rocket science here. Afterall, it doesnt' take that much intelligence to understand that two things are going to promote firm and fast conditions for the bounce and roll of the golf ball. One, a drier, firmer surface and subsurface (to some degree of depth) and, two, a grass condition that is not thatched and puffy.  

If you have a surface and immediate subsurface that needs to be wet most of the time and a grass condtion that is thatched and puffy you aren't going to have much bounce, roll and run of the ball--just the opposite actually--plugging and backing up.

I mean all we're talking about is soft versus firmer ground and grass here, what the hell is so complicated about that? I do understand that the grass needs it's moisture but is what we're talking about here all about at what soil depth that it gets it? I do know what hydrophobia is, believe me; I realize the complexities of remediating it, but that's another question and another problem to be solved or not.

By the way, I don't want to put my super on the firingline here with even a single member. If we ask him to try to acheive this goal of firm and fast playing conditions "through the green" we mean to defend him totally!! But we want to start by totally analyzing if it's doable and at what cost. I think the "playability" of really firm conditions are awesome and I think the membership will too but I need to know at what cost and at what danger level it's doable. If the cost is too high or the danger level too great then we won't do it, and they will be the judge of that, certainly not me alone.

This is all an attempt at a thorough analysis of a goal of "playability". It is not in any way a "demand" for a "playbaliltiy" without a thorough analysis of the cost and consequences. But the analysis comes first and it seems to be so difficult to even analyze as so many in the business are all over the place on this issue. I realize it's not an easy issue but it can't be this hard to figure out.

If we can't do it, we won't do it, obviously, but if we can I want to know how and minimize potential mistakes in the process.

BTW, Oakmont, Shinnecock and Royal County Down had that "light green sheen" and I played those courses for four plus hours and looked at them for much longer and I didn't notice any hydro/agronomic resuscitators standing by needing to rescue the agronomy from immediately impending death in 20 minutes either. Actually nobody with water was even in the vicinity.

So what am I missing here, what the big mystery and the enormous spectrum of opinion from those in the business? Am I right about the water infiltration and root depth thing? And is this mostly about differing strains of grass or just some other issue that a lot of people don't really want to come to grips with for other reasons?

[Peter Galea]

TEPaul,
I've got to qualify my last response as my experience with fairway grasses are limited to poa annua and ryegrass.
I believe that bentgrasses with a good rootsystem will handle more stress than the above mentioned turfs. With that said, I will defer to those with bent experience.

[TEPaul]

PeteG:

Thanks, that clears up a lot because I really am pretty dense when it comes to the various ramifications of grass strains, particularly on this issue of firm and fast we're talking about.

What you said may also explain something pretty funny that happened to us when we were looking into going from an unusual fairway combo for the Northeast of rye and bermuda to in all likelihood a bent grass about ten years ago.

Merion very kindly sent Dick Bator over to talk to our green committee about it and he filled us in really well on all the benefits of bent fairways for about an hour. It was quite apparent that Bator might have had a quick fuss temper and his reputation for that had preceded him.

Anyway he gave us most of what we needed to know about bent fairways and at the end of that a lady on the green committee would happened to be sitting beyond him said; "Mr. Bator, I think we might like to have rye grass fairways, can you tell us about that?"

And Bator's rapid fire response (until he figured out the voice was a lady's) was; "That f....ing rye grass, Ooops, excuse me ma'am!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Despite what the learned Mr TEPaul says, I understood his position, and yours.

The problem that both of you may be ignoring is that most courses have been designed for the AERIAL game, redesigned for the AERIAL game, or maintained for the AERIAL game.

And... in order to change that, many clubs would have to reconfigure their greens, bunkers, surrounding and frontal
approaches, in combination with a MAJOR change in maintainance practice.

And...... that aint gonna happen VOLUNTARILY any time soon.

MOTHER NATURE can force less enlightened clubs to take the first step, but it is not a journey without difficulty and cost.

I would say that your desire still resides in the realm of fantasy, but, a continued drought, could start the new competition ball rollling, unless of course it gets STYMIED.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Here's what you said:

"The problem both of you may be ignoring is most courses have been designed for the AERIAL game, redesigned for the AERIAL game, or maintained for the AERIAL game."

Come on now Pat, we have not been ignoring that fact, you've just continued to say for the umpteenth time that we're ignoring that fact.

Let's just go back and define some of the terms and the descriptions we're trying to use here so you can see that we are not ignoring that fact and why, and exactly what we are saying.

First design intent!

Can we agree that many, probably most of the older pre-WW2 golf courses have quite a different design style than do the post WW2 "modern age" courses? I think we can! How do those styles differ when it comes to the ground game option?

Many, probably most of the pre-WW2 courses have designs whose green fronts and approaches are designed to accomodate (nay possibly encourage) the ground game option! Many of the post WW2 courses have designs that do not, certainly not to the extent the pre-WW2 course do! Many of the post WW2 courses have designs that are much more reliant on the aerial game because American golfers had become for more reliant on the aerial game in the "Modern Age".

So what did the designers of the post WW2 era do to  challenge or maybe even encourage the more prevalent aerial game of the post WW2 era? They put far more obstacles, hazards, things like bunkering, water hazards etc in front of more greens where most of the pre-WW2 courses used turfed landing areas to encourage and accomodate the ground game option of bouncing the ball well before the green and running the ball onto the green.

So in a nutshell these two distinct architectural styles (pre and post war--"Golden Age"/classical vs "Modern Age"/aerial) have far different design intents! Basically one accomodates and encourages the ground game and the other does not, or does to a far lesser degree.

Trying to figure out how to firm up the TURF approaches (or most of the golf course) on pre-WW2 courses ("Golden Age"/classical) is hard enough with all that has happened in the "Modern Age" with greater irrigation and the inclination to maintain soft deep green turf areas everwhere! So clearly neither Jeremy nor I are advocating that these "Modern Age" courses have their design intent altered and redesigned to accomodate the ground game when they were never really designed for that in the first place (their design intent was primarily for the aerial game). Neither Jeremy nor I are trying to persuade "Modern Age" courses to maintain their green fronting bunkers and water hazards so you can bounce the ball through sand or water and onto the green either!

So it's primarily the pre-WW2 courses we're trying to encourage to firm up their turf approaches that were designed for the ground game so the ground game option can be used again as it's apparent that option has been largely lost in the general over irrigated "modern age" that seemed to fail to understand the distinctions between the two styles (pre and post WW2) and maintain ALL courses and ALL SYTLES the same way.

This is DESIGN INTENT and various courses have vastly different DESIGN INTENTS!

The whole idea of the "maintenance meld" is to understand exactly what that DESIGN INTENT of any particular golf course is, and intricately if possible, and to MAINTAIN the golf course accordingly! So that can mean maintaining and encouraging the ground game on one style (pre WW2) for which it was designed and not maintaining and encouraging the ground game on the other style (post WW2) for which it was NOT designed! That in a nutshell is the "Ideal maintenance meld" that presumably can be quite different depending on what style and design intent a course has and what kind of maintenance practices it requires (ideally) to maximize the options it was design to encourage and accomadate or challenge!

So now that hopefully we agree on that, next we should get into the ideal firmness or receptiveness of the greens themselves by distinctly looking at the design intent of these two styles and their requirments (their options--aerial vs ground) and see what we can do about them to maximize the design intents and the options for which each was designed!  

[rand]

Stretegy is one part greed and one part fear. Get rid of the rakes in bunkers and you have added a dimension of fear.  It will never happen on the Tour, but the design of the course would be more recognizable and the commentators could talk about that one loose shot causing a triple because of a bad lie.  Something Joe Dye once said springs to mind, "We are not here to embarrass the finest players, simply to identify them."

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

A great many pre WWII golf courses have been altered, with their original design intent, and playability lost.
Very few clubs exist today as they were built pre WWII.

Many clubs have been altered to fit into the emerging aerial game, and undoing such is no easy task.

Name Ten (10) pre WWII golf courses in the US that remain in their original state.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're saying two different things there; I don't know too many pre WW2 courses that haven't been altered at all but if you're talking about pre-WW2 courses that have been altered in such a way as to have design intents now that are basically conducive to the aerial game somewhat like "modern age" post WW2 designs and have lost their design ability to return the ground game option by simply firming up their original open fronts I'd like to see you name 10 pre-WW2 courses in America that have been so redesigned or altered.

As for pre-WW2 courses that could have their ground games restored by simply firming up the ground that are as conducive to the ground game as they always were design -wise (design intent), forget about the US, I could name you 20-30 in the Philadephia district alone--probably more!!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're saying two different things there; I don't know too many pre WW2 courses that haven't been altered at all but if you're talking about pre-WW2 courses that have been altered in such a way as to have design intents now that are basically conducive to the aerial game somewhat like "modern age" post WW2 designs and have lost their design ability to return the ground game option by simply firming up their original open fronts I'd like to see you name 10 pre-WW2 courses in America that have been so redesigned or altered.

As for pre-WW2 courses that could have their ground games restored by simply firming up the ground that are as conducive to the ground game as they always were design -wise (design intent), forget about the US, I could name you 20-30 in the Philadephia district alone--probably more!!