Ryan,
I haven't asked you to evidence my position, or at least no more than you had implied your position was focused on f&f. All I then did was asked you to support that statement by evidencing that you'd done those basics to promote the running game. That really was all. You however keep returning to a definition of improvement which has nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with the English country garden. I'm now inclined to believe now that when you stated in a thread about conditioning that I thought 'improvement' was a dirty word, you were actually referring to my dislike of superficial window dressing. Fine, but I don't know why you linked it to conditioning. As for patios outside the bar, or maybe at a halfway house, again, fine by me but I'm not sure what that has to do with golf course architecture. At least you've acknowledged, I think, such things have no place on the golf course. Or at least you've acknowledged that as far as flower beds go. If you want to decorate the clubhouse with plants, I'm completely neutral to the idea; apathetic even.
I merely want to talk about what best promotes the architecture. If you genuinely think that's a radical position, well, I'm not sure what to say. It's a site dedicated to golf course architecture. The thread is about conditioning. I'll leave it at that.
Paul
My initial post was in support of Justin's where he correctly stated that most greenkeepers want firmer conditions. He highlighted cycles of maintenance where a golfer could experience something on one day when he is working for a weeks time.
I went on to state that most courses I know of (a vast area of clay) are devoting time and resources to firmer greens in the form of aggressive thatch removal, aeration and drainage. Which contradicts your view that clubs, greenkeepers and golfers want lush soft greens. In my experience they are working towards the opposite.
As for the running game, very few parkland courses are conducive to it and in a normal summer Mother Nature only really allows it for a few weeks at a time if you're lucky. It always amazes me that even on links courses people express surprise (lytham, St Andrews, Bill's recent tour of the west of Scotland etc) when even links courses have conditions where the ball isnt running.
Do firm conditions enhance the architecture? In most cases I would say yes. In some, where there isn't the option to run the ball in, it doesn't.
What is my club doing? As above, firm and fast is largely beyond our reach. We're aiming for firm.
I've covered width and trees in your fine golf thread.
On Monday we're again using the graden scarifier sand and seed injector as well as a solid tine followed by repeated top dressing.
None of which is aimed at making the greens softer......
Nothing earth shattering. Just good practice. Genuinely improving conditions are rarely as swift or as easy as you make out.
I read (and read) your position as the top end are ok with you, the entry level are ok with you. Everywhere in the middle, good, bad and indifferent you have contempt for. These courses should not have been built etc.
You couch this position in the extreme as if their efforts at improvement in terms of conditioning are limited to flowers and fountains. My experience as detailed above is that the vast majority of clubs, good bad and indifferent in terms of architectural merit, contrary to this are all striving for those firmer conditions. It's basic practice in greenkeeping.
Ditto watering: my experience is that particular using mains water, it's bloody expensive. Again it's good practice to use moisture probes and use sparingly, with the caveat that lots of clubs don't have the luxury of the resource to hand water.
I think you need to credit greenkeepers with a little more intelligence. Get to know yours, you'll learn a lot from him.