Would the introduction of F&F conditions redirect architecture such that

[Patrick_Mucci]

fariway and greenside bunkers would be of the gathering/feeding nature, instead of their current sharp edged perimeters ?

Would F&F conditions lead to the elimination of buffers of rough, or the expansion of buffers of rough ?

[Michael Whitaker]

Look at links  courses in the UK and you will answer your own question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at links  courses in the UK and you will answer your own question.

Mike,

I don't think the two are remotely related.

A different culture exists in the U.S. and I'm not so sure that those wonderful gathering bunkers would be an inherent design feature.

I'm also not sure that bigger, deeper buffers of rough might not be introduced.

[Andy Hodson]

Patrick,

Fairways would have to be wider. Green surrounds and complexes would have to be on a bigger scale. Bunkers would be better if they were gathering types. And i would suppose they wouldn't front as many greens along the line of play. Thats supposing its a well designed course.

I have played F&F on courses that were never designed for such conditions. Its not much fun. Especially on residential tracks with OB on both sides.

[Michael Whitaker]

Look at links  courses in the UK and you will answer your own question.

Mike,

I don't think the two are remotely related.

A different culture exists in the U.S. and I'm not so sure that those wonderful gathering bunkers would be an inherent design feature.

I'm also not sure that bigger, deeper buffers of rough might not be introduced.

As long as the American game is focused on "score" you will never see F&F conditions take hold here in a big way. Most golfers over here consider F&F "unfair" and too much of a score wrecker. As long as the card & pencil crowd rule F&F will always take a backseat in the grand scheme of US course conditioning.

[Niall C]

Mike

While I'm undoubtedly not the best person to judge I do wonder if you are right about your assertion that US golfers won't except fast and firm because its a card wrecker. I recall playing a round of golf with a pal at Craigielaw a couple of years after it opened. The pro asked if a an american visitor could join us which he did. Now Craigielaw is just over the wall from Kilspindie and while I don't think it quite has the same quality of turf its still plays f&f or at least it did on that occasion.

The septic was a lovely bloke and a pretty good golfer as well. Apparently he was a member of Oak Hill and played of low single figures. At the second he played an approach which landed well up the green and then bounded twenty yards through and he went WTF ! At the next he went through the back again, and laughed. From there on in he got better at judging the bounce but still wasn't quite there by the time we finished, but clearly he had had a hoot trying different shots.

Now a sample of one probably isn't the best way to guage a whole nation of golfers however I can't help feeling that we are the same really, just trying to have fun. If you can manage peoples expectations such that they realise a course doesn't need to LOOK like Augusta then they will soon adapt to the new ways of playing of the game.

Niall   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall,
I think you're missing a "k" in there.
"The s_ eptic was a lovely bloke and a pretty good golfer as well."

Pat,
Maybe at courses with sandy soils, but not in the north east where it would entail too much drainage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is stroke play the enemy of F&F and unique/quirky architecture ?

Jim,

Yeah, drainage is the issue with gathering/feeding bunkers.

What works at GCGC, NGLA, Shinnecock, Seminole and Maidstone doesn't transport to clay based soils

[jeffwarne]

Niall,
I think you're missing a "k" in there.
"The s_ eptic was a lovely bloke and a pretty good golfer as well."

Pat,
Maybe at courses with sandy soils, but not in the north east where it would entail too much drainage.

It's ironic that we're discussing cost savings on one thread and Firm and fast on another.
cause firm and fast over sustained periods of time ain't cheap unless you've got a british isles climate

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

F&F is cheap, once you transition to it.

It's the transition that tends to be expensive, financially and culturally.

But, you're correct, unless Mother Nature is co-operative, you can't do it.

[Niall C]

Niall,
I think you're missing a "k" in there.
"The s_ eptic was a lovely bloke and a pretty good golfer as well."

Pat,
Maybe at courses with sandy soils, but not in the north east where it would entail too much drainage.

It's ironic that we're discussing cost savings on one thread and Firm and fast on another.
cause firm and fast over sustained periods of time ain't cheap unless you've got a british isles climate

Jeff

I think you have hit the nail on the head. What might make f&f prevalent in the US would be the economics. If there isn't any ecomnomic advantage going f&f then I can't see it catching on but then I'm struggling to see how f&f wouldn't be a more economic.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

The cost of water, including effluent water will probably be the catalyst for clubs to transition to F&F.

A good number of courses in South Florida have to use effluent water and the cost can only go up.

Courses that overseed will see their budgets climb faster and higher, hence, as you indicate, economics not aesthetics will probably dictate conditions.

[jeffwarne]

Niall,
I think you're missing a "k" in there.
"The s_ eptic was a lovely bloke and a pretty good golfer as well."

Pat,
Maybe at courses with sandy soils, but not in the north east where it would entail too much drainage.

It's ironic that we're discussing cost savings on one thread and Firm and fast on another.
cause firm and fast over sustained periods of time ain't cheap unless you've got a british isles climate

Jeff

I think you have hit the nail on the head. What might make f&f prevalent in the US would be the economics. If there isn't any ecomnomic advantage going f&f then I can't see it catching on but then I'm struggling to see how f&f wouldn't be a more economic.

Niall

Niall,
First of all the supers on here can answer better than I but....
Let's say you have bent fairways with a decent irrigation system, but not state of the art.
It's July and your fairways are burning (as in dormant, and anymore dormant they're dead-as in checked out)
You can run your irrigation longer, but parts will be overwatered, therefore softern than ideal in many parts, but no grass will be lost.
Or you can hand water, which is expensive.
Or you can upgrade your irrigation sytem so the parts that are burning or being missed get hit, but hopefully not overwatering other areas-that's expensive.
Or you can go firm and fast, and lose a lot of grass in many areas-and resseding in the fall which is expensive.
The cost of water in many cases is a nonissue, so often  it's cheaper to run the irrigation than it is to hand water sparingly.

The culture of clubs may tolerate brown firm fairways in July as long as they're simply dormant, but when they turn to dirt in the fall you may have a problem (or not if you simply reseed and accept the labor/cost/disruption)  ex. Maidstone-which is not pure bent and loses a lot of grass every hot summer due to no irrigation.

If the warmest day you ever get is 80 degrees (UK/Ireland) none of this is a problem) but when it's above 90 for 6 weeks in a row, only the best supers with the right turf, soil, budget and member expectations are going to attempt firm and fast.

[Bradley Anderson]

No two clubs are exactly the same. With fairways that have a lot of thatch in them it doesn't matter how dry you let them get, the thatch is going to be springy. And if you let the thatch dry out and turn hydrophobic on you then you'll only end up using more water in the long run to re-wet the thatch - so that the water can even reach the roots.

But otherwise, assuming you have fairways that have been aerated often enough to control the thatch, now you water just enough so that the grass blades are able to withstand cart traffic.

I'm not afraid of leaf cells dehydrating and dieing on a dry day, because new leaves will always grow back from the crown tissue below - no problemo there. But its the darned carts that make it complicated because when a cart drives over dehydrated leaves, you'll be looking at those awful wheel tracks for the next 5 to 10 days.

So to me its all about carts. If you have no carts you can let leaves dry out and die from time to time and the texture of the grass, visually speaking, will be a nice uniform tan color. You may see a few foot prints here or there but they do not distract your vision of the hole the way wheel tracks do.

We had no carts at all when I was the assistant at Old Elm. This was back in the early 80's and we used to turn those fairways purple. It was beautiful. The Poa used to just cry while the bent took over. But we had no carts to worry about.

If you are hosting a big tournament and everyone is walking you have a lot more leeway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Warne,

Some how, Maidstone and Newport have survived for about a century with no fairway irrigation system.

In addition to surviving, they've prospered and have been regarded amongst the best courses in America.

If they can do it with NO fairway irrigation system, I would imagine that clubs with irrigation systems could do it if they had the will of the membership behind them.

Time and the availability and cost of water will tell

[Bradley Anderson]

fariway and greenside bunkers would be of the gathering/feeding nature, instead of their current sharp edged perimeters ?

Would F&F conditions lead to the elimination of buffers of rough, or the expansion of buffers of rough ?

Just a guess, but I think it could lead to more of the feeding nature, but that could look pretty odd here in the states. The true feeding bunkers like you see in Scotland, the best examples being at Carnoustie and St. Andrews, have vetted walls on the greenside face to hold those shapes together. That's hard to do in America because with our type of weather patterns those would probably fall apart without superfluous irrigation.

So I think what you would have is bunkers cut way below grade with grass walls. I don't think that would necessitate rough buffers, but I think it would lack definition. Tom Doak should chime on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley Anderson,

I'd disagree with your premise.

We forget that many older courses were once very wide.
We forget that many older courses had fairways feeding into the bunkers

Even GCGC is guilty of allowing the roughs to engulf fairway bunkers.
Even GCGC is guilty of allowing buffers of rough to catch balls before they fall into those wonderful, deep, steep fairway and greenside bunkers.

For those old courses, it wouldn't take much in the way of agronomic practices/efforts to restore those conditions.

The real cost is in reconfiguring the irrigation system.