I do not hold my position to be incontravertable (though I will say that the tone of many of your posts suggests that your own beliefs are often beyond reproach).  But, my original point was not that firm and fast is wrong or that soft and lush is right, but that there is little value in declaring a victor.  Let all courses be maintained as they choose to be, no judgements.  The people will decide from there where they want to play.

Steve,

You were doing OK until your next to last sentence.

Courses shouldn't be maintained as they choose, they should be maintained as they were intended to be maintained by their creators, the architects who designed them.

Having said that, however, I will address one additional point that has been alluded to by yourself and others that is inconsistent with your philosophy.  Many of you claim that nature alone will contribute to firm and fast conditions.  But this is not entirely true.  Firm and fast is not simply a function of water; more than this, it is also inter-related with one important (and decidedly unnatural) cultural practice: mowing.  Now, I don't know where you are from or where you play your golf, but I am assuming that the grass is not trimmed by sheep and rabbits, correct?  Every time a mower drives on a fairway or walks on a green, the firmness and speed of that playing surface is altered, and let us not even get into rolling (a practice which occurs at more than a few courses (think of the excess of Oakmont, for example), and virtually every week on the professional tours).  Is this natural any longer?  Where is nature's control?  So, until the mowing stops, its seems silly to also find fault with irrigation.

This is such an outlandish statement and position that I don't know where to start.

Nature's control or influence was referenced in the context of climate and/or soil conditions and terrain.

Now you want to include mowing grass ?  ?  ?

If the grass wasn't mowed, the cows would be grazing and you wouldn't be playing golf.

A golf course is a 'SPECIALLY PREPARED FIELD OF PLAY, including its surfaces.

"Firm" has nothing to do with whether the grass is mowed to
3/8ths, 4/8ths, 5/8ths or 6/8ths.  "Firm" is a function of moisture.  "Fast" is also a function of moisture, although grass height is a factor.

But, this issue isn't about keeping fairway grass at 2 inches and diminishing roll, it's about golf courses in the context of today's maintainance standards.

You championed Soft & Lush conditions.

Conditions where there are no options of play other than aerial.

Could  you answer the questions I posed in several previous threads ?

If you choose not to, I will accept your refusal as a concession that your position is flawed and that you recognize that fact , despite not wanting to admit it.

I am under the impression that all of us (myself included), have taken to reading post after post and, after doing so, we're responding only to those issues which challenge our stated position,

Then why haven't you answered the many questions I posed that challenge your stated position ?
[/color]

as opposed to a rational discourse where the entirety of an arguement is read and understood, where points are not overlooked or misinterpreted.  

A rational discussion results in certain concessions to the other side, and we have none of this.  This discussion, however, is overwhelmed by emotion, rather than reason.  


I posed reasoned questions which you avoided addressing because they undermine and defeat your argument/position.[/color]

I can't think of ONE benefit for keeping a golf course soft and lush, can you?

That's why I asked the question.
And, no, I can't think of a benefit to keeping it S&L[/color]

-A club exists, in part, to provide happiness for its members.  More than a few of these members world-wide associate golf with a brilliant green color, for better or for worse.  
Agreed[/b

One might suggest that their happiness would increase with changed playing conditions (a shift to firm and fast), but it is entirely that their happiness stops solely with superficial appearances.  

That's possible.[/color]

Club members are going to demand certain playing conditions to meet their needs, or even just their desires, and if a majority of the club feels the same way (which seems to be the case at many clubs), the course will be maintained to that level.  

Agreed, but, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't benefit from F&F[/color]

Moreover, it is the job of the superintendent to serve the needs of the membership, and so he keeps the course consistent with their edicts.  The benefit, then, becomes the happiness of the members, however philosophically flawed that happiness may be in the minds of some.

Agreed, but, again, playability would be improved by moving toward F&F.[/color]

Why do you keep returning to extremes?

I don't.   I've clearly expressed viable alternatives where conditions dictate same.[/color]

   -This whole conversation is about extremes.  None of us seem to be able to get away from it.  

Not really.  You insist on S&L and myself and others have stated that playability would be enhanced by moving toward F&F where Mother Nature and conditions permit.[/color]

Why wouldn't you want to strive for those playing conditions where they are attainable ?
Why settle for substandard, overwatered conditions ?

-These two questions are related, and so the answer will be likewise.  Who sets the standards?  It sounds like you are.  What is the standard, and how can one be below it?  As you have mentioned time and time again, there is no standard, only a flowing, liquid ideal that varies from course to course, from region to region, and so forth.  

You didn't answer either question.[/color]

But again, I’ll go back to the notion of the (perhaps) flawed wishes of members and/or the public who play a given golf course.  Some people are happy just to have the day off work and be able to spend time outdoors with their friends.  They will play a horribly designed, horribly conditioned course simply because it is close to their home.  If a course meets their needs of simply being open on Saturdays, then maybe that is enough.  Many people are not very demanding of the quality of their golf; their “standards” are lower than others; they just want to play the game.  I beg you not to try to refute this.  Let them keep their dignity.  

That's not the issue and you know it.

And, even if I accepted your premise, why not let them play a better golf course and enjoy an even more interesting game brought about by F&F conditions ?[/color]        

Do you really believe that golfers enjoy approaching a ball they've just hit, to find mud all over it?  Do you think they enjoy finding their ball six inches or less from its pitch mark?  Do you think they enjoy getting NO ROLL?
       
-Again, related questions.  I don’t know what other golfers appreciate, only what I appreciate.  I will say, however, that it seems as though good players ideally like total control over a struck ball, when such conditions are attainable (to paraphrase an expression of yours).  How many times do you think Tiger has, even when playing a course that meets your firm and fast ideal, run a shot over the ground for an excessive period when an aerial approach is possible?  
Again, that's not the issue.
With S&L conditions he can't even begin to think of that option.  He has only one method of play, dictated by S&L.[/color]

The answer is, probably, not as much.  When he hits the ball in the air, the shot that he hits will have a better chance of coming off as he planned; the ground, as you also have admitted, often bounces the ball in various directions.  But Tiger is who he is because the ball does what he wants more often than the other guy, and that is often (though not always) the case because he has better control over the ball when he strikes it and it goes to the air.  He practices so much so that he is more aware of the variables, and, as with most things, the more information you have, the better decision you can make and the cleaner that you can execute that decision.

Again, that's not the issue.
Everyone recognizes that the aerial game may be prefered, however, with S&L there is no other option.

And, since when is the discussion couched in the context of Tiger's game ?  Would you say he fits the example of the average golfer you cited above ?[/color]  

Steve, could you name me five individuals who enjoy "SOFT & LUSH" conditions?
   
-This is just a bad question.  It can't go anywhere constructive.  Any answer to this one would probably be dismissed quicker than I could write it, so I will confindently let it go.

I understand you inability to muster support for your position [/color]

Now you want to include mowing grass?

 -Have you ever worked on the grounds crew of golf course that hosts a PGA Tour event?  A USGA event?  How about on the grounds crew of any golf course?  Well, I have, and I do.  Double cutting and double rolling, though perhaps not the norm, is not unusual.  You say that firmness and speed are both functions of moisture, or, more accurately, the lack thereof.  I will concede that,

Thanks[/color]

but add that all this activity on the surface of the green serves to compact the soil (effectively dispersing the moisture) and making the surface play much firmer and faster than if nothing had been done.  The green has then become, quite unnaturally, firm and fast.  Further, if you will admit that, as a general rule, the lower the cut, the faster and further a ball will roll (a green will roll further than a fairway), then mowing does have an effect on firm and fast.  So, yes, I will include mowing grass.

You're confusing the issues.
How are F&F fairways being adversely affected ?

You're also confusing super fast greens with F&F greens.

You're now dealing in extremes.

Reduce the water on the golf course and you'll produce a better product that doesn't need the excessive maintainance practices you mention, double cutting and rolling.[/color]    

I think golf is a better game when the surface is prepared firm and fast because of the increased importance of mental preparedness for each shot. Can you name one situation on a soft and slow golf course that increases the mental demands when compared to firm and fast? Do you disagree that the mental component of golf is a valuable and important aspect of the game?