Pet Peeve #2 -- The absence of "Firm and Fast"

[Matt_Ward]

I am so tired in playing courses in the greater NY / NJ / CT / PA area that water their courses like they are putting out the Chicago fire!

Does anyone really understand that you only water to keep grass alive and that you don't need shag carpets that are spongy. How do many members of these clubs feel about hitting tee shots which actually plug in their own pitch mark in the middle of August with temperatures routinely in the 80 plus range? Is that fun?

How do members feel when players are taking divots the size of raccoon pelts / veal cutlets from the fairways?

We are now in the middile fo August and I can say without hestitation that many clubs (private and public) just continue with the "turn on the spigot" approach.

Just came back from a new course designed by Roger Rulewich in Saratoga Springs called Saratoga National GC.

Kudos to Rulewich in creating a smart and challenging design among wetlands that dominate the landscape. Additional credit to the superintendent and staff in preparing the course with solid "firm and fast" conditions. When you step on the tee at Saratoga National you don't get footprints from overly soft tees. You can actually feel the solid nature of the turf beneath your feet.

Ditto the fairways. They are cut tight and the bent grass allows for tee shots to roll for additional distance after landing if they are on the proper line. Long hitters who aren't careful / prudent run the risk in having their tee shots run through fairways into trouble. With these type of conditions the value of clear thinking and sound execution are emphasized.

Ditto the greens. Unless you are hitting clean and solid irons your approaches will bounce and quite possibly roll through the green. The greens at Saratoga National do not provide for crater like pitch marks that stop nearly any shot. If you favor a low approach shot you must skillfully gauge the contours of the green in order for your shot to roll near the pin. Another plus!

Before anyone jumps in and says about potential burnout and other related items I say the following: green is not the golden rule for turf development. Clearly, not all grass types easily facilitate a combination of the "ground" and "air" game. But many do and clubs are following a style that is more than baffling -- it's disheartening.

However, it's time less water be used from a strategic and public relations perspective. The reality is that less water will make for even more of a challenge and this challenge will clearly influence the play of long hitters.

I'm guessing that many superintendents would favor a "less water" approach but are being ordered by ignorant club leadership that confuses green grass with core golf necessities.

When I see a course that is overly-watered it sours my day because I know the strategic qualities that any well designed course has will clearly come to the top when less water is applied.

That's just my opinion -- curious how others may feel.

[ForkaB]

Amen, Matt.

I don't think you'll get any opposition to this on this site.  Some interesting things were said about this issue several months ago from greesnkeepers who made me, at leat, realize the difficulty and skill required to keep grass just at the edge of death, for as long as you can, in order to get the conditions that you and I and just about everybody here wants.

PS--if anybody wants to see the alternative, just turn on the telly and watch the annual USPGA darts tournament that is going on now in Atlanta.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

Thanks for you comments.

When you say superintendents are fretting over taking the course to the "edge" I am not advocating a USGA Open mentality in starving the course!

I can say with some certainty that cutting back 20-30 percent of water usage will not significantly impact many courses. Ask yourself why do courses water the rough? If they only trimmed the roughs on most courses the necessity for this would be lessened considerably.

In my mind there are too many top flight courses in the NY / NJ metro area (I will not mention to save them embarassment) that have wonderful pedigrees but are sopping wet.

I rate facilities for GD and one of the categories is conditioning. When I see overly wet conditions which cannot be attributed to Mother Nature or some other legitimate reason you can be sure they get low marks.

Not too long ago GD published a survey I believe carried out through a professor in the Chicago area that showed two pictures -- one was from St. Andrews and featured brown turf in most places; the other was from a course that was as green as could be in America.

The reaction: green grass was overwhelmingly approved. The sad part is that although many people advocate "links" type conditions the reality is that many don't know golf links from cuff links. And sorry to say, but this does include a number of superintendents who are so cautious that they will water like it was coming from Niagara Falls!!!

For those golfers living in the Albany / Saratoga, NY area I say go to Saratoga National and see how turf conditions can expand what Roger Rulewich has created.

[Paul_Daley]

Heavily Watered Courses: A poor excuse for slowing down the natural order of things; yes, it is pretty, beautifies even; but the feature detracts terribly from the overall golfing challenge. Speed on a golf course is venom; remove the venom, and courses quickly become defenceless. Sadly, the "Chess" mentality of "Do I lay up with a long-iron from the tee - lest my ball runs through the dodgleg," is lost! The need for stategic thinking is suspended. What comfort in being able to bang away with the driver knowing that a slightly errant shot will still stay on the fairway. Accompanying this experience, which is surely "short-changing" the golfers enjoyment, is the lack of short game variety it presents. Mackenzie was on the money when he referred to "the vulgar pitch." I'm all for pitching - in a healthy percentage of all short game shots, but when it is the only shot called on (as a result of overly-watered fairways and greens), how mundane!

This comes hot on the heels of playing Royal Melbourne West; a simply fantastic privlidge, even after 100 rounds there. The course was in a furious mood; bouncy, unrelenting, and yet, totally playable if you could adjust to landing your irons (inc wedges)10-20 metres short of the green and allowing for the roll of the ball. Let's get it straight. Royal Melb is not a links - not in any way. And yet, I have seldom played anywhere that mimicked such a "links-like" feel. MacKenzie envisaged the potential of how it could play like a links, and so, cleverly did not bunker the fronts of greens during his 1926 visit. Seventy-five years on, this can only be seen as a master-stroke of wisdom. Play here, just once, and you soon realise why Peter Thomson is the biggest plugger of RMGC, and why he had some terrific victories here.

[Peter Galea]

Matt, how are you certain that these courses can cut back water use by 20-30%?
I am a fan of firm and fast, I don't like to get my shoes wet in the middle of summer however it is not always possible to keep turf on the edge of death by drought. I don't know the situations the superintendents are in on the courses you cite as being watered like Niagra Falls (slowly I turn). Water quality, condition of the irrigation systems, soil types, amount of thatch, crew size, weather  and grass types all have an effect on the supers' ability to provide firm and fast playing conditions.
Comparing Saratoga National or any other new course to an older, more established course is like comparing Spaulding Dots to Pro V1's.

[T_MacWood]

Nice try Matt. Next you'll proclaim free booze and women for everyone.

Pet Peeve #3 -- Guys that have "Pet Peeves"

[Mike_Rewinski]

Matt, it is very rare for a supt to lose his job because his course was too green. However too brown will always draw criticism. Your pet peeve should really be "Members who want their course to look green".

[Mike Touscany]

I had an interesting conversation with a superintendent in northern Michigan last week.  He was complaining that he couldn't put enough water down since the drought was creating brown spots on every hole.

I tried to tell him to take comfort in knowing that the purists would be pleased to play in such conditions.

His response was succinct.  "The masses do not come, I don't get new equipment, and my men do not get raises."

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

When a guest host spot opens on the "Tonight Show I'll be sure to recommend you since you enjoy my "pet peeves" so much. By the way if I hear anything about free booze and women I'll let yo know ASAP.

A few quick points.

I can say with confidence that water usage among the courses I visit regularly in the Northeast is way over the top. When you have extreme dry conditions you cannot have fairways where the tee shots plug? Does anyone believe that is appropriate or in the best interests of the turf? What about when people are taking veal cutlet size divots? Does that make sense? Is anyone arguing that is in line with "real" golf? If you are then we have vastly different understandings on what makes golf the game it needs to be.

I don't doubt that superintendents have a very difficult job and many are being ordered to do things by people who I said before would not know golf links from cuff links.

But, it's long overdue for this mindset of overwatering to be addressed.

Peter: I imagine you are either a superintendent or one familiar with the position. Yes, you are certainly right that conditions at each course require local knowledge of the situation at hand.

I will say this again you can provide "firm and fast" conditions without starving grass or making it some sort of US Open set-up. Many superintendents err on the side of extreme caution and figure that spraying water all over the place will pacify the membership in believing their course is green and therefore in optimum condition.

Too much emphasis is on how courses "looks" rather than how they "plays." Golf course owners and those with a stake in their development had best beware of the fact that water usage plays an important role in the public's perception of golf. If courses decided to cut back on water usage in a minimal way the game would be better for everyone.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Matt,
I think we all would like to play courses that are perfect, playability wise, each time we play.

I am a superintendent and my course recently hosted a state am qualifier. Unfortunatly, we had a thunderstorm the evening before the event and received 2" of rain. We came in early, pumped out bunkers, brushed off as much water from poor draining areas as possible, and generally did the best we could. After the event, our local USGA expert was holding court in the bar about this exact subject and how we were an example of a course that is poorly managed. Because of previous rains we had not used our irrigation system for two weeks prior to this event!! When I pointed that out he basically called me a liar and continued on. I'm not saying this is the case in your example, but I doubt you have all the facts. And, as Peter said, to compare an older course with an old system to a newer one is not fair.
I am a two handicap and I hate mud on my ball, but so much of it has to do with soil properties that it is unfair to heap all the blame on superintendents. Green is gold at most courses. Your preaching to the choir, what we need to do is educate the public and owners, but I don't hold out much hope.

I played in Scotland last summer, got drenched a few times and still never saw a wet spot on any of the courses I played. The land the courses are constructed on, water quality, irrigation systems, and the superintendent's methods all play a part in firm and fast. Let me give you an example. My water quality is very poor, if I water lightly every night I build up salts in the root zone that require me to water more to dilute the effects of the salt. A vicious cycle. So, I water heavy to move the salts through the root zone on a three, four, or five day cycle depending on weather and the time of year. If you catch my course at the end of the cycle, you would love it, very firm and fast. If you play the morning after a heavy irrigation, you think I don't know what I am doing. There is more to the equation than simply saying, all the courses in a given area overwater. In your defense I have not seen the courses in the area you mention.

[aclayman]

"Step By step"
One of the first consensus's that I noticed when I first found this DG was that there really needs to be a marriage between the design and conditions.
To me, that opens all kinds of windows for strategy and options, not only for the holes defense but aesthetically too.
I extrapolate that if the future follows that consensus then some areas could/should be F+F and others wet n green. Except for the physical limitations of equiptment failure, Mothernature has more to say than anyone here, and I guess I would rather have some level of predictability that comes from consistency but I learn alot more from the unpredicted.

Matt, I think if you took a survey of the majority, once again they would be wrong, and extoll the virtues of green green grass. While I suspect we here, are not as closed minded, and allow for and appreciate the transition periods between the two extremes.

Besides, that is where most of the lessons are learned, at least by this student.

Cheers,
Adam

[SPDB]

Oddly enough, another Rulewich design has opened in Haddam, CT named Fox Hopyard GC (developed by Bill Sandri, of Crumpin Fox fame). This course, too, is playing firm and fast, although I am not sure if that is merely a function of it being conditioned that way, or if the opening of the course was somewhat premature (given that two greens are in real trouble). Has anybody else played this track?

[Matt_Ward]

Don:

Appreciate your comments.

If you look closely I do mention that all ourses are clearly different and that given their location, soil types and other elements it's important to keep everyhing in the proper context.

I also understand that Mother Nature can play hard ball at differing points in the golf season. But my main point has not been refuted which is that too many golf courses receive far too much water.

Does anyone realize how this impacts public perception about golf courses in general from Joe sixpack and all those not connected to the game???

Courses that over water remind me of the guy zipping down the Interstate in his 4x4 8 cylinder SUV. That driver is perfectly content on doing his thing and in many ways could frankly care less about gas usage.

We have too many courses in the NY / NJ area that use water like it was going out of style. Plugging tee shots in the middle of summer when no rain has fallen from he sky is not golf -- just call it something else. Taking veal cutlet size divots is the same thing.

I'm not minimizing the hard work superintendents do everyday and the difficulties they face with Mother Nature and club leadership / membership.

But this site and other key leaders need to start pushing the envelope more than it has been.

The leadership of GCSAA can certainly do more as well as local / regional golf associations in concert with the USGA.

I'm not advocating concrete playing surfaces, but playing from mush that has been created entirely by man's hand is not the solution. Scaling back water usage is.

[John_Conley]

Great topic and a great post from Mahaffey.

If you are talking about new courses in much of the country, their raison d'etre (Never took French, obviously) is to move real estate.  Green photographs well and brown doesn't.  LINKS Magazine is chock full of great photos that are so bright you have to squint.

Bandon Dunes was a dull grayish color when I played it, but in perfect condition.  The scorecard, on the other hand...., shows a course that is bright green.

As stated above, much of conditioning is pre-determined by site and climate - so generalizing can be dangerous.  But I agree with you, Matt, that courses use too much water more often than they use too little.  Perhaps they can cut the water budget and re-grade tees!

So sorry to hear about the story from SAQ.  A guy is busting his butt to make lemonade and someone without the training to understand turf issues makes a comment like that.  How sad.