Does Firm and Fast make "non-links" courses too easy?

[Mark_Fine]

Comment made during the Buick Classic, "The course is playing firm and fast.  As a result, almost all the players consider par to be 68 or lower, not 72".

Most of us here love firm and fast, but for courses that are not links, how much sense does it make?  I believe there was some talk on this subject regarding Colonial as well.  

[Charles]

For the pros, I think firm and fast only makes sense when it the course has sufficient contours that additional speed would bring into play.  I hate turning on the TV and seeing a drive rocket forward another 40 yards if it just goes dead straight.  If it just means shorter approaches, firm and fast conditions are probably bringing scores down.

However, when there is slope or undulation in a fairway, firm and fast conditions probably bring scores up.  The players are challenged to think more, as the angles of play are always changing.

As discussed in another thread, the sense of "entitlement" (good swing=good result) among tour players has meant that, through evolution, few of the courses in the PGA rota really have the kind of features that require firm and fast conditions to play properly.  Too often, it's just giving long hitters even more yardage.

[GeoffreyC]

Mark

I think the architecture must support the conditions.  If the topography causes the ball to potentially gather into bad spots with improper shaped shots then fast is good.  If bunkering comes into play that cause nasty consequences then fast is good. If the greens and greensites are maintained firm as well as the fairways then fast is good.

If the consequences of fast fairways are simply shorter approaches from rough that is not difficult to greens that are receptive then fast = easier.

[ForkaB]

Charles and GeoffreyC are right, although I'm not sure if I would call conditions "firm and fast" if the greens are also "receptive."

It seems from the anecdotal evidence we have from Merion and this year's Wilson tournament that inland courses can in fact be set to play as most links courses do in the summer.

This implies to me that it is not "inland" or "links" that makes the difference, but "imaginatively designed" and "simply designed."  This relates to both courses and individual holes.  There are links courses in GBI (including some of the most renowned)that lack imagination on many of their holes and have to be tricked up to challenge the pros, or even the top amateurs.  The best ones can challenge anybody, under any conditions, but really shine when the grass shines and controlling the flight and the roll of the ball becomes paramount.

The answer lies in design, not in geology....

[BillV]

Yesterday on a 460ish par 4 Mickleson hit into the green from 127.  Tight firm fairways allowed spin.

Can you do that on a links? Yes.  Can you hit that drive on a links?  Not a well bunkered one.

I also discussed this under the Castle pines discussion as to how 7600 yds at altitude becomes a cupcake for these guys fast and firm.

So the answer is a qualified yes.  If it just gives free extra yardage without much risk, absolutely, yes.

[JamieS]

Firm and fast doesn't have to be easy, it is at the Buick Open because the greens are soft and receptive.  As Rich stated above, at Merion this year, everything through the green was firm and fast, which made it much more difficult.
At the Buick Open you have drives catapulting down the fairway, leaving shorter approaches into greens that don't have the same feature as the fairways, therefore...14-15 under through two rounds....BORING!

[Matt_Ward]

Mark -- good topic!

I agree that "firm and fast" can only have even more meaning when other design elements are incorporated into the overall courses.

Clearly rumpled fairways that one often finds on true links courses can propell balls to other locations that can cause anguish for the golfer (i.e. bad bounces into bunkers, rough, etc.).

Dead flat courses with no contour that are "firm and fast" will just result in even lower scores being posted because of shorter distances into the targets.

The initial design elements must be carefully considered so that when "firm and fast" conditions apply there will be related rewards and penalties. But let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of courses don't face this issue -- the main one is the continued waste of water that keeps courses too slow and soft.

[George Pazin]

The Buick Open doesn't seem to be set up "firm & fast" so much as simply "easy."

Firm & fast fairways, soft greens. Can anyone imagine a situation more conducive to low scoring?

[TEPaul]

Great topic and really good answers--excellent ones!

[John_Conley]

The central issue is that players of their caliber can make a golf course that challenges most of us and walk all over it.  Several players shot 66 or better this week, many even did it more than once!

I played COPPERHEAD Saturday.  The TOUR will be there in a month.  The Bermuda rough is so penal that no one in my foursome hit the green with a full approach and no one was able to get up and down from greenside in 18 holes!

As we'll see in September, John Huston or whoever won't be affected by this because THEY WON'T BE IN THE ROUGH!

To give them an increased chance of winding up in the rough, 300 yards were added to a pretty long course a few years ago.  The course is definitely "non-links", but I will agree with Charles that some contours could ensure that some balls kick into the tough grass.

#6 features a reverse-bank fairway.  Holes like this (think Steve Jones vs. Tom Lehman in the U.S. OPEN finish) make it a bit more interesting.

Many modern courses, and nearly all in Florida, are on bland sites that are too flat to offer challenging contours.

[Matt_Ward]

Too many fairways today are designed with the "Mac 3" razor effect. Just straight cuts with little deviation.

I don't believe you can add moguls and other elements in a haphazard fashion but I believe many of the links in GB and Ireland have this element since many of the sites usually had this pre-existing condition. A rumpled look is clearly more interesting that a flat piece  of uneventful land (the state of the affairs for nearly all of Florida golf).

Too many courses in America use way too much water and therefore "firm and fast" is a non-issue. However, when courses do try to incorporate "firm and fast" they also need to contour / rumple their fairways so that uneven bounces can and do take place. Yes, I can remember the bounce that Tom Lehman got on the final hole in the 1995 US Open and how Steve Jones followed much the same shot line as Tom but was able to hit the other side of a ridge and have his ball propel further down the fairway for an easy 7-iron approach and the Open title. Was the result Lehman received fair. No -- but that's golf and had he taken a more aggressive line just a bit further right he would have been in the proper position.

The bounce is a part of the game. More of it needs to be incorporated into design. Too many fairways are simply long strips of level grass with flanking rough heights and the occasional bunker(s).

True links golf always carries with it uncertainty. American golf is too focused on the "guaranteed" result. If I do "X" I will get "Y" result.

"Firm and fast" does not have to be made easy. It is easy when fairways are so predictable in their design. Banking fairways adding appropriate moguls, among other elements, can add to the shotmaking and thinking that keeps the game interesting, while at the same time preventing the long hitter from gaining additional yardage on flat airport like fairways.